PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Not applicable to Field Operations■ WSDOT may benefit from this researchItem #114:B-10Field Evaluation of Reflected Noise for SensitiveReceptors Across from a Noise Barrier(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 3 2 8 3 1RAC 2 6 7 14 11 5 4Standing Committee on Research■ The problem described is a relatively common issue brought up in areas where noise barriers have been constructed.There are many facets to the problem – as evidenced by the FHWA and NCHRP reviewers’ comments. While support ofthe problem statement is warranted, it will be extremely important to further refine the research approach/scope as earlyin the process as possible.■ Agree with the reviewer. Narrow scope to study reflected noise by motor bikes.■ Caltrans has several approved absorptive sound wall designs that are available for use.■ We're not convinced that the proposed research will result in any useable information especially if the perceivedincreases in noise is truly psychological. As the FHWA’s Traffic Noise Model can predict barrier reflection thisproblem could potentially be addressed as part of problem 2011-B-03.■ May add benefit to Quiet Pavement studies■ [Rating: 4] This research is important to help advance the Livability initiative by ensuring state highway agencies do notcreate new noise problems while trying to improve Livability for others. The research will help state highway agenciesgain a better understanding of when it is necessary to use absorptive materials on noise barriers and other reflectivestructures such as retaining walls.Research Advisory Committee■ This is a low need. We really already have the answers to what they are proposing, so I really don't see a strong need forthis research.■ Agree with FHWA analysis to revise to obtain information desired.■ When noise barriers are constructed on one side of the highway, complaints if increased traffic noise from the opposite(non walled) side of the highway are almost guaranteed. Despite some references to the data showing that noisereflections won't exceed a standard distance ratio, state highway agencies lack field data and frequency analysis for thesesituations. This study would have high benefit to state DOT's and it could be incorporated into the Traffic Noise Modelthat is required to be used by all states.■ This problem of an increase in reflected noise can be studied and addressed with the same investigative tools that wereused to justify the installation of the first noise barrier.Other■ [Rating: 1] The Committee feels that the problem statement is not clear. We are unsure of the objective and end result.The Committee thought that the submitter already knew the answer and was just looking for information to back up theirposition. The committee supports B-03 as a noise submission over this statement.IV-83