NCHRP 25-25, TASK 106 HIGHWAY NOISE AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES:

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Historic Preservation and Affordable Housing National Historic Tax Credit Conference Chicago September 2008 Judith L. Kitchen, Ohio Historic Preservation.
Advertisements

The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office & 106 Reviews
NCHRP 20-93: Development of a Guide for Transportation Technology Transfer Presented By: Mark M. Hood P.E. Pennoni Associates Inc. Summer AASHTO Research.
National Environmental Policy Act of Establishes protection of the environment as a national priority Mandates that environmental impacts be considered.
Program Alternatives under 36 CFR Part 800 Dave Berwick Army Affairs Coordinator Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
1 C E T A S Range of Alternatives Presentation Date Project Name Project location (city, county) ODOT Key Number:
Section 106, Section 4(f) and You!: The Role of Consulting Parties in Transportation Projects Kevin Mock, Historic Preservation Specialist Pennsylvania.
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT of 1966 as amended Garry J. Cantley Regional Archeologist Bureau of Indian Affairs.
National Cooperative Highway Research Report 723 A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing.
NHPA, Section 106, and NEPA Highlights and Misconceptions.
Environmental Justice: Policies, Guidance, and Answers to Frequently Asked Questions FTA Region VII Civil Rights Training.
Connecticut Department of Transportation Bureau of Policy & Planning.
Sacred Sites. Documentation Documentation: Forest Supervisor or Ranger District Offices may document Sacred site (s) information in a variety of ways.
THE FOUR STEP SECTION 106 PROCESS: AN INTRODUCTION TENNESSEE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE SECTION All reproduction rights reserved.
Is NEPA Preventing Energy Development? Bryan Hannegan, Ph.D. Associate Director – Energy and Transportation White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Coordination of Section 106 and Long Range Planning July 2014 NCHRP 25-25/Task 87.
1 NCHRP Update of the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operations of Pedestrian Facilities Final Report.
L O N G B E A C H, C A. Dean McMath Regional Environmental Programs Manager FAA – Southwest Region NEPA Essentials Selected Special.
GEORGIA CRISIS RESPONSE SYSTEM- DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES Charles Ringling DBHDD Region 5 Coordinator/ RC Team Leader.
New I-65 Interchange at Worthsville Road April 11, 2013 Welcome!
Section 106: Historic Preservation Review and Compliance as it relates to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 “How Can State Agencies Assist.
By Rachel Coleman.  “ The head of any federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed federal or federally assisted undertaking.
The Extent of BLM Responsibility over Actions Occurring on Non-Federal Lands: Cultural Resources.
Environmental Justice: Context Sensitive Planning Grant Program California Department of Transportation Division of Transportation Planning Office of Community.
Section 4(f)/6(f) Categorical Exclusion Training Class.
1 Historic Preservation Webinar "Reporting Through PAGE and to PMC"
Categorical Exclusion Training Class
Historic Preservation Memoranda of Agreement. What is an MOA? As part of the Section 106 review process, it is an agreement among an agency official,
NOISE/AIR QUALITY UPDATE EUM MEETING NOVEMBER
Instrument for Participant Communication Chapter 12.
Context Sensitive Solutions Focus Group Session Lynn Purnell Parsons Brinckerhoff Prosperity Church Road Corridor December 8, 2005.
Cultural Resources office — St. Louis Planning & Urban Design Agency an introduction.
Technical Report Writing Dr. Shelley Thomas. Overview Selecting effective report topics Using worksheets to plan projects Developing and proposing project.
Section 4(f) Categorical Exclusion Training Class.
The National Register. The National Register of Historic Places The National Register of Historic Places is authorized by Section 101 (a)(1)(A)of the.
NCHRP Synthesis Topic Extent of HCM Use in Planning Aaron Elias Richard Dowling January 22, 2012 Planning and Preliminary Engineering Subcommittee.
CONTEXT-SENSITIVE DESIGN 2002 Texas Department of Transportation Design Conference.
Related to the framework of the State and Federal Accountability Measures Customer Statisfaction with the ACSI.
National Treasures: Brownfields and the National Historic Preservation Act Brownfields 2006 Boston, MA.
Part Three SOURCES AND COLLECTION OF DATA
Information Meeting: Tenants First Resident Advisory Panel
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
101 New London Road Newark, Delaware
Waste Planning Case Studies Exeter Energy from Waste Facility
ODOT Flexible Funds Program Overview
2017.
Equitable Services Under ESSA
Section 106 Consulting Parties Meeting
USAID/Peru Risk Assessment In-Briefing
Support for the AASHTO Committee on Planning (COP) and its Subcommittees in Responding to the AASHTO Strategic Plan Prepared for NCHRP 8-36, TASK 138.
USFS Acquisition Mechanisms and Potential for Increased Local Contracting A Collaborative effort between USFS Region 5 and the Sierra institute for community.
PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING, January 25, 2018 Contract No.:
EU instruments of funding and technical assistance
Environmental Prequalification Requirements
Does My Project Require HRPP/IRB Review?
Guidelines for Establishing State Motorcycle Safety Coalitions
2016.
Cultural Resources Categorical Exclusion Training Class – Presented by the Office of Environmental Services.
Section 4(f) Categorical Exclusion Training Class – Presented by the Office of Environmental Services.
National Historic Preservation Act
Roles and Responsibilities
National Cooperative Highway Research Program 25-25, Task 110
© Paul Graham Washington Department of Transportation © Paul Graham
Roles and Responsibilities
Protecting What We Love Building What We Need – The “H” Factor
2015.
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Five Good Reasons to Conduct Long Term Noise Measurements for Traffic Noise Studies Paul Burgé, INCE BD.CERT, URS Corporation.
Indiana Mitigation Matching Web Applications
Presentation transcript:

NCHRP 25-25, TASK 106 HIGHWAY NOISE AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES: A NATIONAL REVIEW OF EFFECTS AND MITIGATION PRACTICES © Google 2018, 2019

NCHRP 25-25, Task 106 The project was guided by a technical working group that included: Antony Opperman – Virginia Department of Transportation (chair) Lisa Schoch – Colorado Department of Transportation Erica Schneider – Ohio Department of Transportation Ray Umsheid – Texas Department of Transportation Sarah Stokely – Advisory Council on Historic Preservation David Clarke – Federal Highway Administration (Liaison) The project was managed by Ann Hartell, NCHRP Senior Program Officer.

NCHRP 25-25, Task 106 Project Understanding and Objectives Section 106 consultation concerning noise effects on historic properties is less common. Assist DOTs in establishing standard practices regarding the long-term effects of highway noise on historic properties. Present effective mitigation practices for such noise impacts. © Google 2018, 2019

NCHRP 25-25, Task 106 Research Methods Annotated Bibliography Little specific information relative to the issue of highway noise. The concept of sound as a contributing element of a historic site is not well studied. Most research is directed to vibration or aircraft noise, not highway noise. Stakeholder Survey Four-question screening survey that solicited experience with highway noise and historic structures issues. Sent to several hundred email addresses. 96 responses. © Google 2018, 2019

NCHRP 25-25 Task 106 Survey Results A total of 96 survey responses were received: 42 responses from state DOTs, representing 28 DOTs. 10 responses from SHPOs. 1 response from another state agency. 9 responses from 5 Federal agencies. 33 responses from the consultant community. 1 response from a non-profit organization. The responses from state agencies (DOTs, SHPOs, and the one state agency) represented a total of 31 states. Three SHPOs responded from states where no DOT responded. There were a combined total of 62 state and federal agency responses. © Paul Graham

NCHRP 25-25 Task 106 Survey Results Of the 96 responses: 61 respondents had experience with highway traffic noise analysis or traffic noise mitigation at historic sites or in historic districts. 48 percent reported a set policy for determining adverse auditory effects from traffic noise. 18 percent of the DOTs reported having a policy that specifically addresses adverse auditory effects to historic properties. © Paul Graham

NCHRP 25-25, Task 106 Interviews Screening survey was used to identify those with the most highway noise and historic structure experience, including state officials and consultants. Experts identified for further in-depth interviews through answers to preliminary survey. Those that answered positively to all four survey questions were contacted with a telephone interview request. ms consultants inc.

NCHRP 25-25, Task 106 Synthesis and Technical Report Interviewing Agencies and Organizations 15 experts identified. 11 interviewed by phone: 3 of whom also submitted written responses to questions. 25 detailed questions asked during interviews. Case Studies solicited Selected based on recommendations by panel, other experts. 7 case studies in 7 states. In only one case was noise a determining factor. . © Google 2018, 2019

NCHRP 25-25 Task 106 Findings   There is a general lack of experience with addressing highway noise impacts to historic properties, but state DOT and SHPO personnel are very interested in having information on how the topic has been successfully resolved elsewhere. Less than 20 percent of agencies, organizations, or companies surveyed have a set policy that specifically addresses adverse auditory effects to historic properties or appropriate mitigation at historic sites or within historic districts. The auditory environment (soundscape) is not regularly considered in the NRHP determination process. Addressing highway noise effects to historic properties is almost always a collaborative effort between the traffic noise and historic resource specialists within state DOTs. FHWA 23 CFR 772, Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) is frequently used as a first step to determine adverse auditory effects at historic sites or within historic districts.

NCHRP 25-25 Task 106 Findings, cont. Findings continued No Adverse Effect findings occur frequently because traffic noise does not generally alter the characteristics of a resource that make it eligible for the NRHP. Non-auditory solutions, such as landscaping, have been successfully used to resolve auditory adverse effects at historic sites or within historic districts.   Context sensitive aesthetic treatments of noise walls, such as brick facings, have been successfully used to avoid a potentially adverse visual effect at historic sites or within historic districts. With the exception of one case study, noise was never the issue that prevented a project from moving forward in any of the case studied. ms consultants inc.

Study Project Team: Paul Graham, Louis Berger U.S., Inc. Dr. Steven Bedford, Louis Berger U.S., Inc. Karel Cubick, ms consultants, inc. Camilla Deiber, Louis Berger U.S., Inc.

For More Information: http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4102