Will a noise barrier work?
Hello All,
I think the negative commentary against this proposed noise barrier may be a tad premature. Pearson does not have any barriers at sites most commonly used for engine runs so I do not have any direct experience with the structure. However, I have conducted some research to find airports that DO use these structures. More importantly, I looked to find out if they actually WORK.
Here is a "Cut & Paste" directly from the Oakland International Airport Master Plan Update-2006. http://www.flyoakland.com/pdf/neptune_noise_barrier_study_2005.pdf
Noise barriers are very good at mitigating high frequency noise and very poor at mitigating low
frequency noise. The amount of noise reduction that a barrier will achieve is dependent on the height
of the barrier and frequency of the noise. A noise barrier will not effectively reduce the low frequency
rumble associated with some of the louder, older technology jets that operate at Oakland, such as the
Boeing 727. (These planes do not use the TCCA - Joe)
A noise barrier has no effect unless the barrier is high enough to block line of sight between the source and the receiver. For a typical noise source such a diesel truck or an aircraft without major low frequency rumble, a noise barrier that is just high enough to break line of sight will result in a 5 dBA noise reduction, provided that the barrier is long enough to prevent flanking around the ends (i.e., sound leaks around the ends). The higher the barrier, the greater the noise reduction (there is a practical limit of about 20 dBA noise reduction for very tall barriers).
Therefore, it appears that it would be fair to expect a reduction of close to 10db and possibly a MAX of 20db from the engine runs. Keeping in mind that a 10db reduction is perceived as a 50% reduction in noise - I would say let's see if it works - then we can make a useful comment about if it was money well spent. I think we can all agree that engine maintenance is the worst noise offender at the TCCA so I at least, am encouraged by this particular TPA effort.
We can't have it both ways where, for years, the TPA does nothing about noise from power runs - then when they make a concrete proposal - most CAIR supporters OPPOSE the idea for various reasons that are far less significant than the impact of engine noise on quality of life.
If the TPA had asked the City about erecting this barrier, I suspect that given all of the legitimate complaints many councilors receive about engine runs, they would have wholeheartedly supported the idea.
Legitimate complaining about noise followed by short sighted complaining about efforts to reduce noise just doesn't make much sense. In my opinion, it becomes a "If the TPA proposed it then I'm automatically against it" proposition.
The TPA has many well documented faults but this noise barrier idea isn't one of them.
Joe
I think the negative commentary against this proposed noise barrier may be a tad premature. Pearson does not have any barriers at sites most commonly used for engine runs so I do not have any direct experience with the structure. However, I have conducted some research to find airports that DO use these structures. More importantly, I looked to find out if they actually WORK.
Here is a "Cut & Paste" directly from the Oakland International Airport Master Plan Update-2006. http://www.flyoakland.com/pdf/neptune_noise_barrier_study_2005.pdf
Noise barriers are very good at mitigating high frequency noise and very poor at mitigating low
frequency noise. The amount of noise reduction that a barrier will achieve is dependent on the height
of the barrier and frequency of the noise. A noise barrier will not effectively reduce the low frequency
rumble associated with some of the louder, older technology jets that operate at Oakland, such as the
Boeing 727. (These planes do not use the TCCA - Joe)
A noise barrier has no effect unless the barrier is high enough to block line of sight between the source and the receiver. For a typical noise source such a diesel truck or an aircraft without major low frequency rumble, a noise barrier that is just high enough to break line of sight will result in a 5 dBA noise reduction, provided that the barrier is long enough to prevent flanking around the ends (i.e., sound leaks around the ends). The higher the barrier, the greater the noise reduction (there is a practical limit of about 20 dBA noise reduction for very tall barriers).
Therefore, it appears that it would be fair to expect a reduction of close to 10db and possibly a MAX of 20db from the engine runs. Keeping in mind that a 10db reduction is perceived as a 50% reduction in noise - I would say let's see if it works - then we can make a useful comment about if it was money well spent. I think we can all agree that engine maintenance is the worst noise offender at the TCCA so I at least, am encouraged by this particular TPA effort.
We can't have it both ways where, for years, the TPA does nothing about noise from power runs - then when they make a concrete proposal - most CAIR supporters OPPOSE the idea for various reasons that are far less significant than the impact of engine noise on quality of life.
If the TPA had asked the City about erecting this barrier, I suspect that given all of the legitimate complaints many councilors receive about engine runs, they would have wholeheartedly supported the idea.
Legitimate complaining about noise followed by short sighted complaining about efforts to reduce noise just doesn't make much sense. In my opinion, it becomes a "If the TPA proposed it then I'm automatically against it" proposition.
The TPA has many well documented faults but this noise barrier idea isn't one of them.
Joe
Comments