Date post: | 14-Jul-2015 |
Category: |
Engineering |
Upload: | california-asphalt-pavement-association |
View: | 163 times |
Download: | 8 times |
Quieter Pavements
Randell H. IwasakiExecutive Director
Asphalt Pavement Conference
CalAPA Executive Director Russell Snyder (right) meets with new Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins in 2014.
About the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
What does this really mean? Responsible for implementing your
vision for transportation in your community
Fund local improvements such as the Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore, Highway 4 improvements and programs such as 511 Contra Costa for transit information.
Create partnerships among regional agencies (Caltrans, MTC, the County) to deliver transportation projects and programs on-time and on-budget.
Manages funds generated by the half-cent transportation sales tax enacted in 1988 and renewed in 2004 by voters
• Carries out the voter-approved Measure J expenditure plan
• Serves as Contra Costa’s Congestion Management Agency & administers county’s Congestion Management Program
More info at: www.ccta.net
Keeping Contra Costa Moving byDelivering projects that ease
traffic congestion
Caldecott Tunnel
Route 4 East
E-BART
Real-time carpooling with Car.ma
I-680 Carpool Lane
completion
Express Lanes
Keeping Contra Costa MovingDelivering programs that provide alternative
transportation options
Transportation for Livable Communities
Pedestrian and Bicycle access improvements
Safe Routes to Schools
511 Contra Costa for transit information
Keeping Contra Costa MovingDelivering projects that create a smarter transportation system
Interstate 80
Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) project Adaptive ramp metering;
Incident management;
Information to motorists regarding transit and traffic travel time and conditions;
Improvements along San Pablo and other arterials; and
System Integration
Keeping Contra Costa MovingDelivering projects that create a smarter transportation system
Traffic Light Synchronization
Keeping Contra Costa MovingDelivering projects that support our local communities
18% of all funding is automatically
distributed to cities
for maintenance of local streets and
roads
Noise Issues Are Not New
8000 BC Worlds First Major Town-Jericho
5000 BC Wheel Invented
4000 BC Mesopotamia
800 BC Iron Tires Introduced
44 BC First Noise Regulation
1869 London Report
1870s Use of Wood Blocks
1888 Pneumatic Tire Invented
What Can Be Done to Mitigate Pavement Noise?
Distance
Obstructions
Noise Walls
Earth Berms
Trees/ Shrubs
Control at the Source with
Pavement Surface
WallsEffective only for those in line-of-sight.
Does not reduce
noise at source.
Controlled At the Source
Stone Paved Streets
1897 Survey of 122 Cities with Paved Streets and Pop. > 10,000
Paving Type Paved Length (km)
Asphalt 230
Granite Setts 1,920
Wood Block 1,220
Brick Block 1,160
Rock (Macadam?) 910
Total 5,440
Additional Surface Types
Hot Mix Sheet Asphalt
Doubling Traffic adds 3dBA
How Do We Quantify Noise
Ways of Measuring Sound
Wayside (Far Field)
Close Proximity (Near Field)
Noise Intensity (Near Field)
Caltrans
Noise Intensity
How Did We Get Here? The Technical Journey Begins!
The Technical Journey?
Development of Improved OGFC for Use in Snow Country (1970s-80s)
Improved OGFC Used to Resist Reflective Cracking (1980s-90s)
Improved OGFC Used as PCCP Overlay (1980s-2000s)
Benefit For Smoothness (1990s)
Benefit for Noise (1990s-2000s)
“Pavement / tire noise
has been studied for
well over 30 years and
several large
databases have been
compiled in the last
decade.
NCHRP SYNTHESIS 268
“In general, when dense-
graded asphalt and PCC
pavements are compared,
the dense-graded is quieter
by 2 to 3 dB(A)”
A 3dB(A) reduction corresponds to:
- doubling the distance
- reducing traffic volume by 50%
- reducing traffic speed by 25%
CONCLUSIONS
“Open-graded asphalt shows
the greatest potential for
noise reduction for pass-by
noise. Reduction when
compared to dense-graded
asphalt ranged from 1 to 9
dB(A).”
A 9dB(A) reduction corresponds to:
- a reduction in traffic noise by
almost 50%!
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Network Level Evaluation of ARFC Surfaces
AR_ACFC Noise Levels Versus Pavement Age
y = 0.5453x + 93.279
R2 = 0.5805
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Pavement Age
CP
X N
ois
e L
evels
dB
A
(2) Evaluation of PCCP Tining Methods
Longitudinal Uniform
TransverseRandom
Transverse
(3) Comparison of Different Mixes
Wearing Course
Surface Type
CPX Noise Level
(dBA)
SMA 95.9
AR-ACFC 95.0
PEM 96.0
Lessons Learned To Date
Comparison of Various Surface Types
Comparison of Measurement Systems
Environmental Effects
We Have Only Just Begun the JOURNEY!
Mix Design Procedures
Lessons Learned From Europe
Double-layer porous asphalt pavement on the A28 in the Netherlands
QUIET PAVEMENT SYSTEMSFHWA/AASHTO INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SCAN
Draft Executive Summary Report – 2 June 2004Scan Co-Chairs
David Gibbs, P.E., FHWA Utah Division
Randell (Randy) Iwasaki, P.E., California Department of Transportation
In Summary
Surface Type Does Matter-Noise Should be Controlled at the Source
Noise Should be Managed Just Like Friction, Roughness, Rutting, and Cracking
People Do Care How They Live - It’s a Quality of Life Issue!!!
CCTA CV/AV Testbed
Thank you!
CCTA.net
ContraCostaTransportationAuthority
@riwasaki2