-------
The Control of Highway Noise
Solutions to the highway noise problem require an extensive coordinated effort on
many levels in both the public and the private sector. Figure 2 shows the range of
different actors with responsibilities bearing on the problem of highway noise. Figure
2 also indicates that there are three general approaches for controlling the problem:
(1) limiting the noise from the individual vehicles, (2) incorporating noise considera-
tions in highway location and design decisions, and (3) controlling land development
adjacent to the highway to ensure compatibility with the highway noise. FHWA's
legislative authority extends only to the second approach. That is, FHWA's position
is that State Highway Agencies cannot be required by FHWA to use their resources or
skills in promoting noise abatement through either vehicular controls or land use controls,
with one minor exception. State Highway Agencies are required to provide information
to local officials concerning future land uses which would be incompatible with high-
way noise. However, FHWA strongly supports the position that a combination of the
three approaches is needed.* It should be noted that most future Federal monies for
highway construction can be expected to be allocated for maintenance rather than new
roads. (See Appendix A for a discussion of the Federal Aid System.) The implications
of this for noise control are potentially important.
A general policy statement issued by FHWA on December 6,1976, noted: "It is
FHWA's policy that noise control mitigation measures be taken, where feasible, when
anticipated noise levels for new projects exceed specified levels related to adjacent land
uses. In addition, FHWA supports legislation to reduce the noise level of motor vehicles
and encourages land-use planning and control by state and local governments to prevent
noise-sensitive uses from developing in high noise-impact areas or to ensure that such
development is planned to minimize adverse effects."
1-4
-------
NOISE CONTROL
APPROACH
1. Individual
Vehicle
Restrictions
2. Highway
Mitigation
Possibilities0
3. Land- Use
Controls
SPECIFIC MEASURES
In- Use Noise Emission
Regulations (Inter-State)
Motor Carriers)
In- Use Noise Emission
Regulations (All other
Vehicles)
New Vehicle Noise
Emission Regulations
Highway Route Location
Traffic Management
Adjust horizontal and/or
vertical alignments
Build noise barrier
Noise insulate public-
use buildings
Special measures
i.e., noise insulate private
dwellings, purchase
dwellings and re-sell for
compatible use, relocate
dwellings, purchase
dwellings and raze
Provide information
t Administrative Techniques
i.e., zoning, building codes,
health codes, financial
incentives, technical
assistance
Physical Techniques
i.e., site planning, archi-
tectural design, acoustical
construction, barriers
Provide information
RESPONSIBILITY (R) &
INVOLVEMENT ( 1 )
EPA*
R
R
lx
lx
1"
lx
lx
lx
R
R
FHWA
R"
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
1
HUD1
IY
|V
R
STATE
GOV'T.
1
R
1
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
LOCAL
GOVT
1
R
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
R
1
PRIVATE
SECTOR
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
*The EPA promulgated m-use noise emission regulations for vehicles engaged in interstate commerce
exceeding 10,000 pounds GVW in 1974 The EPA also promulgated noise regulations for newly manu
factured trucks (effective 1/1/78). Regulations for new buses and new motorcycles will be issued soon
"Enforcement of EPA's In-Use Standards for vehicles engaged in interstate commerce
°0ne mitigation procedure not now considered but potentially significant is a change in the texture of
the pavement, consistent with safety considerations.
XEPA involvement through the EIS review process.
VHUD involvement primarily thorugh its mortgage loan assistance and guarantee programs
#May enforce regulations identical to EPA regulations.
Figure 2. Summary of Highway Noise Control Measures
1-5
-------
Overview of FHWA Noise Policy
The FHWA noise policy was developed pursuant to Section 109(i) of Title 23 of the
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970. This legislation required that noise be "considered" in
the development of new projects and that "standards" for highway noise levels compatible
with various land uses be developed and implemented. The Act was not definitive in
stating that highway noise levels must be met for a highway to be approved since noise is to
be considered in light of other factors to ensure that actions taken are in "the best public
interest." The noise policy, therefore, is structured so as to leave this judgment to
State Highway Agencies and the FHWA.
The focus of the policy is to elevate the consideration of noise exposure in highway
location and design decisions by requiring substantive study of predicted noise exposure in
conjunction with standards featuring highway design noise levels (Table 2). The FHWA's
noise policy applies to all Federal-aid highway construction. There are three classifications
of highway project type:
Type 1A projects are those related to proposed highways with either partial or full
control of access (such as interstates). Type IB projects are those related to proposed
highways with uncontrolled access (such as urban surface streets). Type II projects
are those projects specifically for noise abatement on existing highways; (e.g.,
placement of barriers) and do not include any construction of reconstruction of the
highway.
The term "standards" as used by FHWA in this instance refers to all the administrative
procedures involved of which the design levels are one element. Therefore, a highway can
be in compliance with the standards and yet exceed the noise levels. The critical element
of the policy for understanding this is the design noise level impact exception provisions.
The FHWA exceptions policy allows State Highway Agencies flexibility in treating
the subject of noise control.
In essence, FHWA may allow exceptions to meeting the design noise levels when the
State Highway Agency demonstrates to FHWA that noise reduction benefits are out-
weighed by social, economic or other environmental considerations. This policy
applies only to controlled access highways (Type 1A projects).
1. The key FHWA directive containing the FHWA noise policy is Federal-Aid Highway
Program Manual (FHPM), Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3. Appendix C (of this
EPA report) contains a summary listing of FHWA noise regulations, guidelines
and policy statements relating to noise abatement.
-------
Table 2. Design Noise Level/Activity Relationships °
ACTIVITY
CATEGORY
A2
B2
C
D
E3
DESIGN NOISE LEVELS1
(dBA)
Wh)t
57
(Exterior)
67
(Exterior)
72
(Exterior)
-
52
(Interior)
L10(h)ft
60
(Exterior)
70
(Exterior)
75
(Exterior)
55
(Interior)
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY CATEGORY
Tracts of land on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
significance and serve an important public need and where the
preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to
continue to serve its intended purpose. Such areas could include
amphitheaters, particular parks or portions of parks, open spaces.
or historic districts which are dedicated or recognized by appro-
priate local officials for activities requiring special qualities of
serenity and quiet.
Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas.
and parks which are not included in Category A and residences,
motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries.
and hospitals.
Developed lands, properties or activities not included in Cate-
gories A and B above.
For requirements on undeveloped lands, see paragraph 11 .a
and 11. c.
Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools.
churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Either L«q or LIQ design noise levels may be used.
Parks in Categories A and B include all such lands (public or private) which are actually used as parks as well as
those public lands officially set aside or designated by a governmental agency as parks on the date of public
knowledge of the proposed highway project.
^See paragraph 8.c, B.d, and 8.e in FHPM 7-7-3 for method of application.
Hourly Equivalent A-Weigh ted Sound Level.
* The A-Weighted Sound Level equalled or exceeded 10% of the time for the period under
consideration (in this case one hour).
See PI TO for discussion Also Appendix D gives a discussion of the technical background
of the design noise levels.
Source From Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual. Volume 7. Chapter 7, Section 3
-------
In Type 1A situations, if State Highway Agencies document that noise abatement
measures necessary to meet the design noise levels are unwarranted, they are to request
exceptions and such exceptions must be approved by FHVYA. The extent to which excep-
tions have been requested and granted is not clear, since FHWA does not keep centralized
records on this matter. It is, therefore, difficult for EPA to state how the policy is actually
working in practice. EPA knows, however, that noise abatement measures, when undertaken,
primarily involve the placement of barriers at noise sensitive locations; but as of December
1977, such barriers were constructed in only 17 of the 50 States1. This suggests that
while some State Highway Agencies may be active in abating highway noise, a large num-
ber apparently are not despite the requirements of the FHWA policy.
For uncontrolled access roads (Type IB), FHWA requires that the design levels be
considered but leaves entirely to the State's discretion to determine whether noise abate-
ment measures are unwarranted. It does not require that a State request exceptions
because barriers are not often feasible in such situations and exceptions would be readily
approved. FHWA does require that noise abatement measures which are identified as
feasible be incorporated in the plans and specifications for such projects.
While barriers have a typical range of predicted attenuation from 5 to 15 dB, there
are important limitations on their use and effectiveness (discussed in Section 3). For this
reason alone, barriers cannot be relied upon exclusively as a general palliative for highway
noise.
The noise policy is carried out as part of the overall environmental assessment process
required for Federal actions by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
This Act requires that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be written and dissemi-
nated for public input prior to the construction of any major Federal project having envi-
ronmental effects. For most Federal agencies, the timing and content of the EIS is the
subject of considerable debate. It should come early enough in the planning and decision
process so that decisions concerning major alternatives are not foreclosed, but not so
early that substantive analysis of the project is not possible from lack of information. For
highway projects, the FHWA requires that the EIS be issued after the location stage, but
prior to the design stage (See Section 3). This means that detailed information concerning
proposed noise abatement measures may not be available in the EIS. Further, final decisions
These projects have provided approximately 33 miles of barriers. Nine additional miles
of barriers are planned in 13 States at 22 locations. A great impetus behind the noise
barriers constructed initially has been complaints and requests from residents, citizen
groups and local governments. This process may not necessarily focus on the worst
problems.
1-8
-------
concerning these measures are not formally made until the design stage is complete. This
comes after the final EIS is issued. Persons who are interested in noise abatement of a
given highway project should therefore continue to follow the project through the design
stage. As indicated in Section 3, State Highway Agencies may be contacted for information
at any point in the process.
Definition of Highway Projects
FHWA's noise policy applies to all Federal-aid highway construction. Some provisions
of the policy vary depending on the type of project. There are three classifications of high-
way project type specified in the FHWA noise policy directive (Federal-Aid Highway Pro-
gram Manual, Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3).
Types IA and IB projects involve construction or reconstruction of a highway segment
excluding projects unrelated to traffic noise, such as lighting or landscaping. They differ
in that Type IA projects are those related to highways with either partial or full control of
access* (such as interstates), while Type IB projects are those related to highways with
uncontrolled access (such as urban surface streets).
Type IIprojects are those projects specifically for noise abatement (e.g., placement
of barriers on existing highways) and do not include any construction or reconstruction
of the highway.
1. As defined in FHPM 7-7-3, control of access is the condition where the right of owners
or occupants of abutting land or other persons to access, light, air, or view in connec-
tion with a highway is fully or partially controlled by public authority.
(1) Full control of access means that the authority to control access is exercised
to give preference to through traffic by providing access connections with
selected public roads only and by prohibiting crossings at grade or direct
private driveway connections.
(2) Partial control of access means that the authority to control access is exer-
cised to give preference to through traffic except that, in addition to access
connections with selected public roads, there may be some crossings at grade
and some private driveway connections.
(3) Uncontrolled access means that the authority having jurisdiction over a high-
way, street, or road does not limit the number of points of ingress or egress
except through the exercise of control over the placement and the geometries
of connections as necessary for the safety of the traveling public.
1-9
-------
Explanation of Design Noise Levels
Recognizing that the degree of noise impact on a land area is dependent in part on
land use, the FHWA has defined what it considers to be upper limits of acceptable
traffic noise levels for various land uses, outdoor activities, and certain indoor activities.
These design noise levels, as given in FHPM 7-7-3, are shown in Table 2.
The exterior noise levels apply to:
Outdoor areas that have regular human use, and
Where a lowered noise level would be of benefit to the public.
The interior design noise levels are applicable to:
Indoor activities for noise impacted areas where no exterior noise-sensitive land
use or activity is identified, and
Those situations where exterior activities are either remote or shielded from the
highway such that exterior activities will not be significantly affected by the
noise, but the interior activities will be affected.
The values do not apply to an entire tract upon which an activity is based, but only to that
portion on which the activity normally occurs. The design noise levels are presented by
FHWA as a balancing of what is desirable and yet still achievable. The FHWA recognizes
in FHPM 7-7-3 that impacts can occur even though the design levels are achieved, and
points out that greater benefits might result from lower levels. There has been some
confusion on the part of local officials and the public surrounding the use of the design
noise levels. As indicated above, their purpose is to determine whether it is feasible to
consider mitigation measures, such as placement of a barrier, on a particular highway
project. Their purpose is not to identify the threshold of impact, nor, as has been
sometimes the case, to serve as appropriate land use planning criteria for state and local
governments. In both instances, lower levels would need to be considered, (italics added)
MO
-------
SECTION 2. FHWA NOISE POLICY REQUIREMENTS
FOR PLANNED HIGHWAYS
Federal-Aid Highway Procedures Manual, Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3, specifies
environmental noise requirements and compliance procedures for the three types1 of
Federal-aid highway projects. State highway authorities, with assistance from local FHWA
offices, are required to show project compliance. The resulting documentation and DOT/
FHWA approval cycles constitute implementation aspects of these requirements, which
are discussed in Section 3. This section describes the four types of individual investigations
and actions normally necessary to show compliance of projects involving construction or
reconstruction of a highway (Types 1A and IB projects).
ASSESS POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACT
To assess potential noise impact from the planned highwa\, FHWA noise policy
requires the following.
Examination of land uses.
Prediction of future highway noise levels.
Measurement of existing noise levels.
Assessment of impact.
Examination of Land Uses
FHWA noise policy requires the identification of existing activities or land uses which
may be affected by construction or traffic noise from planned highway projects. For each
Type I project, state highway agencies are required to cooperate with local officials and
metropolitan planning organizations by furnishing the following kinds of information
1) Future noise levels along the project;
1. Types IA, IB and II projects are defined in Section 1, p. 1-6.
2-1
-------
2) Information to aid local communities to develop noise compatible land uses along
the high way;
3) FHWA's funding policy for lands developed after the effective date of the policy, i.e.
May 24,1976. This policy, as set forth in FHPM 7-7-3, states that noise abatement
measures normally will not be approved for land uses which come into effect
after this date unless localities "have taken measures to exercise land use control
over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to highways in the local jurisdic-
tion to prevent further development of incompatible activities."
State highway agencies are encouraged to assist local officials in the adoption of noise
compatible land use controls.
PREDICTION OF HIGHWAY NOISE LEVELS
FHWA currently has approved two traffic noise prediction models1 for use by state
highway agencies. These are the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) method and the Transportation Systems Center (TSC) method. A discussion of
these methods is presented in Appendix E.
Data requirements for these models include:
Traffic volume, speed, and percentage of heavy and medium duty trucks.
Highway width and number of lanes.
Receiver locations.
Barrier geometry.
Ground attenuation.
The predicted noise levels depend on the accuracy of the input data, and to some
degree on the model used. Different models can give different values of noise for the same
input data. This is due to differences in assumptions, computational procedures and basic
data within the models. There are no simple factors that can be applied to relate the noise
levels computed by the various models. Partly because of these problems, FHWA is cur-
rently developing its own traffic noise prediction method.
The noise levels are predicted for the design year, which is normally 20 years from
the construction of the highway, and the noisiest hour of the day (usually the design
n
hour). * Noise level predictions are also performed for each alternative location being
studied by the state highway agency. These are compared with design noise levels to
determine impact and the need for noise abatement measures.
1. FHWA will grant modifications to those models on a case-by-case basis.
2. Design hour traffic is conventionally defined as the 30th highest hourly traffic volume
occurring during the year. (This definition is found on p. 54 of Reference 5.)
2-2
-------
Measurement of Existing Noise Levels
FHWA's noise policy defines "existing noise levels " as "the noise, made up of all the
natural and man-made noises," usually present near the planned highway location. Unusual
noise events can be excluded from the existing noise level measurements. To determine
the existing noise levels, noise measurements are performed on location. At present,
FHWA does not provide specific requirements for the noise measurement methodology to
be used, and state highway agencies generally adopt their own. (FHWA is currently devel-
oping a measurement manual which is expected to be available during 1978.)
Assessment of Impact
FHWA policy requires that the predicted traffic noise levels for each alternative under
study be compared with both the existing and design noise levels (Table 2). The policy
states that "impacts can be expected when the predicted traffic noise levels ... approach or
exceed the design noise levels ... or when the predicted traffic noise levels are substan-
tially higher than the existing noise levels."
EVALUATE NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES
The FHWA requires an evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for
"reducing or eliminating the noise impact on existing activities; developed lands; and
undeveloped lands for which development is planned, designed, and programmed."
Such measures include:
(a) Traffic management measures.
Examples:
Prohibition of certain vehicles;
Change of speed limit.
(b) Horizontal and vertical alignment changes.
(c) Barrier construction (including any extra right-of-way that may be needed).
(d) Purchase of additional land for a buffer zone as a preemptive measure if
requested by a State Highway Agency. Lands purchased for buffer zones are
to be predominately unimproved properties; the burden is placed on the state
to establish that development is forthcoming or already planned.
2-3
-------
(e) Noise insulation of public use or non-profit institutional structures (as approved
on a case-by-case basis).
(f) Special Measures
These will be provided only if the FHWA Administrator determines that
other mitigation measures are physically infeasible or economically unreasonable
and that especially severe traffic noise impacts exist or are expected. These
include:
(1) Noise insulation of private dwellings.
(2) Relocation of private dwellings.
(3) Purchase and resale of dwellings for compatible use.
(4) Purchase and demolition of dwellings.
DESIGN NOISE LEVEL IMPACT EXCEPTIONS
Although the stated FHWA policy1 is that "every reasonable effort" shall be taken
by states "to achieve substantial noise reductions" when the design noise levels are exceeded,
FHWA may allow exceptions to meeting the design levels in certain cases for Type 1A
projects. FHWA does not require that it approve exceptions to the design levels for Type IB
projects. This policy is based on the fact that the principal noise abatement measure the
noise barrier is usually not feasible in this instance. FHWA does require that noise
abatement measures which are identified as feasible be incorporated in the plans and
specifications for such projects. Type II projects, by definition, are projects specifically
on noise abatement; therefore, the concept of exceptions is not relevant. Exceptions will
be allowed only if it can be shown that adverse social, economic and environmental effects
of providing the noise abatement exceed the benefits derived.
To request an exception, the FHWA requires the state highway agency to provide the
following:
Identification of individual noise-impacted activities from existing and future
traffic noise levels.
An examination of the overall benefits and adverse effects of partial noise abate-
9
ment measures. *
A weighing of the overall benefits which can be achieved by the noise abatement
measures against adverse effects and other conflicting values such as economic
reasonableness, air quality, highway safety, and adjacent community desires.
1. Language from FHPM 7-7-3, p. 11.
2. Partial noise abatement measures are measures taken to reduce the noise impact but
not to a level below the design noise levels. (Source: FHPM 7-7-3).
2-4
-------
Recommendations for incorporating any partial noise abatement measures
determined to have benefits consistent with any adverse effects.
Exceptions may be granted where it can be shown that all reasonable options for noise
reduction have been examined and that the partial noise abatement measures recommended
provide, in FHWA's judgement, the greatest attainable noise reductions consistent with the
public interest. Exceptions may be granted when the predicted highway traffic noise levels
are less than the existing noise levels (originating from other than the highway being
replaced or improved).
Thus far, noise abatement in the form of barrier construction exists in only 17 states.
COORDINATION WITH LOCAL AGENCIES
FHWA noise policy requires the state highway agencies to plan and design highways
which will be compatible with planned and existing land uses. FHWA recognizes that local
governments have responsibility for future land development and zoning. Thus, FHWA
requires state highway agencies to coordinate with local public officials and metropolitan
planning organizations by furnishing them:
Future noise levels (at various distances from the highway) for both developed
and undeveloped lands or properties in the areas adjacent to the project.
Information that may be useful to local communities to protect future land
development from becoming incompatible with anticipated highway noise levels.1
The FHWA noise policy regarding development of land use changes which occur
after May 24,1976 (p. 2-2).
1. One important general tool FHWA has provided is the manual The Audible Landscape
(see Appendix C).
2-5
-------
SECTION 3. IMPLEMENTATION OF FHWA NOISE POLICY
REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANNED HIGHWAYS
FHWA noise policy for planned highways is implemented as a portion of the overaJl
environmental assessment process required for Federal actions by the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Portions of this process for highway noise are also
based on the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970. The general assessment process is shown
in Figure 3 to consist of several key decisions, investigative actions, and documentation.
Upon initiation of a Federal-aid highway project by a state highway authority, the state
authority and FHWA arrive at key official determinations regarding the project nature and
extent. The type of noise impact investigation and report that will be required for the
project is determined by these decisions.
STATE ACTION PLAN
The FHWA, in order to assure that full consideration is given to social, economic
and environmental aspects of Federal-aid highway projects, requires states to develop State
Action Plans.1 These plans detail the organizational arrangement, assignment of responsi-
bilities, and the process to be followed in the development of highway projects. For
example, these plans ensure that any commitments made in an EIS for noise abatement
measures are carried out. The Action Plan process is not different from the environmental
impact statement process but encompasses it. FHWA requires states to submit the plans
to FHWA for approval and, once approved, to actually follow the process the states have
described. At present, all states have approved Action Plans. The critical concerns of any
Action Plan are that.
Social, economic, and environmental effects are identified early in the project
development process;
Alternative courses of action are considered throughout the project development
process;
1. The key document here is FHPM 7-7-1, "Process Guidelines" (for the development of
Environmental Action Plans).
3-1
-------
PLANNING
P> PLANNING PROCESS -^
i
STATE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM I
NO-
FEOERAL
ACTION
)
RECON REPORT
YES,!» < PLANNING REPORT
I SUFFICIENCY RATING
CONTINUE
c
YES
SIGNIFICANTLY
AFFECTING
ENVIRONMENT
USE
STANDARD
PROCEDURES
DRAF
E IS
COMAflENT EVALUATION
1
!
PUBLIC
HEARING
CONSTRUCTION ]
RE COM
LOCATION
DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND
DECISION POINTS
/\
J ACTION STEPS
WRITE & PREPARE REPORTS
COORDINATION W/LOCAL STATE &
FEDERAL AGENCIES
SEE STUDIES
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
SEE IMPACTS/PUBLIC INPUT
NOISE
AIR
WATER
ECOLOGICAL
ECONOMICS
RELOCATION
SOCIAL
HISTORIC/ARCHEOLOGICAL
AESTHETICS
Figure 3. The Environmental Assessment Process
3-2
-------
An interdisciplinary approach is utilized in the evaluation of social, economic, and
environmental effects; and
Other agencies and the public provide input to the decision-making process during
all stages of project development.
FHWA reports that the formal public hearing process alone is insufficient for garnering
public input and that it conducts, as a supplement to the hearings, a series of informal
meetings.
KEY DETERMINATIONS
FHWA policy requirements apply only to Federally assisted highway projects, which
then are considered Federal actions, The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA} of
1969 requires environmental impact statements (EIS) to be prepared for major Federal
actions which significantly affect the quality of the human environment. FHWA policy
based on this Act and on the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 requires various types of
environmental evaluations depending on whether or not the action can be considered
major or non-major, and whether a significant effect on the human environment is likely.
Major or Non-Major Federal Action
When a Federal-aid highway project is proposed, the first environmental consideration
is whether it is a major Federal action as defined in NEPA. FHWA lists actions that would
normally be considered "major" and "non-major" Federal actions. The major actions list
includes most Type IA and Type IB projects.1 When a project is not readily classifiable
or when an otherwise non-major action may require special consideration, the FHWA
n
Division Administrator^ may decide the status of the action and may ask for public com-
ment prior to making his decision. The Division Administrator must approve all major'
non-major decisions.
1. Some Type IA projects (reconstruction projects) will fall into the non-major category.
Some Type IB projects also will fall into the non-major category when construction
of a new rural two-lane highway does not provide new access to an area and would not
be likely to precipitate significant changes in land-use or development patterns.
Type II noise projects could theoretically go either way.
2. Appendix B discusses FHWA organization.
3-3
-------
As indicated in Figure 3, a project which is assigned major action status is further
investigated to determine the extent of likely impact, possibly resulting in a complete
environmental impact statement. For all projects except those unrelated to traffic noise,
FHPM 7-7-3 requires the state highway authority to prepare a "noise study" which even-
tually can become part of a complete EIS if one is deemed necessary. These noise studies
are a principal product of FHWA noise policy requirements. NEPA does not require EIS
consideration for non-major actions, but the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 does require
state authorities to consider environmental effects. Thus, FHPM 7-7-1 was prepared to
require state highway agencies to prepare a State Action Plan which describes the state's
highway project development process and which ensures that environmental impacts are
considered in all Federal-aid highway projects.
Significant Effect on the Human Environment
For an action which is considered "major," it must be decided whether a significant
impact on the quality of the human environment is likely. Guidance as to what constitutes
a significant impact on the quality of the human environment is less precise than that pro-
vided for a decision on whether an action is major or non-major. EPA believes that most
Types IA and IB projects appear to qualify as having a significant environmental impact
for any of several reasons (such as having a significant detrimental impact on air or water
quality or on ambient noise levels, causing a significant increase in traffic congestion, or
being highly controversial on other environmental grounds). While the decision is made
by the state highway agency in conjunction with the FHWA division office, the state is
required to consult and coordinate with the public and with other governmental agencies.
A "major" Federal action which does significantly impact the human environment
must have a complete environmental impact statement approved before construction can
begin. FHPM 7-7-2 specifies detailed requirements for a complete EIS while FHPM 7-7-3
describes the noise study requirements. EIS review and approval is carried out at all levels
of FHWA, and often approval is required from supervisory offices at DOT (Appendix B).
For "major" actions where significant effects are nor likely, a "negative declaration" is
prepared in order to verify and document the lack of significant impact. Negative declara-
tions are approved by FHWA division offices and are available to the public upon request
from the State Highway Agency.
3-4
-------
DOCUMENTATION
Noise Study Report
As stated earlier, all Federal-aid highway projects (except those projects unrelated to
traffic noise) require a noise study by the state highway authority per FHPM 7-7-3. A
summary of the noise study report normally becomes a portion of the final EIS, but the study
itself is carried out and approved separately from the remainder of the EIS. This is because
the detail required in a noise study must be addressed in the design stage of project devel-
opment (which, as indicated in Figure 3, is conducted subsequent to the EIS). However,
since decisions on noise abatement are prerequisites to determining environmental impacts
and because these impacts influence decisions on adoption of a highway location, prelimi-
nary determinations on the likelihood of abatement are made at the EIS stage. This study
must meet the policy requirements indicated in Section 2 of this report including:
Identification of existing activities or land uses which may be affected by noise
from use and construction of the planned highway.
Prediction of the traffic noise levels for each alternative location.
Measurements of the existing noise levels for existing activities.
Comparison of the predicted noise levels with the existing noise levels and with
the design noise levels.
Examination and evaluation of the alternative noise abatement measures for
reducing or eliminating the noise impact on existing activities, developed lands,
and undeveloped lands for which development is planned.
Identification of the noise abatement measures which are planned for the highway.
Determination of procedures for minimizing the impact of highway construction
noise.
Identification of noise impacts for which no reasonable solution is available.
Coordination with local public officials.
Requests for exceptions to the design noise levels.
State highway engineers usually prepare the noise studies, but consultants are occa-
sionally used. The study report may be in preparation throughout the planned project,
and therefore may not be complete prior to issuing the draft or final EIS. Thus,while
FHWA approval of requests for exceptions to design noise levels is indicated in the
final noise study report, information as to whether such exceptions have been
3-5
-------
approved may not be included in the EIS. The EIS will indicate:
1. The numbers and types of activities which may be affected,
2. Extent of impact,
3. Likelihood that noise abatement measures can reduce the noise impacts,
4. Noise abatement measures which will likely be incorporated into the project, and
5. Noise problems for which no apparent solution is available.
The noise report must be completed prior to approval of the plans and specifications.
A summary of the findings of the preliminary version of the report is included in the EIS.
The noise report must be approved prior to the approval of plans, specifications and esti-
mate for the highway project. FHWA's division offices approve all noise studies.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
FHWA requirements for a Federal-aid highway project EIS are specified in FHPM
7-7-2. The development of a complete highway EIS can be followed according to the major
phases identified in the right side of Figure 3.
Planning and Programming Phases involve meetings between the FHWA division
office staff and state highway agencies. Long-range planning and funding of
projects and status of approved projects are discussed. Social, economic and
environmental factors are identified and analysis begun.
The Corridor Study serves as a connecting process between planning and location
of the highway project. FHWA determines whether the planned project is "major
or non-major action." Public involvement and hearings are accomplished in this
phase. Environmental impacts from the planned projects are discussed in the
public involvement phase.
In the Location Study the social, economic and environmental factors are studied
in more detail. A draft environmental impact statement is circulated to all FHWA
offices, state and local agencies and to others, such as EPA, who are interested
in the project, for review and comment. Public involvement and hearings are also
accomplished in this phase. After the review and the comments from the public,
a project location is determined and a final environmental impact statement is
written. The required format of this document is shown in Figure 4. The final
environmental impact statement is transmitted to the FHWA Regional Administra-
tor for concurrence and adoption. In many cases, concurrence by FHWA
3-6
-------
INDEX OF CHANGES MADE FROM DEIS*
SUMMARY
NEED
DESCRIPTION OF THE
PROPOSED ACTION &
ALTERNATIVE SELECTED
SOCIAL. ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTEXT OF THE AREA
LAND USE PLANNING
PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
ON THE ENVIRONMENT
CONSTRUCTION
STREAM
MODIFICATION
OR IMPOUNDMENT
ALTERNATIVES
WHY NOT SELECTED
&
SUMMARY OF
ASSOCIATED IMPACTS
PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT
AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
IMPACT ON PROPERTIES AND SITES OF HISTORIC AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
COMMENTS & RESPONSE
COORDINATION
Draft EIS
Figure 4. Format of a Final Highway Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS)
3-7
-------
headquarters and DOT is also required (see Appendix B). Approval of the final
environmental impact statement constitutes acceptance of public hearing proce-
dures and the general location of the highway.
The Design Phase normally starts after the environmental impact statement is
approved. If a project involves park, recreational or other lands covered by Sec-
tion 4 (f) of the 1966 DOT Act, much of the detailed design that is normally done
later must be accomplished prior to location approval. At this time the state's
Design Section starts collecting design information and more specific information
on the project. Noise abatement options are studied in more detail at this time.
For projects where the highway location is not in question, an environmental
assessment is prepared at this time. If a public hearing has not been held, a design
public hearing is provided. Following the design hearing and evaluation of hearing
comments, the state highway agency requests design approval from the Division
Administrator. Following design approval, plans, specifications and estimate are
prepared by the SHA* and approved by FHWA. Authorization for the SHA to
advertise for bids follows.
The Construction Phase of the project is monitored by the construction staff of the
highway agencies. Appropriate inspections are made during the construction phase
by FHWA engineers. Following the construction of the project, a final inspection
is made and the completed project is accepted by FHWA. State or county highway
agencies assume maintenance of the completed project.
Negative Declaration
When it can be shown that a "major" Federal action will not produce significant
effects on the quality of the human environment, a "negative declaration" is prepared as
verifying documentation. State highway authorities follow procedures similar to those
required for a noise study report in demonstrating the absence of significant impact.
Typically included in a negative declaration are:
Summary
Need
Description of Proposed Action
Alternative Considered
Basis for Negative Declaration
1. SHA, State Highway Agency
3-8
-------
Social, Economic and Environmental Effects Considered and Why
Comments and Coordination
Occasionally, an EIS in the draft stage will reveal that the action does not significantly
affect the environment, and is transformed into a negative declaration. FHWA division
offices approve all final negative declarations and changes of draft EIS's into negative
declarations.
INVOLVEMENT OF LOCAL OFFICIALS AND PUBLIC
Local officials and the public can participate in decision processes through the several
avenues of environmental assessment for Federal-aid highway projects. As Figure 3 indicates,
public involvement (including hearings) is accomplished during the environmental assessment
process. FHPM 7-7-3 requires state highway authorities to furnish the following information
for Type IA and IB projects to metropolitan planning agencies and local officials.
Generalized future noise levels in the vicinity of the project.
Information that may be useful to local communities to protect future land
development from becoming incompatible with anticipated highway noise levels.
FHWA policy regarding land use after May 14,1976 (p. 2-2).
Further, FHPM 7-7-1 requires that states provide for the involvement of the public and
other agencies in their highway project development process. Public involvement require-
ments in FHPM 7-7-1 include:
Providing for one or more formal public hearings;
Insuring that information is made available to other agencies and the public
throughout the development process; and
Insuring, both directly and through area-wide agencies, that all interested parties
(governmental and private) have an opportunity for an open exchange of views
throughout the planning process.
Information Available for Review
All highway planning studies, from overall transportation systems plans through loca-
tion studies and design documents, are available for public review at the state highway
3-9
-------
agency office and at some location in a community prior to holding a hearing or less
formal informational meeting in that community. Draft negative declarations, draft EIS's,
and preliminary noise study documentation should be available in the same manner as
above and by request from the highway agency. Several states have established a procedure
for distributing this type of information by mail.1
Problems in Implementation
FHWA has had various problems in implementing its noise policy, some of which are:
Location Constraints
Highways are built to service and connect populated areas. The predominant com-
ponent of noise exposure from the Federal Aid Highway System is attributed to the urban
interstate system (Table 1). However, it is precisely in urban areas that location and design
options are most limited. Often in these areas, high noise (and other environmental) impacts
are associated with all feasible locations so that proper consideration of noise in location
decisions does not avoid increased population exposure to highway noise.
Limitations on Feasibility of Barriers
As mentioned in Section 1, FHWA's principal highway design noise mitigation option
is the noise barrier. Depending on the type of barrier, the typical range of predicted atten-
uation is from 5 to 15 dB. However, costs alone prevent reliance on barriers as a general
palliative for highway noise. This is clear upon an examination of Table 3 which provides
estimates of the number of barrier miles required on the urban interstate system in order
to achieve reasonable noise reduction goals. In addition, while barriers can be effective in
the vicinity of roads on which the access is controlled, they cannot be incorporated into
uncontrolled access highways (which are common in urban areas). Finally, barriers can
conflict with other values. State highway agencies and FHWA, for example, have received
complaints from citizens where views have been obstructed and where the type of barrier
selected has been incompatible with local architecture. Although noise reduction benefits
of barriers as well as the cost are to be analyzed in environmental impact statements,
the benefits are reportedly not always well documented. Where the benefits are analyzed,
they are usually presented as changes in exposure levels rather than changes in the health
and welfare response of those exposed (e.g., lessening of sleep disturbance).
1. Some EPA regions, for example, receive negative declaration notices routinely from the
state highway agencies.
3-10
-------
Table 3. Noise Exposure From Urban Interstates in 1974
for Several Barrier Scenarios (Reference 1)
Scenario
Baseline - No Barrier
A - Eliminate L 65 dB
D - Eliminate Ldn^ 60 dB
Miles of Barriers
10'
0
7,338
7,822
2,242
108
15'
0
390
6,138
4,338
2,242
20'
0
0
1,590
11,212
15,550
People Exposed to Greater L(jn
(Millions)
60 dB
13.6
13.1
6.7
3.0
2.5*
65 dB
5.5
5.1
1.7
0.31*
0.31
70 dB
1.5
1.1
0.002*
0.002
0.002
75 dB
0.36
0
0
0
0
*Not feasible to completely eliminate exposure with barriers.
Lack of Control Over Land Uses Adjacent to the Highway
Since FHWA has no control over land development adjacent to the highway, it must
depend on the authorities of state and local governments or on the willingness of individuals
in the private land development community. Communities are only beginning to adopt
proper land-use controls which take highway traffic noise into account.1 If proper land-
use controls are not adopted, the effectiveness of design measures such as barriers can be
negated through encroachment on the highway of noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., construc-
tion of high-rise apartments). In some cases, even where proper land-use controls are
adopted by local government, intense pressure by local developers can undermine their use-
fulness. On the other hand, where proper land-use controls are adopted and enforced,
millions of dollars which might otherwise be expended for noise mitigation design measures
can be saved. FHWA policy, therefore, is not normally to approve expenditures for noise
abatement measures along highway segments for which adjacent lands became developed
after May 19,1976, unless local officials have provided proper land-use controls through-
out the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the highway.2
Lack of Standardization in Noise Prediction
At present, FHWA has approved two methods (NCHRP and TSC) for predicting traffic
noise levels. Due to differences in assumptions, computational procedures, and basir data
1. There are approximately 80,000 units of state and local governments in this country.
As of mid-1977, reportedly only about 54 have land-use regulations in effect which
specifically consider highway traffic noise.
2. A more complete statement of this policy is given on p. 2-2.
3-11
-------
associated with each model, they can provide divergent noise predictions if not used
intelligently. The two models should complement each other and provide the right model
for a particular situation. FHWA will grant modifications to the models on a case-by-case
basis.
Currently, FHWA intends to revise its policy with respect to selection of models.
FHWA also is developing another model which is expected to eliminate many of the
problems associated with the above two models.
Lack of Standardization in Noise Measurement
Noise measurements are often required as part of the noise study. At present, no
standardized methodology exists for undertaking these measurements. The FHWA has
provided some guidance through training courses and demonstration programs, but these
have been directed primarily toward fundamentals. Each state has been in the position of
developing its own procedures, with lack of uniformity. FHWA is currently developing a
measurement manual to meet this need.
Difficulty in Comparison of FHWA Noise Criteria with Those of Other Agencies
With the issuance of FHPM 7-7-3, the FHWA has expressed design noise levels in
terms of the energy equivalent Leq noise metric as well as the LIQ metric. Difficulty still
remains, however, in comparison of FHWA noise criteria with those of other agencies.
Some Common Misconceptions Concerning the Noise Policy and Related
Environmental Procedures
1) Meaning of the design noise levels:
A common misconception is that if the design noise levels are nbt met, then the
project cannot be approved. In reality, the policy requires only that noise be considered
in light of other environmental effects and noise be abated to the extent considered
prudent.
2) Meaning and content of the noise portion of an environmental impact statement:
Several misconceptions exist as to the meaning and content of the noise portion
of an EIS for a proposed highway. First, it is commonly thought that the complete noise
study will be part of an EIS. In reality, only a brief summary is included per guidelines
of the Council on Environmental Quality. Second, many people have thought that deci-
sions concerning noise abatement measures and design are detailed in an EIS. In reality,
as Figure 3 indicates, the EIS is written prior to the design stage and while measures
identified are those expected to be included, design details are often unavailable.
3-12
-------
Thirdly, it is commonly thought that the noise abatement measures identified in an EIS
represent a legal commitment by a state highway agency. In reality, the full study may
not have been completed and full approval for the studies not obtained. Exceptions
are still possible, unless commitments are explicitly stated. Thus, under existing FHWA
policy the EIS is not always a good guide to understanding either the details of the
noise impact or the actual noise mitigation techniques which will be applied to the
project.
3-13
-------
SECTION 4. FHWA NOISE POLICY FOR EXISTING HIGHWAYS
NOISE POLICY REQUIREMENTS (EXISTING HIGHWAYS)
FHWA noise policy provides that where a state identifies a need for a noise mitigation
measure on an existing Federal-aid highway, FHWA may participate in the funding if cer-
tain requirements are met. These projects, not involving construction of the roadway itself,
are referred to in FHPM 7-7-3 as 'Type II" projects. The requirements for these projects
are very similar to those for planned highways and include a requirement for a noise analysis
similar to that described in Section 2 with a noise report containing recommendations. The
noise report should indicate and identify noise impacts. The design noise levels shown in
Table 2 may be used as guidelines for determining whether it is feasible to consider Federal
aid participation in mitigation measures, but are not prescribed for Type IIprojects.
The following noise abatement measures are eligible for Federal-aid participation as
Type II highway projects:
Acquisition of property rights for constructing noise barriers.
Construction of noise barriers or devices (including landscaping for esthetic
purposes) whether within or outside the highway right of way.
Traffic management measures such as traffic-control devices, prohibiting certain
types of vehicles, time-use restrictions for certain types of vehicles and modifying
speed limits.
Noise insulation of public-use buildings or nonprofit institutional structures
(as schools, churches, libraries, hospitals and auditoriums).
In cases where especially severe traffic noise impacts are expected and the above
measures are physically infeasible or economically unreasonable, FHWA will consider
requests for other measures such as the purchase of land as a noise buffer. (These must
be approved by the Regional Federal Highway Administrator.)
FHWA normally will not approve noise abatement measures for those activities and
land uses which came into existence after May 14,1976. However, it may approve noise
abatement measures for those activities and land uses which came into existence after this
effective date provided local officials have taken measures to exercise land-use control over
the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the highway in the local jurisdiction.
4-1
-------
IMPLEMENTATION OF NOISE POLICY (EXISTING HIGHWAYS)
Only a state highway agency can initiate a Type II Federal-aid highway project.1
FHPM 7-7-3 requires that when requesting FHWA funds for Type II projects, state highway
agencies must perform a noise analysis for the proposed project and must indicate the rela-
tive priority with other potential Type II projects in the state. FHPM 7-7-3 recommends
(but does not require) that the following factors be considered in the state's priority ranking:
Applicable state law
Type of development to be protected
Magnitude of the traffic noise impact
Costs-benefits
Population density of the affected area
Day-night land uses
Feasibility and practicability of noise abatement at the site
Availability of funds
Existing noise levels
Achievable noise reductions
Intrusiveness of highway noise (Lio - Lgo)
Public attitude
Feasibility of abating the noise with traffic control measures
Local governments' efforts to control land use adjacent to the highway
Local noise ordinances
Date of construction of adjoining development
Increase in traffic noise since the development was constructed.
Since centralized records are not kept by FHWA, the number of miles of barriers
which have been constructed as Type II projects is unknown.
1. In F Y 78, the following states budgeted for Type II projects in their annual capital
program: Minnesota, California, Washington, Connecticut, Michigan, Massachusetts,
Colorado, New Jersey and Maryland.
4-2
-------
SECTION 5. HOW OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES CAN UTILIZE THE FHWA
NOISE POLICY AND INFLUENCE ITS IMPLEMENTATION
The FHWA and state highway agencies generate much data and information that can
be utilized by other Federal agencies in controlling their noise problems. Examples are:
(1) noise level data generated pursuant to FHWA's requirement to consider noise impact in
the location and design of new highways, (2) local and state planning information, (3) infor-
mation on noise attenuation techniques such as barriers and noise insulation which could
have applicability for use near other sources. Specific guidance documents which FHWA
has published are listed in Appendix C.
As indicated in various sections of this document, FHWA has a strong interest in
encouraging local jurisdictions to ensure that future land development, or re-development,
is compatible with the highway noise environment. This interest is shared by many Federal
agencies who have witnessed gains achieved as a result of the application of noise measures
severely diminished by the development of noise sensitive land uses in the environs of
facilities for which they have some measure of responsibility.T\ie programs of such agencies,
some of which are discussed below, would be well served by mutual exchanges of data and
information with FHWA.
Federal agencies can also profit by being kept informed of and influencing the FHWA
noise policy at appropriate points in the process described in Section 3. Highway decision
making can affect their activities in numerous ways (such as housing site selections at
military bases).
Federal Highway Administration and Environmental Protection Agency
While communication between the EPA and FHWA has been constant over the
years, its quality sometimes has been mediocre. FHWA had indicated some confusion
over EPA's policy positions1 and the role of the EPA regional offices.
1. A point of misunderstanding (now resolved) involved what EPA considered acceptable
levels of noise generated by a highway. Some FHWA people had received the misimpres-
sion that EPA was recommending that highway EIS's not be approved unless design
levels of Ln = 55 dB, the level to identify impact, were achieved.
5-1
-------
FHWA has also indicated that the EPA regions sometimes are confused and misinformed
with respect to FHWA's noise policy and programs. On the other hand, some EPA regions
have indicated difficulty in obtaining close cooperation with FHWA personnel. In some
cases, the nature of the roles of the agencies can tend to promote formality. EPA, for
example, is a reviewer of all FHWA environmental impact statements for highways. Con-
versely, it appears to EPA that FHWA is unsure of how EPA technical assistance programs
to state and local governments may affect the dose partnership FHWA has developed with
the state highway departments.
At the headquarters level, EPA and FHWA worked closely on the development of
FHWA's design noise levels and EPA's source standards for highway vehicles. At present,
the two agencies are involved in exploring ways closer communication can be achieved.
Federal Highway Administration and Department of
Housing and Urban Development
There is a natural interest in these two agencies communicating closely. FHWA seeks
ways to encourage noise-compatible land-use planning, development and control, and
HUD's noise policy * provides one important tool. On the other hand, for HUD's policy
to work effectively it must rely on the data generated by other agencies, in this case FHWA.
At the headquarters level, HUD, EPA and FHWA recently participated together in a Noise
Workshop one goal of which was to explore ways of encouraging noise-compatible land-
use planning, development and control. These agencies consider this workshop as only
the first step in a program or cooperation and mutual assistance.
Federal Highway Administration and the Department of Defense
The DOD's A1CUZ* program assists local communities in controlling land use around
major military air installations. Until recently, there was virtually no communication
between FHWA and either the Navy or Air Force with respect to FHWA's noise policy.
1. The HUD noise policy is discussed in Volume II of this series (EPA 550/8-77-354).
2. Air [retaliations Compatible Use Zones. This program is discussed in Volume I of this
senes (EPA 550/9-77-353).
5-2
-------
Federal Highway Administration and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
FAA is concerned with the problem of noise incompatible land use around civil airports
which can inhibit the effects of aircraft and airport noise control measures. Although it
shares this concern with FHWA, the amount of communication between these two con-
stituent agencies of the Department of Transportation has been limited FHWA was
involved in working with FAA on their noise insulation of public buildings project.
5-3
-------
REFERENCES
1. Plotkin, K. J. and V. K. Kohli, "Potential Effectiveness of Barriers Toward Reducing
National Highway Noise Exposure," draft Wyle Research Report WR 78-9, prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 1978.
2. "A Statement of National Highway Transportation Policy," Federal Highway Admin-
istration, December 1976.
3. Report to the President and Congress on Noise, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., December 31,1971.
4. Burke, R. E., "A Baseline Measurement of Highway Vehicle Noise Levels," Wyle
Research Report WR 77-8, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
March 1977.
5. A Policy on Geometric Design of Rural Highways, American Association of State
Highway Officials, 1965.
R-l
-------
APPENDIX A
DESCRIPTION OF THE
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM1
1. Excerpted from the 1977 edition of the Federal Highway Administration document,
"America on the Move!"
-------
FHWA administers the Federal-aid highway program, a federally assisted, State-
administered program which operates through the grant of Federal funds to the States to
construct and improve designated highway systems.
The Federal-aid highway program, governed by the laws embodied in Title 23, United
States Code, has changed considerably over the years in three major areas systems, pro-
grams, and eligible activities which are discussed later in detail. Despite the changes,
the program has retained its basic characteristic of being a State-administered program
receiving Federal assistance.
History
Roadbuilding in the United States traditionally has been largely a State and local
activity. Federal support on a regular continuing basis did not occur until the 20th
Century, but is now firmly established in the Federal-aid highway program.
While the Federal Government first became involved in building roads in 1806, the
emphasis on construction of highways waned as the newly built railroads emerged in the
mid-1800's as the solution to long-distance travel.
Although Congress had passed hundreds of laws providing Federal funds ($17 million
cumulative to 1891) for particular roads, it was not until the late 19th Century that a defi-
nite movement for "gcftd roads" began. The forces behind this movement were strange
bedfellows bicyclists, who wanted roads they could ride on for a relatively long distance,
and farmers, who needed good roads to move their crops to market. In response, the
Office of Road Inquiry was created in the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1893 to
investigate, educate, and distribute information on roadbuilding. (This agency subsequently
became the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, the predecessor organization of FHWA.)
In 1912, Congress responded to requests for Federal assistance for roadbuilding by
passing the Rural Post Roads Act. Instead of providing funds for specific projects as had
been done in the 1800's, the Act provided $500,000 to be available to those States that
wanted the Federal Government to finance one-third of the cost of any of their post road
(routes upon which the mail was delivered) projects. Seventeen States participated and
built 425 miles of road under this program.
The Federal-Aid Road Act of 1916 and the Federal Highway Act of 1921 provided the
basis for the Federal-aid highway program as it exists today. At the same time those Acts
were passed, roads had been mainly the concern of local governments. Some States had
State highway agencies but overall there was little coordination of roads between counties,
much less between States.
A-l
-------
'lluis. one ol tliu inajur provisions of the 1916 Act w;is to require each State to
organize a Stale highway department, which WHS requested to designate a limited system
of main and interconnecting toads.
The Federal-State cooperative relationship was defined by the 1916 Act and made
puiniaiient in the 1921 Act. The Stales retained the initiative in constructing roads while
the Fcdeidl iule wa.-> to teview and approve work done with the assistance of Federal funds.
This partnership teLtion retuains in effect today.
Federal-Aid Systems
At the core of the Federal-aid highway program are the Federal-aid systems. These
are the routes, generally, upon which Federal funds may be used. There are three Federal-
ttul highway systems the Primary (including the Interstate highways), Secondary, and
Urban Systems each of which consists of routes which serve different functions. It is
this concept, termed ''functional classification," which is the basis for placing routes on
one or the other of the Federal-aid s\ stems.
Functional ila^sification is concerned with three broad types of routes arterial
roads, collector roads, and local roadb. Arterials aie those routes whose function is mainly
mobility moving persons and vehicles from one place to another. They are character-
ized by long-distance travel, high volumes, and higher speeds, and they provide a higher
i>pe of service than the other routes. At the opposite end of the functional hierarchy are
local roads and streets. These routes have as their main function the provision of access
to rural resources and farms and urban businesses and residences.
People usually travel only a short distance on local roads and streets and they aie
characterized by low speeds. Collectors are those routes which gather vehicles from the
local roads and streets and funnel them into the arterials.
Nationwide, arterials account for only 11 percent of all road mileage, but they carry
two-thirdb of all travel. Local roads and streets, on the other hand, comprise nearly 70
peicent of total mileage but cairy only 16 percent of total travel.
In determining which routes can be included in the various Federal-aid systems, the
foregoing concepts were used. The purpose is to assure that Federal funds will be used in
Hie most eifei.Uve manner possible, consistent with stated national objectives. Thus, the
Primary System (which includes the Interstate System) consists of rural routes and their
urban extensions which are classified as arterials. The Secondary System is comprised of
rural mules which are classified as major collectors such as farm-to-market roads, while
A-2
-------
the Urban System may consist of all arterial and collector routes in urban areas (places of
5,000 or more population) which are not on the Primary System.
The Federal-aid systems, built on the above concepts, consist of about 850,000 miles,
22 percent of the Nation's total, but they handle approximately three-fourths of all travel
in the Nation, emphasizing the fact that they consist of the country's most important roads
and streets.
It is important to note that designation of a road as part of a Federal-aid system does
not mean that the road is owned, operated or maintained by the Federal Government. The
designation simply is the first step in providing eligibility of selected State and local road
systems for most of the Federal assistance programs.
As stated before, the Federal Government does not own any roads except those on
Federal lands. The familiar U.S. route shield does not necessarily signify Federal or even
Federal-aid roads; it is simply a route-marking system set up by-the State to guide travelers.
The Federal-aid system that is easiest to identify through road signs is the Interstate System,
with its distinctive red, white, and blue shield.
It is also significant to realize that designation of a route as part of a Federal-aid system
does not imply that Federal funds have been, or necessarily will be, spent on all portions of
that route.
It should be noted, too, that in addition to their Federal-aid routes, many States build
and improve other roads entirely with their own funds. The Federal Government has no
direct responsibility in the planning or construction of such roads.
Federal-Aid Programs
The Federal funding of highway projects on routes on the Federal-aid systems, or in
some cases on routes not on one of the systems, is what is often referred to as the "Federal-
aid highway program." Although the term "Federal-aid highway program"does not have
a strict meaning (since it is neither defined in law nor regulation) it refers to those expendi-
tures, usually on one of the Federal-aid systems, which are governed by provisions of
Title 23 of the United States Code, and which are administered through State highway
agencies.
Federal assistance for highways is reflected in the several programs which, when com-
bined, make up the Federal-aid highway program. The programs, each of which is separately
funded by Congress, can be organized into three groups system-related programs,
nationally oriented programs, and special programs.
A-3
-------
System-Related Programs
The largest portion of Federal assistance for highways more than 80 percent of
total Federal funds authorized is earmarked for improving the Federal-aid systems.
These programs have as their goals the construction, reconstruction, and improvement of
roads on the Federal-aid systems. They consist of the following programs;
Primary (including Interstate)
Secondary
Urban
Interstate Program
The Interstate program is the largest funded Federal-aid highway program. Over $3.5
billion per year,'nearly one-half of all Federal-aid highway funds, is authorized for the
Interstate System. Most of these funds are used for the initial construction of the 42,500-
mile National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. The remainder, only 5 percent
of the total, are used for resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation of Interstate routes
already open to traffic.
The designation of a 40,000-mile Interstate System was called for in 1944 and by
1947, 37,861 miles were approved. The System continued to be studied but no earmarked
funds were authorized for it until 1952, when $25 million was authorized for each of two
years. Previously, only Urban and Primary funds could be used for Interstate purposes. In
1954, $175 million was authorized for each of Fiscal Years 1956 and 1957. Also, at this
time the Federal share was increased from 50 percent to 60 percent.
It was not until 1956 that the Interstate program began to accelerate to its present
prominence. The Federal-aid Highway Act of 1956 added $1 billion to the 1957 authori-
zation and made sufficient additional authorizations to finance the System's estimated
completion by 1972. Additionally, the Act provided another incentive to States for invest-
ment in the System by raising the Federal share to 90 percent of a project's cost.
The revenues for this accelerated total highway program came from the Highway Trust
Fund, which was established by the Highway Revenue Act of 1956. Set up as a wholly
user-supported trust fund, it derives its income from increased existing highway user taxes
and new user taxes.
The Interstate Program has explicitly stated goals the initial construction to the
latest and safest design standards of a 42,500-mile connected network of freeways which
must be built to meet the anticipated traffic needs 20 years into the future. These roads,
in both rural and urban areas, connect most of the Nation's cities of 50,000 or more
A-4
-------
population; provide transportation for manufacturing activity and agriculture; provide
overall traffic service; serve the needs of national defense; and connect at suitable border
points with routes of continental importance.
Interstate freeways are divided, have no traffic lights or stop signs, no intersections
at grade, and no sharp curves or steep hills. Access and egress are completely controlled,
and generally wide medians separate opposing lanes of traffic. Traffic lanes are 12 feet
wide.
Benefits associated with the Interstate System can be divided into user and non-usei
benefits. User benefits encompass those gains which accrue to travelers on the Interstate
System. In large part they include savings in travel time, energy consumption, and
operating costs, reduction in accidents and congestion in the traffic corridor, and facilita-
tion of goods movement. Perhaps the most striking example of user benefits are reflected
in the low accident rates on Interstate facilities. The safest of all road systems, Interstate
routes are nearly three times safer than non-Interstate routes in terms of fatalities and
almost four times safer when considering injury-producing accidents.
Non-user benefits provided include improved opportunities for leisure activities, for
work, and for residential location by essentially enlarging the area people can reach within
a certain time.
When the Interstate Program was established, Congress provided that most Federal-
aid Interstate funds could be used only for the initial construction of the System. (Federal-
aid Primary funds can be used for reconstruction on the Interstate System since it is a
part of the Primary System.) The reasoning was that the System was of paramount impro-
tance to the Nation and its completion was to be accomplished at the earliest possible date.
Although funds could be spent to improve roads open to traffic, this was permitted only
to incorporate the latest design standards and safety features into those routes, (ft was
not until 1976 that a relatively small amount of Interstate funds were authorized specifically
for Interstate System rehabilitation.). At the same time, some 2,300 miles of toll roads.
tunnels, and bridges that already existed in Interstate System corridors were taken into the
System. Thus, motorists must pay tolls in a few Interstate routings, while the rest of the
System is free. (Under law, no Federal funds can be used in construction of a toil facility,
nor can they be used for improvements to a toll facility except under very special
circumstances.)
Certain Interstate routes (usually those within large urban areas) may, under certain
conditions, be withdrawn from the System and replaced with either another type of
Federal-aid highway project or a mass transit project. Highway Trust funds, however, are
1. Noise projects, therefore, associated with these highways are of the Type IA classifica-
tion, and FHWA requires approval of exceptions to the design levels.
A-5
-------
not used for the substitute projects; instead, an equal amount of Federal general treasury
funds are provided.
The Federal share for substituted highway projects is the same as for other projects
on the Federal-aid systems, usually 70 percent. The Department of Transportation's Urban
Mass Transportation Administration administers the funds for mass transit projects and the
Federal share is 80 percent. This "Interstate transfer" provision provides State and local
governments the needed flexibility to choose the type of transportation project which best
suits their needs. However, because of the national importance placed on the Interstate
System, the Secretary of Transportation has to decide that the route to be withdrawn is not
essential for completion of a unified and connected Interstate System.
Originally, the System was expected to be completed in 1972. Because of changes in
design standards mandated by Federal law, extensions of the System from the 41,000 miles
authorized in 1956 to its present extent of 42,500 miles, and increases in construction costs
due to inflation, the entire length of the System is not yet in use. As of October 1977, about
91 percent of the System's miles were open to traffic, although much of the mileage was not
yet constructed to final standards. Nearly one-third of the System's $104 + billion cost
still remains to be placed under contract.
Primary Program
The original Federal-aid highway program, established in 1916 and 1921 legislation,
was the predecessor of the present Federal-aid Primary System Program. As far back as
1921, Congress recognized the need for "an adequate and connected system of highways,
"interstate in character." The most recent reclassification of the Primary System, which
occurred in 1976, still retains this principle by defining the Primary System as those roads
which are the most important to interstate, regional, and statewide travel. (The Interstate
System, which actually is a part of the Primary System, is made up of the highest type
Primary routes.) Primary routes, which are rural arterials and their extensions through
urban areas, are chosen by the States with the approval of the Secretary of Transportation.
Most of the routes are State-owned-and-maintained systems.
The Primary System in each State is limited in mileage only to the extent that it can-
not exceed the mileage of arterials in the State. In 1921, the system had 169,000 miles;
today that mileage is more than 260,000.
The Primary Program, which provides financial assistance to the States to improve
roads on the Primary System, is authorized at $1.4 billion for FY 1978, which is 18 percent
of the total Federal-aid highway authorizations for that year. The Federal/State matching
ratio is 70/30 (as it also is for the Secondary and Urban Systems).
A-6
-------
Secondary Program
The Secondary Program was inaugurated in 1944 with the establishment of the
Secondary System. Comprised originally of farm-to-market and feeder roads on State high-
ways and county and local roads, and now of the more important intracounty routes, the
Secondary System totals about 415,000 miles. The Secondary System cannot exceed the
total mileage of rural major collector routes in each State. Funding of the program was
set at $400 million for FY 1978, 5 percent of the total Federal-aid highway program. The
system consists of many locally owned and maintained routes, as well as the less important
State routes.
Urban Program
In 1944, the Federal-Aid Highway Act established a specific category of assistance
for extensions of the Primary and Secondary Systems into urban areas (places of 5,000 or
more population). This could be considered the beginning of a specific urban highway
program even though other funds were spent in urban areas prior to that date. In 1970,
a separate Urban System was established as a system of supplementary roads to serve local
urban transportation needs. Selection of the System locations in each urban area is made
by the local officials with the concurrence of the State highway or transportation agency.
The Urban System consists of about 130,000 miles of arterials and collectors. The
program was funded at a level of $800 million for FY 1978, which is 10 percent of all
Federal-aid highway funds for that year. Most of the routes are locally owned and main-
tained, but also may include State routes of lesser importance.
Urban System funds, in addition to having the normal uses of all Federal-aid highway
funds, may be used for the purchase of transit buses and rapid rail cars, and for the con-
struction, reconstruction, and improvement of fixed rail facilities. This broad use of high-
way funds is at the discretion of local and State officials.
Further emphasizing the local nature of the Urban System program is the requirement
that projects shall be selected by the appropriate local officials (with the subsequent concur-
rence of the State) whereas projects under most other programs are initiated by the State
highway or transportation agencies.
A-7
-------
APPENDIX B
DOT/FHWA ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES
IN HIGHWAY NOISE
-------
INTRODUCTION
This Appendix presents a detailed organizational breakdown and functional description
of all DOT/FHWA agencies involved in the creation and implementation of Federal policies
concerning noise from Federally assisted highway projects. In general, the policies have
been developed at DOT and FHWA Headquarters offices. The policy implementation
requires that state highway agencies prepare documentation for each Federal-aid highway
project they initiate, showing compliance with environmental noise and public informational
requirements of the policy. This documentation is reviewed by FHWA division, regional,
and sometimes headquarters offices before DOT/FHWA approval of the project. The
FHWA division offices (one per state) are the most active in this implementation process,
working closely with the state agencies and making most highway project-related determinations.
DOT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Figure B-l shows the overall organization of the Department of Transportation (DOT).
The agency within DOT that processes state-initiated Federal-aid highway projects is the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). It is during this processing that FHWA has
established and implemented Federal policy concerning noise impact from Federally assisted
highway and highway improvement projects. FHWA actions and policies, however, are subject
to DOT review and approval.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Consumer Affairs
This office, along with subordinate FHWA offices, reviews all drafts of environmental
impact statements which are required of state agencies for most Federally assisted highway
projects. Since the draft EIS normally contains a noise study prepared according to FHWA
Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual, Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3 (FHPM 7-7-3),
the office has the opportunity to review proposed implementation of FHWA noise policy.
This office also reserves the right of approval of final EIS's for certain highway projects
including interstate projects, those in populous areas, and those involving new limited-access
freeways. In recent years, an average of approximately 300 EIS's per year have been handled
by FHWA, about one-third of which have required DOT approval (by this office).
B-1
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY
DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY
fOR BUDGET
AND PROGRAM REVIEW
SECRETARY
DEPUTY SECRETARY
OFFICE OF
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
OFFICE OF
CIVIL RIGHTS
10
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
POLICY PLANS 81 INTER-
NATIONAL AFFAIRS
GENERAL COUNSEL
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
ENVIRONMENT SAFETY AND
CONSUMER AFFAIRS
EXECUTIVE
SECRETARIAT
CONTRACT APPEALS
BOARD
ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR ADMINISTRATION
IY
g
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR 1
SYSTE MS DE VE LOPMENT & 1
TECHNOLOGY |
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
CONGRESSIONAL AND INTER
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
US COASTGUARD
FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATION
FEDERAL RAILROAD
ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL HIGHWAY
TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION
URBAN MASS
TRANSPORTATION
ADMINISTRATION
SAINT LAWRENCE
SEAWAY
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
Figure B-l. Organizational Chart of the U.S. Department of Transportation
Showing the Agencies Involved With Federal Highway Noise Policy
-------
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Systems Development and Technology
This office maintains a noise-related agency which is not involved with policy
implementation procedures, but provides supportive activities.
Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts (TSC). TSC was
responsible for the development of one of the two highway noise prediction
models currently approved by DOT for use in highway project noise studies. The
Center is also responsible for validating new models and variations to the present
ones.
FHWA ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The overall organization of FHWA is shown in Figure B-2 to contain three basic
levels.
FHWA Headquarters - Washington, D.C.
9 Regional Offices locations shown in Figure B-3.
55 Division Offices located in each region, one per state, plus District of
Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
Activities relating to FHWA noise policy occur at each of the three levels.
Role of FHWA Headquarters
The FHWA Headquarters organization is given in Figure B-2. A* indicated therein,
10 of the 20 offices play a role in administering FHWA's noise abatement program:
Office of Environmental Policy
This office has the lead role in the noise area. It performs such functions as:
Promulgating FHWA's noise standards and procedures;
Reviewing environmental impact statements;
Developing technical and instructional manuals;
Coordinating research and technical study needs that are accomplished by
other FHWA offices and other Federal agencies;
Coordination with other Federal agencies on noise matters.
B-3
-------
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATOR
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
NATIONAL
HIGHWAY
INSTITUTE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ASSOCIATE
ADMINISTRATOR
FOR
PLANNING
ASSOCIATE
ADMINISTRATOR
FOR RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT
ASSOCIATE
ADMINISTRATOR FOR
RIGHT OF WAY
AND ENVIRONMENT
OFFICE OF
PROGRAM AND
POLICY PLANNING!
OFFICE OF
HIGHWAY
PLANNING
OFFICE
OF
RESEARCH
^ OFF ICEI
OF I
DEVELOPMENT |
I OFFICE OF I
-ENVIRONMENTAL!
| POLICY |
OFFICE
OF
RIGHT OF WAV
ASSOCIATE
ADMINISTRATOR FOR
ENGINEERING AND
TRAFFICOPERATIONS
ASSOCIATE
ADMINISTRATOR FOR
MOTOR CARRIERS
AND HIGHWAY
SAFETY
ASSOCIATE
ADMINISTRATOR
FOR
ADMINISTRATION
REGIONAL OFFICES
I 3 IDS. 15
DIVISION OFFICES
Figure B-2. Organizational Chart of the Federal Highway Administration
-------
HAWAII
UNDER
REGION 9
*?> Washington. DC Headquarters \
Field Region Headquarters
* Region 15 (Arlington. Va.), Eastern Federal Highway Projects Office
NOTE: FHWA Region 1 Conforms to Standard Regions 1 and 2
PUERTO RICO
UNDER
REGION 1
Figure B-3. Field Regions of the Federal Highway Administration
B-5
-------
Office of Engineering
This office provides technical assistance in the analysis of highway traffic noise .
problems to FHWA's field organization and the State highway agencies.
Office of High way Pla nn ing
This office is responsible for providing guidance to the FHWA field organization
and the State highway agencies on methods for consideration of highway traffic
noise during the planning stage.
Office ofRight-of-Way
This office provides policy guidance and operational instructions to the FHWA
field organization and State highway agencies on real property acquisition.
Office of Highway Operations
This office is concerned with construction noise. The National Experimental and
Evaluation Program (NEEP) is administered by this office. One such NEEP
project concerns the noise insulation of private dwellings.
Office of Research
This office performs, with its own personnel and through consultant services,
research in several sub-areas of highway noise. The FHWA's highway traffic noise
prediction model, for example, is being developed jointly by the Offices of
Research and Environmental Policy.
Office of Development
This office provides (through contractual services) informational and educational
materials. A recent example was the preparation of manual and a training course
on the insulation of buildings against highway noise.
Office of Program and Policy Planning
This office is involved in the noise area through their work in environmental
studies and socio-economic studies.
B-6
-------
National Highway Institute
This is the training arm of the FHWA. Each year several courses in the fundamentals
and abatement of highway traffic noise are given. Some 50 courses, involving around
1,500 students, have been taught to date.
Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety
This office is responsible for developing and for enforcing regulations to implement
EPA's noise emission standards for vehicles involved in interstate commerce.
Role of the Regional Offices
Regional FHWA offices conform to the Organization shown in Figure B-4. In general,
highway noise matters are handled by an Environmental Engineer working in the Office of
Environment and Design who devotes 25 to 50 percent of his time to this subject.
In general, the role of the regional office is to assist and advise division offices. In
the area of highway noise, regional offices review and approve all draft and final ElS's,
approve noise abatement measures not specifically authorized in policy issued by FHWA
Headquarters, and approve State Action Plans. The regional offices also provide guidance
on FHWA policy to the division offices.
Rote of the Division Offices'
The division offices (one located in each state) provide assistance to the state highway
agencies in all phases of highway projects, and perform the bulk of FHWA review and
approval actions. In fact, FHWA estimates that approximately 97 percent of the project
development decisions are made at the division level. The decision-making process is not
precise in that FHWA divisions not only give final approvals but also serve as day-to-day con-
sultants to the state highway agencies in EIS preparation and other matters. Therefore, most
disagreements between FHWA and the state highway agencies are resolved before formal
approvals are requested. This is particularly true of the EIS process where the states are
required to consult with FHWA on each major step in the process.
1. Appendix F contains a listing of FHWA Division Offices and State Highway Agencies
by Region.
B-7
-------
RtGKJNAL AOMINISIMAIOR
DEPUTY HK'.IUNAL AOMINISIRATOH
CO
60
1
REGIONAL COUNSEL CIVIL RIGHTSQFFICES
OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND RESEARCH
OFMCfc OF HIGH I OF WAY
1 1
OFFICE OF
CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE
OFFICE OF BRIOGF
OPERATING
1 1 1 1
RtGION 1'
Delmai N V
DIVISION OFFICES
Connecticut
Maine
Maiiachiitem
New Haniuihue
NewJeiuy
New Voik
Pufrlo Rico
Rnon> Itiand
Vermont
RtGION 3
Bailimofe Mrt
DIVISION OFFICES
Delawaie
Duliict of Columbia
Maiyland
fennsvlvania
Virginia
Weu Viigmia
REGION 4
Atlanta Ga
DIVISION OFFICES
Alibvna
Floinla
Graiika
Kentucky
Mniiuippi
Noflh Camlina
1 - 1
AIIUI T MANAGE R
FXCCUTIVE OFFICER
OF HI? OF
ENVIRONMENT AND DESIGN
OFFICE OF
MOTOR CARRIE R SAFE TY
OFFICE OF
WESTERN BRIDGE DESIGN
IHEGION 81
E OFF ICE OF
DERAL HIGHWAY PROJECTS
(REGIONS 8 AND 101
DIVISIONS
1 1 1
HtGKIN!> REGIONS REGION 7
HonKwuml III Fi Wonh li>< K«iu> Oly Mo
DIVISION OFF ICES DIVISION OFFICES DIVISION OFFICES
Million Aikamai Iowa
Imliaiia Lomiiana Kanwn
Mirhio^n NPW Me.no Mmnuii
Mirmeiola Oklahoma Nebaika
Ohio TC.JI
WMCOIHin
REGIONS"
DPIWPI Cnlo
DIVISION OFFICES
Coloiado
Montana
Noilh Dakota
South Dakota
Ulan
Wyoming
REGION 9
San Fiaiiiitco Cal
DIVISION OFFICES
Afifona
Cal.lufma
Hawaii
Nevada
REGION 10
Portland Die
DIVISION OFFICES
Alaika
libho
Oieyon
Wathinqion
FHWA Region 1 confoinrn losiandard Regions 1 and?
Region 6 jlto idminmert the direct Fpdeul highwjy oontiructton piooram in Region 9 «nd m K*m«
NrUMlij Nrw Mfnoo Ohljtioma tna lr«ajt
Rrgion IS lAMingion V»\ «dmnmt«i the d*eci Tedn.il highwuy conn ruction ptog/jm m Regiom 134
and 5 and m Aihaniai low* Louisiana md MIIUMJII liee A/ei Map, p 7 61
Figure B-4. FHWA Regional Office Organizational Chart
-------
The regional grouping of the division offices is shown in Figure B-4. Most division
offices are internally structured either by project or by function, not conforming to any
single organizational framework. In project organization, individuals (or groups of staff
engineers) are assigned to processing applications for specific projects. Responsibility for
advising state highway agencies and division office personnel on noise is assigned to a staff
member as a collateral duty. Functional offices are organized similarly to FHWA Head-
quarters or regional offices. One staff member under this organization will handle all
environmental matters on a full-time basis devoting from 25 to 50 percent of his time to
noise. Regardless of the organizational structure, the individual assigned to noise problems
will provide advice to and answer questions of FHWA division office staff and state highway
agency personnel. The Federal-state relationship is strongest at the division office level.
Specific actions taken by division offices, as appropriate, include:
Review all state highway agency draft ElS's.
Approve the assignment of "major Federal action" status to projects (thus requiring
an environmental assessment).
Approve the determination that a major Federal action significantly affects the
human environment (thereby requiring an EIS per the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969).
Approve all final negative declarations.
Approve state highway agency noise study reports.
Approve highway project plans at the ends of the location and design phases.
Role of State Highway Agencies
State highway agencies have the primary responsibility for initiating any action
involving the Federal-Aid Highway System. In addition, state highway agencies interact
with FHWA division offices when preparing an EIS, negative declaration, project plans,
or other procedural documentation related to noise from the state highway project.
Organization, internal procedures, and environmental concerns (beyond what is required
by FHWA) vary considerably from state to state.
B-9
-------
APPENDIX C
FHWA REGULATIONS, INSTRUCTIONS
AND ISSUANCES RELATING TO NOISE ABATEMENT
-------
FHWA REGULATIONS, INSTRUCTIONS AND ISSUANCES RELATING TO NOISE ABATEMENT
SUBJECT AREA
T. Principal Noise
Policy
Documents
2. Technical
Assistance
ISSUING AGENCY
FHWA Office of
Environmental
Policy
FHWA Off ice of
Environmental
Policy
TITLE OF ISSUANCE
Federal-Aid Highway Program
Manual (FHPM). Vol. 7. Ch. 7
"Process Guidelines
-------
FHWA REGULATIONS, INSTRUCTIONS AND ISSUANCES RELATING TO NOISE ABATEMENT (Continued)
SUBJECT AREA
2. Technical
Assistance
(Continued)
ISSUING AGENCY
FHWA Office
of Research
& Development
FHWA Office of
Federal Highway
Projects
FHWA Office of
Environmental Policy
FHWA National
Highway Institute
FHWA Highway
Research Board
National Research
Council
National Academy
of Science
Office of Secretary
of DOT
TITLE OF ISSUANCE
The Audible Landscape : A
Manual for Highway Noise and
Land Use
Action Plan for Consideration of
Social, Economic and Environ-
mental Effects
Preparation of Environmental
> Impact/4 (f) Statements
National Cooperative Highway
Research Report 117, "Highway
Noise: Design Guide for High-
way Engineers"
DOT-TSC-FHWA-72-1, "Manual
for Highway Noise Prediction
and Control"
DATE OF
ISSUANCE
11/74
(reprinted
8776)
5/25/76
1971
5/72
BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Contains guidance to localities for
land-use planning near highways.
Covers the organization and procedure fol-
lowed by Federal Highway Projects in
Regions 8, 10. and IS.
Three-day course on preparation of
Environmental Impact Statements.
Contains procedures for calculation of
highway traffic noise.
Contains Computer Model for predicting
highway noise.
o
-------
FHWA REGULATIONS, INSTRUCTIONS AND ISSUANCES RELATING TO NOISE ABATEMENT (Continued)
SUBJECT ARE A
2. Technical
Assistance
(Continued)
ISSUING AGENCY
Office of Secretary
FHWA Highway
Research Board
National Research
Council
National Academy
of Science
FHWA
National
Highway
Institute
FHWA National
Highway Institute
FHWA Assoc.
Admin, for
Right-of-Way &
Environment
FHWA Office of
Research &
Development
TITLE OF ISSUANCE
OOT-TSC-315-1
"User's Manual for the Predic-
tion of Road Traffic Noise
Computer Program"
National Cooperative Highway
Research Report 144,
"A Field Evaluation of Traffic
Noise Reduction Measures"
Fundamentals and Abatement
of Highway Traffic Noise
Fundamentals and Abatement
of Highway Traffic Noise,
"Noise Barrier Design and
Abatement Measures"
Highway Noise Prediction
Methods
FHWA-RD-76-58
Noise Barrier Design Handbook
DATE OF
ISSUANCE
5/72
1973
6/73
4/74
6/9/75
2/76
BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Guidance for using a computer program for
prediction of noise from freely flowing road
traffic.
Procedures for evaluating the noise reduction
from barriers, elevated and depressed high-
way sections, and roadside structures.
One-week training course on highway noise
and abatement.
General Information on design of highway
barriers.
Kentucky Prediction Procedure Correction
Factor Nomograph to be used with NCHRP
Methods.
Provides a tool for use by highway designers
to aid in design of noise abatement barriers.
-------
FHWA REGULATIONS. INSTRUCTIONS AND ISSUANCES RELATING TO NOISE ABATEMENT (Continued)
SUBJECT ARE A
2. Technical
Assistance
(Continued)
ISSUING AGENCY
FHWA Office of
Research &
Development
FHWA Office of
Engineering
FHWA Office of
Environmental
Policy
FHWA Assoc.
Admin, for
Engineering &
Traffic Operations
FHWA Off ice of
Environmental
Policy
FHWA Office of
Research and
Development
TITLE OF ISSUANCE
Implementation Package 76-8
Highway Noise Barrier Selection,
Design and Construction
Experiences
Insulation of Buildings Against
Highway Noise (FHWA-TS-77
2021.
National Experimental and
Evaluation Progress Report No.
21. Noise Insulation for
Private Dwellings
Special Report.
Highway Construction Noise:
Measurement. Prediction and
Mitigation
Design Against Noise
DATE OF
ISSUANCE
1976
8/77
1/17/77
5/19/77
1978
BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Provides guidance in barriers selection,
location design and construction. Not for
actual design purposes.
Contains procedures for determining the
acoustical insulation of planned or existing
buildings against highway noise.
Encourages experimental projects for pro-
viding traffic noise insulation features in
residences.
Provides a manual for use by highway
oriented groups and individuals in the state
of the art of the measurement, prediction
and mitigation of highway construction
noise; a "logical starting point into the
evaluation and control of highway construc-
tion noise;" will assist state highway agencies
in meeting requirements of FHPM 7-7-3.
A Guide to Visual Quality of Barrier Design.
-------
APPENDIX D
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND FOR THE
DESIGN NOISE LEVELS
-------
BACKGROUND
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 required the Secretary of Transportation
to develop and promulgate noise standards for the planning and design of Federal-
aid highways. The Act required that the standards assign (design) noise levels com-
patible with different land uses. It further provided that the plans and specifications for a
highway project could not be approved unless they included measures adequate to comply
with the standards. Interim standards were adopted in April 1972, and an environmental
statement on the standards was circulated and reviewed. After consideration of the review
comments, the final standards were promulgated initially as Policy and Procedure Memoran-
dum (PPM) 90-2 in February 1973, and revised as Federal Highway Program Manual
(FHPM), Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3, "Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic
Noise and Construction Noise" (FHPM 7-7-3), 1976.
The standards require that a noise analysis be conducted for each highway project,
except those projects unrelated to highway traffic noise. Noise-sensitive land uses and
activities in the vicinity of highway projects must be identified, and anticipated noise levels
computed in terms of L10 or L^ for the noise-sensitive areas on the basis of the worst noise
situation expected to occur in the design year from the highway in question. The standards
contain design noise levels of LJQ or LeQ values considered by FHWA to be the upper limits
of acceptable noise levels for exterior land uses, outdoor activities, and certain interior uses.
These design levels are given in Table D-l.
Noise level predictions are to be compared with the appropriate design noise levels for
existing developed land as one indicator of whether or not an impact is expected. If an
impact is expected, every reasonable effort to achieve substantial noise level reductions must
be taken. However, there are situations where abatement measures are not feasible or where
the adverse social, economic and environmental effects of providing abatement measures are
too high. For each individual case where the circumstances warrant, FHWA's noise policy
provides the FHWA Division Administrator the authority to approve exceptions to the require-
ment of abating identified impacts which are based upon exceeding the design noise levels.
The standards do not guarantee the elimination of annoyance or disturbance from traffic
noise even in those situations where the design noise levels given in Table D-l are met. FHWA
intended that the design noise levels for various activities and land uses represent a compro-
mise between that which may be desirable and that which is achievable. FHWA acknowledges
that noise impacts can occur even though the design noise levels are achieved.1 For these
reasons, FHWA views the design noise levels as the upper limit of acceptable traffic noise
conditions, recognizing that in many cases the achievement of lower noise levels would result
in even greater benefits to the community.
1. In its "Levels" Document, EPA identified a level of Ldn = 55 dB as the threshold of
impact.
D-l
-------
Table D-l. Design Noise Level/Activity Relationships
9
to
ACTIVITY
CATEGORY
A2
B2
C
D
E
DESIGN NOISE LEVELS1
dBA
Wh)
57
(Exterior)
67
(Exterior)
72
(Exterior)
52
(Interior)
L10(h)
60
(Exterior)
70
(Exterior)
75
(Exterior)
55
(Interior)
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY CATEGORY
Tracts of land which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
significance and serve an important public need and where
the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to
continue to serve its intended purpose. Such areas could
include amphitheaters, particular parks or portions of parks,
open spaces, or historic districts which are dedicated or recog-
nized by appropriate local officials for activities requiring
special qualities of serenity and quiet.
Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas.
and parks which are not included in Category A and resi-
dences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches.
libraries, and hospitals.
Developed lands, properties or activities not included in Cate-
gories A and B above.
For requirements on undeveloped lands, see Paragraph 1 l.a
andll.c.
Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools.
churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Either L or Ljg design noise levels may be used.
-eq
zParks in Categories A and B include all such lands (public or private) which are actually used as parks as well as
those public lands officially set aside or designated by a governmental agency as parks on the date of public
knowledge of the proposed highway project.
Source: Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual, Vol. 7, Chapter 7, Section 3.
-------
In addition, some communities have attempted to use the design noise levels as land use
planning criteria. Since, as has been pointed out elsewhere, serious impacts can occur
below the design levels, this should not be done.
TECHNICAL BASIS01
Initially, three types of highway noise impact were considered in the selection of the
design noise levels. These were:
Hearing impairment or damage
Sleep and task interference, or annoyance
Speech communication interference
FHWA determined that insufficient information existed in the hearing impairment and
annoyance areas to develop criteria upon which design noise levels could be based. Thus,
speech interference criteria became the sole basis of the design noise levels selected.
Interference by noise with speech communication depends on the level of the noise,
level of the speech, and distance between speaker and listener. The relationship between
these quantities for normally acceptable intelligibility is indicated in Table D-2.
Table D-2 indicates the speech-masking effect of steady-state noise. However, the
fluctuating nature of highway traffic noise must be taken into account. When this is done,
the speech-distance relationship can be explored to select design noise levels based on speech
distances and voice efforts reasonable for the land-use and activity categories being con-
sidered. Table D-3 shows the selected design noise levels and communication distances up
to which speech communications will be intelligible 90 percent of the time. Since the
design noise levels are specified in FHPM 7-7-3 to be the highest hourly LIQ or L values
during the day, the indicated speech distances will increase during the remaining less severe
hours.
REFERENCE FOR APPENDIX D
Dl. "Noise Standards and Procedures," EIS-AA-72-5822-F, Federal Highway Administra-
tion, November 1972.
D-3
-------
Table D-2. Masking of Speech by Steady-State Noise9"
STEADY-STATE A-WEIGHTED
SOUND LEVEL IdB)
52
55
57
60
67
70
72
75
MAXIMUM DISTANCE FOR ADEQUATE
SPEECH COMMUNICATION (FT)
NORMAL
VOICE
17
11
9
6.5
2.5
2
1.5
1
RAISED
VOICE
33
22
17
13
5
4
3
2
VERY LOUD
VOICE
70
43
35
20
11
8
6
5
*EPA Report NTID 300.3, "Community Noise," Figure 19, was used as the source for
the table.
Table D-3. Masking of Speech by FHWA Design Noise Levels
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
LAND USE
Outdoor uses for which quiet
is particularly important
Exteror of residences, motels,
schools, churches, etc. Also
parks, playgrounds, etc.
Exterior of developed lands
not included in A or B above
Undeveloped
Interior of residences, schools.
churches, etc.
DESIGN
NOISE
LEVELS
L1Q (dB)
60
70
75
-
55
DISTANCE FOR SATISFACTORY
SPEECH COMMUNICATION
90 PE RCENT OF THE Tl ME (FT)
NORMAL
VOICE
6.5
2
1
-
11
RAISED
VOICE
13
4
2
-
22
VERY LOUD
VOICE
26
8
5
-
43
D-4
-------
APPENDIX E
HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODELS
-------
There are presently two highway noise prediction models authorized by FHWA for
use on Federal-aid highway projects. These are referred to as the "NCHRP"1 and
'TSC"2 models. This Appendix summarizes the characteristics of these two models.
NCHRP Model
n A
This model was originally designed as a series of nomograms and charts;0'4
however, a computerized version is currently available from FHWA. The model predicts
Lgo and LJO noise levels, at a given point, due to one or several highways. The levels are
based on calculations from a semi-empirical traffic noise model. Data requirements for
this model are:
Traffic volume, speed, and percentage of heavy vehicles.
Highway locations, elevations and/or depressions, and gradients.
Highway surface roughness.
Location of traffic controls.
Highway width (number of lanes).
Receiver locations.
Barrier locations and geometry.
The basic calculation of the program is for L50 from each highway. L10 is then
obtained from L50 by applying adjustments based on the statistics and geometry of the
traffic flow. Due to limitations in the statistical model, calculations for low truck volumes
or interrupted flow may be of questionable accuracy. The combination of several highways
of similar noise output, or the presence of barriers, in certain cases, may also reduce the
reliability of the L10 calculation.
TSC Model
This model can handle the same multiple-road and complex barrier configurations as
the NCHRP model. However, the basic calculation is in terms of Leq, which allows pre-
dictions to be accurate for low traffic volumes and complex road configurations. In addi-
tion to Lgg, the program also computes LJQ, L^Q, LQQ, Lj»jp, 4 and A-weighted octave
band levels. The statistical metrics are obtained by applying theoretical adjustments to
Le_. The accuracy of the statistical metrics is decreased in complex situations, although
not so much as with the NCHRP model because of the reliability of the basic Leq calcula-
tion. The basic input data are similar to that for the NCHRP model, with the addition of
1. Reference El.
2. Reference E2.
3. References E3 and E4.
4. Noise Pollution Level.
E-l
-------
topography and ground surface acoustical properties. All locations must be specified in
three-dimensional Cartesian coordinates, which can make input data quite lengthy.
This model allows for reflection of sound from surfaces, and includes a calculation
of ground attenuation. The ground attenuation algorithm is extremely crude, however,
and must be regarded as approximate. Individual vehicle noise levels form the basis of
the Le_ calculation. The user has the option of specifying vehicle noise levels other than
those provided within the program.
COMPARISON OF THE MODELS
In using the noise models described above, it may be found that different models
often provide-different values of the noise level. This is due to differences in assumptions,
computational procedures and basic data within the models. There is no simple factor
that can be applied to relate the noise levels computed by the various models because the
differences are strongly dependent on the highway conditions. A detailed comparison of
these models as well as other models used in highway noise research has been made in
Reference E5. This reference includes a series of charts which may be used to estimate
differences among the models for any specific case.
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX E
El. Grove, G.H., "Traffic Noise Level Predictor Computer Program," Research Report
No. R-942, Michigan State Highway Commission, October 1974.
E2. Kurze, U.J., Levison, W.H., and Serben, S., "User's Manual for the Prediction of
Road Traffic Noise Computer Programs," U.S. Department of Transportation
Report DOT-TSC-315-1, May 1972.
E3. Gordon, C.G., Galloway, W.J., Kugler, B.A., and Nelson, D.L., "Highway Noise -
A Design Guide for Engineers," NCHRP Report 117 (1971).
E4. Kugler, B.A., and Pierson, A.G., "Highway Noise - A Field Evaluation of Traffic
Noise Reduction Measures," NCHRP Report 144 (1973).
E5. "Comparison of Highway Noise Prediction Models," U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, May 1977. EPA Report No. 550/9-77-355.
E-2
-------
APPENDIX F
WHERE TO GO TO GET INFORMATION
ON FHWA NOISE POLICY
-------
KEY FHWA HEADQUARTERS PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN NOISE
ORGANIZATION
ELEMENT
Office of Environ-
mental Policy
Off ice of
Engineering
Office of Highway
Planning
ADDRESS
400 Seventh Street
Washington. D.C.
20590
400 Seventh Street
Washington, D.C
20590
400 Seventh Street
Washington, D.C.
20590
PERSONNEL
NAME
Michael Lash
R.I. Wells
Russell E. Machol
Harter M. Rupert
W. J. Wilkes
David Phillips
Roger Scott
Richard Morgan
Kevin Heanue
TITLE
Director
Chief,
Environmental
Programs Division
Chief,
Environmental
Quality Division
Chief,
Noise and Air
Quality Branch
Director
Chief.
Highway Design
Division
Chief,
Environmental and
Public Transporta-
tion Branch
Director
Chief,
Urban Planning
Division
TELEPHONE
NUMBER
426-0351
426-0106
426-9764
426-4836
4262951
426-0166
OFFICE ROLE IN HIGHWAY
NOISE POLICY
Lead Role in Highway Noise Policy:
Promulgates FHWA's noise
standards and procedures.
Reviews environmental
impact statements.
Develops technical manuals.
Coordinates noise research
and technical study needs
accomplished by other
operating elements within
FHWA and other Federal
agencies.
Provides technical assistance
in the analysis of highway
traffic noise problems to
FHWA's field organization and
the State Highway Agencies.
Provides guidance to FHWA
field organization and the
State Highway Agencies for
consideration of highway
traffic noise during the plan-
ning stage.
-------
KEY FHWA HEADQUARTERS PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN NOISE (Continued)
ORGANIZATION
ELEMENT
Office of Highway
Operations
Office of Right-
of-Wav
Office of Research
ADDRESS
400 Seventh Street
Washington. D.C
20590
400 Seventh Street
Washington, D.C
20590
400 Seventh Street
Washington, D.C
20590
PERSONNEL
NAME
Wesley Mendenhall
Sanford Lahue
J. D. Coursey
David Levin
Gerald B. Saunders
R. Bowman
C F. Scheffev
David Solomon
B. W. Stephens
TITLE
Director
Chief.
Construction and
Maintenance
Division
Chief.
Experimental
Construction and
Application Branch
Director
Chief,
Real Property
Acquisition Division
Chief,
Appraisal Branch
Director
Chief,
Environmental
Design and Control
Division
Chief.
Socio-Economic
and Environmental
Design Group
TELEPHONE
NUMBER
426-0340
426-0392
426-0420
426-0342
426-0142
4264)144
426-2943
426-0291
426-0257
OFFICE ROLE IN HIGHWAY
NOISE POLICY
Concerned with construction
noise.
Provides policy guidance and
operational instructions to the
FHWA field organization and
State Highway Agencies on
real property acquisition.
Performs research in various
sub-areas of highway noise.
-------
KEY FHWA HEADQUARTERS PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN NOISE (Continued)
ORGANIZATION
ELEMENT
Office of Develop-
ment
Office of Program
and Policy Planning
National Highway
Institute
Bureau of Motor
Carrier Safety
ADDRESS
400 Seventh Street
Washington, D.C
20590
400 Seventh Street
Washington, DC.
20590
400 Seventh Street
Washington, D.C
20590
400 Seventh Street
Washington, D.C
20590
PERSONNEL
NAME
Rex Leathers
Milton Criswell
E. A. Hodgkins
William R.
McCallum
Gene Tyndall
Floyd Thiel
Roy Tidwell
George Shrieves
Dr. R. Kaye
Gary Curtis
Donald Morrison
TITLE
Director
Chief.
Implementation
Division
Chief.
Engineering. Loca-
tion and Design
Group
Director
Chief.
Socio-Economics
Studies Division
Chief.
Socio-Economics
Studies Division
Director
State Programs
Officer
Director
Chief.
Vehicle Require-
ments Branch
TELEPHONE
NUMBER
426-0255
426-9230
426-9205
426-0587
426-0226
426-2923
426-4878
426-9141
426-1790
426-1724
426-1700
OFFICE ROLE IN HIGHWAY
NOISE POLICY
Provides informational and
educational materials on high-
way noise.
Performs environmental and
socio-economic studies con-
cerned with noise.
Is the training arm of FHWA
(conducts courses on highway
noise).
Responsible for developing
and enforcing regulations to
implement EPA's interstate
motor carrier noise standards.
71
CO
-------
FHWA DIRECTORS OF REGIONAL OFFICES OF ENVIRONMENT AND DESIGN
FHWA REGION1
1
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
ADDRESS
Leo W. O'Brien Federal Building, Room 709
Clinton Avenue and North Pearly Street
Albany. New York 12207
George H. Fallon Federal Office Building
31 Hopkins Plaza. Room 1633
Baltimore. Maryland 21201
Suite 200, 1720 Peachtree Road, N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
18209 Dixie Highway
Homewood, Illinois 60430
81 9 Taylor Street
Fort Worth. Texas 76102
6301 Rockhill Road (P.O. Box 19715)
Kansas City, Missouri 64131
Denver Federal Center, Building 40
P. O. Box 25246
Denver. Colorado 80225
2 Embarcadero Center
(P.O. Box 761 6) Suite 530
San Francisco. California 941 1 1
Mohawk Building, Room 412
222 S. W. Morrison Street
Portland. Oregon 97204
NAME OF DIRECTOR
W. A. Nostrand
Raymond W. Bergeron
Ivan C. Jenkins
William F. Emrich
Wayne D. Heel
Sterner M. Silence
F. S. Allison
Robert C. S. Young
Richard C. Cowdery
TELEPHONE
NUMBER
(518)472-6476
FTS 562-6476
(301)962-2361
FTS 922-2361
(404) 881-4078
FTS 257-4078
(312) 799-6300
(817) 334-3221
(816) 926-5053
FTS 926-5053
(303) 234-4051
FTS 234-4051
(415) 556-3951
(503) 221-2052
FTS 423-065
1. FHWA Region I conforms to Standard Regions I and II.
-------
FHWA DIVISION ADMINISTRATORS
AND STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY ADDRESSES
FHWA REGION I
FHWA Division Administration
Donald J. Altobelli
990 Wethersf ield Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06114
J. J. Barakos
Federal Building. U.S. Post Office
40 Western Avenue, Room 614
Augusta, Maine 04330
Norman J. Van Ness
101 Summer Street, Suite 1517
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
F. T. Comstock, Jr.
Federal Building, Room 219
55 Pleasant Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
John J. Kessler, Jr.
Suburban Square Building, 2nd Floor
25 Scotch Road
Trenton, New Jersey 08628
Victor E. Taylor
Leo W. O'Brien Federal Building. 9th Floor
Clinton Avenue and North Pearl Street
Albany, New Vork 12207
Frank Geiser, Jr.
Federal Highway Administration
Case Building, Room 805
1225 Ponce De Leon Avenue
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00907
Gordon C. Hoxie
Federal Building and U.S. Post Office
Exchange Terrace, Suite 250
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
David B. Kelley
Federal Building, P.O. Box 568
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
State Highway Agency
Department of Transportation
20 Wolcott Hill Road, P.O. Drawer A
Wethersfield. Connecticut 06109
Department of Transportation
State Office Building
Augusta, Maine 04330
Massachusetts Department of Public Works
100 Nashua Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
Department of Public Works and Highways
John 0. Morton Building
85 Loudon Road
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Department of Transportation
1035 Parkway Avenue
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Department of Transportation
State Campus
1220 Washington Avenue
Albany, New York 12232
Department of Transportation and
Public Works
Box 3909 C.P.O.
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936
Department of Transportation
State Office Building
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
Department of Highways
133 State Street
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
F-5
-------
FHWA DIVISION ADMINISTRATORS
AND STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY ADDRESSES (Continued)
FHWA REGION III
FHWA Division Administrators
Raul F. Chamberlain
Federal Office Building, Floor 2
300 South New Street. P.O. Box 517
Dover, Delaware 19901
Marshall Jacks
Pennsylvania Building, Room 1248
425 13th Street. N.W.
Washington, O.C. 20004
Richard Ackroyd
The Rotunda, Suite 220
711 West 40th Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21211
Donald E. Hammer
228 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 1086
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108
Harold C King
400 N. 8th Street, P.O. Box 10045
Richmond, Virginia 23240
Merrill W. Nelson
Courthouse and Federal Office Building
500 Quarrier Street
Charleston, West Virginia 25301
State Highway Agency
Department of Highways & Transportation
Highway Department, Administration Building
P.O. Box 778
Dover, Delaware 19901
Department of Transportation
Presidential Building, Room 508
415 12th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C 20004
Maryland Department of Transportation
Maryland State Highway Administration
300 West Preston Street, P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, Maryland 21201(21203)
Department of Transportation
1220 Transportation & Safety Building
Commonwealth & Forster Streets
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
Department of Highways and Transportation
1221 E. Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
West Virginia Department of Highways
1900 Washington Street, East
Charleston, West Virginia 25305
FHWA REGION IV
FHWA Division Administrators
Richard B. Gillette, III
441 High Street
Montgomery. Alabama 36104
P. E. Carpenter
Ackerman Building. P.O. Box 1079
223 W. College Avenue
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Stare Highway Agency
State of Alabama Highway Department
State Highway Building
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
Florida Department of Transportation
Haydon Burns Building
605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
F-6
-------
FHWA DIVISION ADMINISTRATORS
AND STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY ADDRESSES (Continued)
FHWA REGION IV (Continued)
FHWA Division Administrators
Herschel Bryant
1422 Peachtree Street. N.W., Suite 700
Atlanta. Georgia 30309
Robert E.Johnson
John C. Watts Federal Building and
U.S. Courthouse
3330 W. Broadway, P.O. Box 536
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Emery L. Shaw
666 North Street, Suite 105
Jackson, Mississippi 39202
Teddy J. Morawski
310 New Bern Avenue. P.O. Box 26806
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Edward G. Oakley
Federal Building, U.S. Courthouse
801 Broadway, Room A-926
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
Wilbur N. Dulin
2001 Assembly Street, Suite 203
Columbia. South Carolina 29201
Sore Highway Agency
Department of Transportation
No. 2 Capitol Square
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Department of Transportation
State Office Building
High and Clinton Streets
Frankfort. Kentucky 40601
State Highway Department
Woolfolk State Office Building
Northwest Street, P.O. Box 1850
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
Department of Transportation and
Highway Safety
1 South Wilmington Street, P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Tennessee Department of Transportation
Highway Building, Corner 6th Avenue
North and Deaderick Streets
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
State Highway Department
State Highway BUilding, Drawer 191
Columbia, South Caroline 29202
FHWA REGION V
FHWA Division Administrators
Jay W. Miller
3085 East Stevenson Drive, P.O. Box 3307
Springfield, Illinois 62708
George D. Gibson, Jr.
I.S.T.A. Center, Room 707
1 SOW. Market Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Stare Highway Agency
Illinois Department of Transportation
2300 South Dirksen Parkway
Springfield, Illinois 62764
State Highway Commission
State Office Building, Room 101
100 North Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
F-7
-------
FHWA DIVISION ADMINISTRATORS
AND STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY ADDRESSES (Continued)
FHWA REGION V (Continued)
FHWA Division Administrators
David A. Merchant
Federal Building, Room 211
315 West Allegan Street, P.O. Box 147
Lansing, Michigan 48901
E. Dean Carlson
Metro Square Building, Suite 490
Seventh and Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
John W.' McBee
Bryson Building, Room 333
700 Bryden Road
Columbus, Ohio 43215
John O. Hibbs
4502 Vernon Boulevard, P.O. Box 5428
Madison. Wisconsin 53705
Sore Highway Agency
Michigan Department of State Highways
and Transportation
425 West Ottowa, P.O. Drawer K
Lansing, Michigan 48904
Department of Highways
State Highway Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Ohio Department of Transportation
25 S. Front Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Department of Transportation
4802 Sheboygan Avenue
Madison, Wisconsin 53702
FHWA REGION VI
FHWA Division Administrators
Charles F. McMillen
Federal Office Building, Room 3128
700 West Capitol Avenue
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Morris C. Reinhardt
Federal Building, Room 239
750 Florida Street
Baton Rouge. Louisiana 70801
John McAllister
117 U.S. Court House
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
Gordon E. Penney
2409 North Broadgay Avenue
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73103
John H. Conrado
826 Federal Office Building
300 East 8th Street
Austin, Texas 78701
F-8
Stare Highway Agency
Arkansas State Highway Department
State Highway Department Building
9500 New Benten Highway, P.O. Box 2261
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
Department of Highways
Capitol Station, P.O. Box 44245
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804
New Mexico State Highway Department
State Highway Department Building
1120Cerrillos Road, P.O. Box 1149
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503 (87501)
Oklahoma Department of Highways
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City. Oklahoma 73105
State Department of Highways and
Public Transportation
Texas Highway Building, 11th and Brazos
11 th and Brozos Streets
Austin, Texas 78701
-------
FHWA DIVISION ADMINISTRATORS
AND STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY ADDRESSES (Continued)
FHWA REGION VI (Continued)
FHWA Division Administrator
John H. Conrado
826 Federal Office Building
300 East 8th Street
Austin. Texas 78701
State Highway Agency
State Department of Highways and
Public Transportation
Texas Highway Building
11th and Brazos Streets
Austin, Texas 78701
FHWA REGION VII
FHWA Division Administrator
LeonN. Larson
105 Sixth Street. P.O. Box 627
Ames, Iowa 50010
Robert W. Morrissey
1263Topeka Avenue
Topeka, Kansas 66610
Rudolf M. Lemke
209 Adams Street, P.O. Box 148
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Raymond H. Hogrefe
Federal Building, Room 487
100 Centennial Mall North
Lincoln, Nebraska 68508
State Highway Agency
Iowa Department of Transportation
Highway Division
826 Lincoln Way
Ames, Iowa 50010
Kansas Department of Transportation
State Office Building
Topeka. Kansas 66612
Missouri State Highway Commission
State Highway Building
119 W.Capitol Avenue
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Department of Roads
Central Office Building, Room 212
South Junction U.S. 77 and N-2
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 94759
Statehouse Station
Lincoln, Nebraska 66509
FHWA REGION VIII
FHWA Division Administrator
Thomas 0. Willett
3500 N. Central Avenue. Suite 201
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Omar L Homme
Federal Building, 2nd Floor
801 (Street. P.O. Box 1915
Sacramento. California 95809
State Highway Agency
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 South 17th Avenue
Phoenix. Arizona 85007
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
1120 N Street, P.O. Box 1499
Sacramento, California 95814
F-9
-------
FHWA DIVISION ADMINISTRATORS
AND STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY ADDRESSES (Continued)
FHWA REGION VIII (Continued)
FHWA Division Administrators
A. J. Siccardi
10488 W. 6th PI ace
Denver, Colorado 80222
Harold N. Stewart
SOI N. Fee Street
Helena, Montana 59601
George H. Seaworth
P.O. Box 1755
Bismark, North Dakota 58501
Arthur L. Johnson
P.O. Box 700
Federal Office Building
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
George W. Bohn
Federal Building
125 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84147
James N. McDonald
O'Mahoney Federal Center
P.O.Box 1127
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001
State Highway Agency
State Department of Highways
4201 East Arkansas Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80222
Department of Highways
East Sixth Avenue and Roberts Street
Helena, Montana 59601
North Dakota Highway Department
State Highway Building
Bismark, North Dakota 58501
Department of Transportation
Transportation Building
East Broadway
Pierre. South Dakota 57501
Utah Department of Transportation
603 State Office Building
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Wyoming Highway Department
State Highway Office Building
P.O.Box 1708
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001
FHWA REGION IX
FHWA Division Administrators
Thomas O. Willett
3500 N. Central Avenue, Suite 201
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Omar L. Homme
Federal Building, 2nd Floor
801 I Street, P.O. Box 1915
Sacramento, California 95809
Ralph T. Segawa
Pacific International Gold Bond Building
677 Ala Moana Boulevard. Suite 613
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Stare Highway Agency
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 South 17th Avenue
Phoenix. Arizona 85007
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
1120 N Street, P.O. Box 1499
Sacramento, California 95814
Department of Transportation
869 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
F-10
-------
FHWA DIVISION ADMINISTRATION
AND STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY ADDRESSES (Continued)
FHWA REGION IX (Continued)
FHWA Division Administrators
Albert E. Stone, Jr.
106 East Adams Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
State Highway Agency
Nevada Department of Highways
Administration Building. Room 201
1263 South Stewart Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
FHWA REGION X
FHWA Division Administrators
Gene A. Hanna
Federal Building, P.O. Box 1648
709 W. Ninth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Edwin M. Wood
301OW. State Street
Boise, Idaho 83703
Glen L. Green
Standard Insurance Building
477 Cottage Street, N.E., P.O. Box 300
Salem, Oregon 97301 (97308)
Raul C. Gregson
Evergreen Plaza Building
711 S. Capitol Way, P.O. Box 29
Olympia, Washington 98507
State Highway Agency
Department of Highways
Third Street
Douglas, Alaska
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1467
Juneau, Alaska 99802
State of Idaho Transportation Department
Division of Highways
3311 West State Street, P.O. Box 7129
Boise, Idaho 83707
Department of Transportation
Oregon State Highway Division
State Highway Building, Room 140
Salem, Oregon 97310
Washington State Highway Commission
Highway Administration Building
Franklin at Maple Park
Olympia, Washington 98504
F-ll
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read hiilnn iiuia an ilir rci < rii hi-jor? complclinf)
1 REPORT NO 2
EPA 550/9-77-357
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Federal Noise Program Report Series, Vol. Ill
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration: Noise Policy and Related
Environmental Procedures
7 AUTMOR(S)
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and- Control
Washington, D.C. 20460
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO
5 REPORT DATE
July 1978
6 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO
13 TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14 SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16 ABSTRACT
This document discusses the important features of FHWA's
noise'policy and related environmental procedures. It also
identifies associated problems with the policy without attempt-
ing to present an "evaluation." No examination of how the
policy actually works in the field was undertaken. The pur-
pose of the report is to serve as aid to persons concerned with_
noise abatement and control activities in the Federal Government
7. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
I DESCRIPTORS
Highway noise, land use planning,
vehicle noise control
. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
IB. SECURITY CLASS ( Tint Report/
20 SECURITY CLASS (Thil page)
c. COSATi 1 icId/Cioup
32 PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (»-71)
-------