On Wednesday night, about 40 members of the community showed up at the John Stanford School to meet with State Senator Jamie Pedersen, State Speaker Frank Chopp, and representatives of WSDOT about the possibility of erecting a wall alongside I-5 to mitigate highway noise in Wallingford, similar to the one in place north of 52nd along 5th Ave NE.
This past summer, WSDOT ran a study to evaluate the feasibility and reasonability of the project. “Feasible”, in this case, means specifically that the “noise wall has to reduce noise levels by at least 5 dBA for at least 51% of the first row homes and it must be constructible.” “Reasonable” means that the wall must be “cost effective and desired by the community”. “Cost effective” means something arcane and far more difficult to understand than you would think.
As part of the study, sound sensors were placed in a number of yards on the two streets closest to I-5 (see the red dots in the image at right). Readings from these sensors were then combined with simultaneously collected traffic data from I-5 to build a model of how traffic generates noise. This model, once validated, was then used to extrapolate what traffic would be like in the 2020’s, to determine whether there was a legitimate (legal) problem.
The conclusion: yes, indeed, most houses along that strip will experience noise levels in excess of the 66 dBA FHA threshold for acceptability. Further, constructing the wall running along I-5 down 5th Ave NE from 45th Street to just south of 42nd Street would reduce noise levels for houses within that narrow strip by 5 – 10 dB. So, it’s “feasible”. The wall would terminate on the south end where the grade drops off and the bridge deck rises, at which point more wall becomes unfeasible.
Construction of the wall (which would come in three segments, see red and green shaded area in the second map) would ring in at about $11,000,000 (and likely wouldn’t happen until 2020 or so.) This isn’t in any budget, but Pedersen and Chopp were there to ask the residents whether they should go to bat to find a way to get it funded as part of upcoming transportation bills.
It’s worth noting, before those of you further away get your hopes up, that sound walls have a very short range impact: we were told that only houses within 200 – 300 ft of the wall itself would see…errrr…hear much of a difference. That amounts to about 23 houses in WSDOT’s model. In other words, that would be about $500,000 spend per house to reduce their noise.
Seems pricey to me. Pedersen’s response, when I asked about this, was that a) our tax dollars are being spent on other people’s noise walls elsewhere and b) we’re carrying the burden of the I-5, something that everyone else benefits from.
Still seems like a lot of money for a little benefit.
That said, there’s a genuine problem for folks close to the highway (and not so close to the highway, while we’re talking about it), and it would be lovely if that could be addressed.
In the past, WSDOT has experimented with other solutions: sound baffles hung from the ceiling of the express lanes on the bridge, for one. This was promising, because the bridge is the “dominant noise source in the neighborhood,” because of how the noise is reflected off the roof. Dampening it should help. But, that was attempted a few years back and didn’t have a significant impact.
Another strategy that’s been tried is “quiet pavement”. Most of the noise we hear isn’t from car engines, it’s from the tire – pavement interface (so no, the rise of electric and hybrids won’t help). A special pavement, full of voids to absorb sound, was tested in various spots around the region (520 in Bellevue, I-5 Lynnwood, 405). I’ve driven on it: it really is remarkably quiet. But, unfortunately, it doesn’t last: with our weather conditions, it needs to be resurfaced after only three years or so, as opposed to typical pavement that lasts 15 years.
Some have called for restricting the hours that the express lane is open (presently, it stays open until 11 pm at night). This got pushback from the city, which notes that, especially when there are Mariners games and the like, the lanes are necessary in the evenings to keep traffic flowing quickly across the bridge.
Finally, one gentleman with a couple buildings in the affected areas, says he’s had remarkable success by installing triple-paned windows. Not only are they energy efficient, but they have a huge impact on inside noise (“nirvana” was how he described it). Perhaps money could be offered to impacted residents to subsidize the installation of triple-paned windows. Not only would it cost less then $500,000 per house, the reduction in dB would larger and mitigation could be offered to houses further than the 200 – 300 ft that the sound wall would impact.
Of course, as my neighbor Lesli noted, nobody wants to be locked inside their house, sealed off from our wonderful yards and gardens, just to escape the roaring din. And, it’s not clear that transportation dollars could be legally allocated in that way. There was some back-and-forth between the officials at the meeting on this, but consensus seemed to be that Federal dollars couldn’t be used in this way, at least.
So, what’s going to happen? Pedersen and Chopp want to gather feedback from the neighborhood (and specifically from the people that would be impacted) to find out whether the wall (or the subsidy alternative) is something that people would be interested in and that they would like their representatives (Pedersen and Chopp) to pursue funding for it. They recruited three folks from the neighborhood to work with them on building a survey to be sent out, and that should happen in the next month or so.
To be continued.
As a side note, I chatted with Mike Ruby a bit about the health impact of living near the highway. As someone who is raising a child just a block and a half away, I’ve always been worried about studies showing negative health impacts of living near major roadways. According to Mike, though, the Pacific Northwest has less of a reason to be concerned about this than other areas: the major source of harm is from particulates kicked up by tires, rather than spat out by engines, and our frequent rain keeps those particles down and washes them away. Dry areas of the country like California have more reason for concern, in this view.
Tear down the houses. Build a park.
I’m not going to a damn park right next to the freeway. Too damn noisy. Now, if someone were to build said park enclosed in triple pane windows, then I think you may have something.
I attended this meeting, and honestly, I’m torn on this issue.
On the one hand, living right on 5th by the freeway, it is LOUD. It’s a challenge to have a conversation on my front porch. But, having lived in that same location for 10 years now, I’ve gotten pretty used to it. The sound just blends into the background like the sound of the ocean. As loud as it is in front of my house, I’ve got what I consider a pretty great view. I can look out my windows in the morning and see the sunrise over the cascades, or step down onto the sidewalk and watch the sun set on Mt Rainier and Portage Bay. With this proposed noise wall, I’d probably be waking up to a big dark shadow of an 18 foot tall, graffiti covered concrete wall and I’d have to get up on my roof to watch the mountain in the evening.
The other consideration is what kind of an impact the wall would have on crime. In the past 10 years, I’ve had my car prowled at least a dozen times, and stolen 4 times now. I firmly believe that the only reason it hasn’t happened even more often is because the thief probably didn’t feel comfortable with all the on-ramp traffic watching. Thankfully, I no longer own an old honda, which are famous for being easy to steal, but I’m not the only person on the street.
Personally, I’d be more interested in retrofitting thicker windows on my house before building a two story wall that blocks views and light.
Just my 2 cents.
Interesting points. Can we find graffiti and crime stats for the homes north of 52nd on 5th that have a sound wall?
That may be a bit of an apple and oranges comparison. 5th north of 50th isn’t quite as much of a corridor for cars or pedestrians. Would be interesting to see those numbers nonetheless.
Let’s cap the whole thing with a tree-filled park a la Mercer Island – that would benefit a whole lot more people!
Alternatively, planting a row of tall trees (we have a few natives that grow tall, you know) would mitigate the sound for a greater number of people. Plus, more oxygen for breathing. It’s a win-win.
A cap was mentioned, but it seems that would be more than an order of magnitude more expensive, and practically impossible to get funding for.
FYI. Reddit is discussing this issue.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/3xcyij/wallingford_residents_move_next_to_freeway_dont/
The noise likely has serious health impacts, easily as much as particulates and exhaust.
It’s a hard problem to solve, too. It has to be a wall – noise will go right through anything that isn’t solid, and even then you have to be right in the wall canyon to benefit.
How can a wall like that be anything but ugly? Not a rhetorical question – I’m sure it can be done, just don’t know how, right off hand. Maybe some kind of vegetation, but not an English ivy rat park. Judging from the landscaping treatment along 5th north of 50th, it would have to be very low maintenance.
Let’s be honest; the best solution was proposed in the article. Simply install some triple-pane windows, rather than install a wall at a cost of $500k which benefits very few. When my landlord installed those, the noise dropped at least 50%. Additionally, we live in a city. We should not expect be and quiet when we’re outside – that’s one of the many reasons to go hike in the mountains.
Missing a word after $500k – should be $500k per house
Wallyhood’s description of last night’s meeting at Latona School is pretty accurate – at least as regards issues of noise and its potential mitigation by installation of a sound wall from N.E. 45th down to not quite parallel with the south end of Latona School’s playground (what would be about N.E. 41st, if it existed).
However, there are a couple things which the account said about previous efforts to address noise from reversible lane under the Ship Canal Bridge, which I am not sure I heard the same way. I could be wrong, but I thought I heard WSDOT say that the reason that they nixed installation of sound deadening acoustic tiles on the ceiling of the reversible lane had more to do with the structure’s inability to carry the added weight, than with the relative inefficiency of this approach (maybe they also spoke to the cost being high…).
Similarly, I thought that WSDOT said that the vertical baffles they had tested at the south-east end of the reversible lane (next to the new apartment complex which had been built in that area), were a poor solution because of a combination of reasons: That the aging bridge was judged structurally incapable of bearing the added weight of metal-core baffles; That that the weight of the baffled would dictate that they baffles would have to be shortened such that they would not block all of the portion of the roadway from which noise was generated; and (sour grapes?), That the baffles they tested didn’t provide much sound dampening anyway.
As with “macmaster,” I, too, went away from the meeting with ambivalent feelings. What benefit to the neighborhood as a whole would be derived from spending 11 millions in hard-to-come-by tax dollars to build a view-blocking, graffiti attracting wall? A wall, which we were informed, would only afford appreciable noise reduction for those “first tier” residences along that section of 5th Ave. N.E. from N.E. 45th to just about even with Latona’s playground?
My perspective is that of a Wallingforder who lives south of the wall’s proposed cut-off point. My residence sits two blocks west of I-5, on the northwest corner of 4th N.E. and N.E. 40th. Perhaps because it was outside the area within which they considered building a wall feasible – or perhaps because they do not want to have to deal with the results obtained – WSDOT didn’t bother monitoring the houses farther south than M-16, or any of those, like mine, which are arrayed along 40th N.E., westward from 5th Ave. N.E. to, say, Latona Avenue.
Due to a steep bluff between “Upper” and “Lower” 40th, there are no houses south of the north side N.E 40th. What that means is that, from a quadrant running east to south, we are treated to an unimpeded onslaught of noise from the reversible lane of the freeway bridge.
My wife has an APP on her iPhone which measures decibels. Recognizing that that this is not an “official” data source, I can report that, following last night’s meeting, I measured the decibel level in two places at my residence. Facing out my front door to the east, directly toward the freeway bridge, I read 73 db. Off our south-facing deck, the reading was 72 db. My wife, who walks along N.E. 40th to / from the bus in the morning and evening, tells me that decibel readings she gets become progressively higher the farther east she is – to the point that they read 90 db just before she passes under the freeway bridge.
The project proposed would provide no noise reduction in our part of Wallingford. That, taken in connection with WSDOT’s apparent attitude that the folks in our salient just have to live with the noise generated by the reversible, because they can think of nothing to do to mitigate its effect, and I would be hard-pressed to supporting the wall project.
Regarding whether the baffles were rejected as being ineffective vs infeasible due to weight: I thought the issue of weight only came up in response to Frank Chopp’s question about building a “curtain”. I understood the response to be: the baffles are heavy enough, to build a curtain of that material would be way too heavy.
But yeah, not sure.
That was my understanding as well, that they rejected the baffles for not being as effective as they had hoped, but a curtain would be impractical due to weight, and difficulty securing it from winds.
I would be happy if they could just stop my house from bouncing when a heavy truck gets on the freeway from the on ramp. The noise has gotten much louder over the 20 years i have been living here. I know because my ears bleed if I am in my front yard for more than about 20 minutes now.
I used to consistently get woken up at about 2:30-3am by a big double trailer safeway truck going down the on-ramp. There was a 1 inch or so lip in the pavement right where the asphalt meets the concrete. They seemed to fix it some years ago because I don’t get woken up anymore. But maybe I just got used to it…
They are continually fixing the pot hole that develops in the same spot. It slowly gets bad every year and then they patch it. My entire house shakes when its bad.