3.

11 Noise and Vibration

Summary
Noise and vibration analysis was conducted for the study corridor using standard Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) methodology. Analysis was conducted for both diesel-multiple unit (DMU)
and electric multiple unit (EMU) passenger rail technology.
Under Alternative A, there is the potential for noise impacts at four homes in the project study area
during initial year operations and at 11 homes for year 2030 operations. No noise impacts are
projected for initial year operations under Alternative B, and four homes in the project study area may
experience noise impacts for year 2030 operations. None of these impacts are in the severe category
and, in all cases, the impacts are due to train horns and are the same for DMU or EMU technology.
The two levels of noise impact included in FTA criteria are: Impact (or Moderate Impact) and Severe
Impact. Severe impacts are considered significant as this term is used in NEPA and its
implementing regulations.
Noise mitigation options include grade separation, the establishment of a train horn Quiet Zone at
the Ken Pratt Boulevard crossing, and the construction of a 1,400-feet-long, 12- to 15-feet-high sound
wall along the west side of the corridor to shield the affected homes at the St. Vrain Mobile Home
Park in Longmont. In addition to impacts from train operations, there is the potential for noise
impacts at the Front Range Community College in Longmont due to layover/storage facility
activities. A detailed analysis of these impacts would be conducted at a later phase if this site is
ultimately selected.
No vibration impacts are projected for either alternative in the initial year with EMU technology. The
greatest numbers of vibration impacts are projected for DMU operation in year 2030, with impacts at
six residences and one school under Alternative A and at three residences and one school under
Alternative B. The residential areas affected include the St. Vrain Mobile Home Park and the north
end of Murray Street in Niwot, depending on the alternative. For the remaining cases, vibration
impact is limited to one school (the Family Learning Center in Boulder).
Vibration mitigation options consist of various types of track vibration isolation treatment, including
ballast mats, tire-derived aggregate (shredded tires), and under-tie pads. Given the effectiveness of
these treatments, it is likely that all potential impacts can be fully mitigated, with the exception of the
school for DMU operation in year 2030.

Affected Environment
Noise Fundamentals
Noise is typically defined as unwanted or undesirable sound, where sound is characterized by small
air pressure fluctuations above and below atmospheric pressure. The basic parameters of
environmental noise that affects human subjective response are (1) intensity or level, (2) frequency
content, and (3) variation with time. Sound intensity or level is determined by how greatly the sound
pressure fluctuates above and below the atmospheric pressure and is expressed on a compressed scale
in units of decibels (dB). Using this scale, the range of normally encountered sound can be expressed
by values between 0 and 120 dB. On a relative basis, a 3-dB change in sound level generally
represents a barely noticeable change outside the laboratory, whereas a 10-dB change in sound level
would typically be perceived as a doubling (or halving) in the loudness of a sound.
The frequency content of noise is related to the tone or pitch of the sound and is expressed based on
the rate of the air pressure fluctuation in terms of cycles per second (called Hertz [Hz]). The human

Longmont Diagonal Rail Project

3.11-1

ear can detect a wide range of frequencies from about 20 Hz to 17,000 Hz. However, because the
sensitivity of human hearing varies with frequency, the A-weighting system is commonly used when
measuring environmental noise to provide a single number descriptor that correlates with human
subjective response. Sound levels measured using this weighting system are called A-weighted sound
levels and are expressed in dB notation as dBA. The A-weighted sound level is widely accepted by
acousticians as a proper unit for describing environmental noise. To indicate what various noise levels
represent, Figure 3.11-1 shows typical A-weighted sound levels for transit, highway, and other noise
sources. As indicated in the figure, most commonly encountered outdoor noise sources generate noise
levels within the range of 60 dBA to 90 dBA at 50 feet.
FIGURE 3.11-1

Typical A Weighted Sound Levels

Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2006

Because environmental noise fluctuates from moment to moment, it is common practice to condense
all of this information into a single number, called the equivalent sound level (Leq). The Leq can be
thought of as the steady sound level that represents the same sound energy as the varying sound levels
over a specified time period, typically 1 hour or 24 hours. Often the Leq values over a 24-hour period
are used to calculate cumulative noise exposure in terms of the day-night sound level (Ldn). The Ldn
is the A-weighted Leq for a 24-hour period with an added 10-dB penalty imposed on noise that occurs
during the nighttime hours (between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM). Many surveys have shown that Ldn is
well correlated with human annoyance; therefore, this descriptor is widely used for environmental
noise impact assessment of transit systems and airports.
Figure 3.11-2 provides examples of typical noise environments and criteria in terms of Ldn. While the
extremes of Ldn are shown to range from 35 dBA in a wilderness environment to 85 dBA in noisy
urban environments, Ldn is generally found to range between 55 dBA and 75 dBA in most
communities. As shown in Figure 3.11-2, this spans the range between an ideal residential
environment and the threshold for an unacceptable residential environment according to criteria
established by several federal agencies.

3.11-2

Longmont Diagonal Rail Project

FIGURE 3.11-2

Examples of Typical Outdoor Noise Exposure

Source: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., 2006

Noise Criteria
For this analysis, train noise impact is based on the criteria defined in the FTA guidance manual
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, 1995). The FTA noise impact criteria are
founded on well-documented research on community reaction to noise and are based on change in
noise exposure using a sliding scale. Although higher levels of train noise are allowed in
neighborhoods with higher existing noise levels, smaller increases in total noise exposure are allowed
in areas where the existing noise exposure is greater.
The FTA noise impact criteria groups noise-sensitive land uses into the following three categories:

Category 1 Buildings or parks where quiet is an essential element of their purpose

Category 2 Residences and buildings where people normally sleep, including hospitals and
hotels where nighttime sensitivity is assumed to be of utmost importance
Category 3 Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use, such as schools,
libraries, churches, and active parks

Noise exposure for residential areas (Category 2) is characterized by Ldn. For other noise-sensitive
land uses, such as outdoor amphitheaters and school buildings (Categories 1 and 3), noise exposure is
characterized by the maximum 1-hour Leq during the facilitys operating period.
Two levels of noise impact are included in the FTA criteria: Impact (or Moderate Impact) and Severe
Impact. Severe impacts are considered significant as this term is used in NEPA and its
implementing regulations. Noise mitigation is normally specified for severe impact areas unless there
is no practical mitigation method.
Regarding moderate impact, other project-specific factors must be considered to determine the
magnitude of the impact and the need for mitigation. These other factors can include the predicted
increase over existing noise levels, the types and number of noise-sensitive land uses affected,
existing outdoor-indoor sound insulation, and the cost-effectiveness of mitigating noise to more
acceptable levels.

Longmont Diagonal Rail Project

3.11-3

The FTA noise impact criteria are shown in Figure 3.11-3. The graphs x-axis shows the existing
noise exposure, and the y-axis shows the additional noise exposure from the transit project that would
cause either moderate or severe impact. The future noise exposure would be the combination of the
existing noise exposure and the additional noise exposure caused by the transit project.
FIGURE 3.11-3

FTA Noise Impact Criteria

Source: FTA, 2006

Figure 3.11-4 shows the noise impact criteria for Category 1 and 2 land uses in terms of the allowable
increase in the cumulative noise exposure.
FIGURE 3.11-4

Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed by FTA Criteria

Source: FTA, 2006

3.11-4

Longmont Diagonal Rail Project

Existing Noise Conditions

Both Alternatives A and B would extend approximately 13 miles from downtown Boulder to
Longmont. The south end of the corridor begins at 30th/Pearl Street in Boulder as an extension of the
planned US 36 commuter rail line (US 36 Corridor DEIS). It then follows the existing BNSF
alignment to the northeast, paralleling SH 119 through Boulder, Niwot, and southern Longmont. In
Longmont, where SH 119 turns east, the corridor continues northeast until it passes under the South
Pratt Parkway. Here, it follows 1st Avenue and reaches the north end of the line near the switching
station/yard for the BNSF railroad and the Great Western Railroad (GWR). The dominant noise
sources along the corridor are freight rail traffic and motor vehicle traffic on SH 119 and other roads.
Noise-sensitive land use along the Longmont corridor was first identified based on preliminary
project drawings, aerial photographs, visual surveys, and land use information from the Longmont
Diagonal Rail Feasibility Study (RTD, 2005). Based on this review, summary descriptions of noisesensitive land uses and existing noise sources along the corridor, from south to north, are provided
below. Additional noise field notes are provided in Appendix G.
30th/Pearl Street to Independence Road The corridor begins at the connection with the planned
US 36 commuter rail line (US 36 Corridor DEIS) and follows the BNSF alignment northeast through
Boulder, crossing Valmont Road and passing under SH 157. This area includes a mix of commercial,
residential, and light industrial land uses. In addition to a number of multi-family residences, the 34th
Street Park and the Family Learning Center are located adjacent to the BNSF alignment north of
Valmont Road. Freight trains and traffic on SH 157 contribute to the noise environment in this area.
Independence Road to Mineral Road/SH 52 In this portion of the corridor, the BNSF track
parallels SH 119, approximately 100 feet to the east of the road. This area is lightly populated, with
noise-sensitive land use consisting primarily of single-family residences along Pioneer Road and
Spine Road, as well as newer developments off of Idylwild Trail. Between Gunbarrel Avenue and
Lookout Road, there are numerous office and commercial buildings, including the Celestial
Seasonings Factory, as well as the Leaning Tree Art Museum. The noise environment in this area is
dominated by traffic noise from SH 119 and local roads and by noise from freight train operations.
Mineral Road/SH 52 to 83rd Street The BNSF alignment continues to parallel SH 119 in this
area, heading northeast through the town of Niwot. There is some light industrial land use
immediately north of Mineral Road, and single-family residences are located along the east side of
the alignment on Estate Circle, Murray Street, and Peppertree Drive. A new residential development
is being built adjacent to the alignment off of Monarch Road, east of Estate Circle. This development,
Triple Crown Estates, has plans for 26 new residential lots, of which only three are currently under
construction. The dominant noise sources in this area are SH 119 traffic and freight trains.
83rd Street to Hover Street The alignment continues to follow SH 119 through this area, where a
few homes are located approximately 300 feet east of the highway. There is also a group of town
homes (Watersong at Creekside) along 95th Street, southeast of the track. Traffic and local activity
are the dominant noise sources at these locations.
Hover Street to Ken Pratt Boulevard In this area, the alignment continues to parallel SH 119.
Front Range Community College is located immediately adjacent to the track, approximately 150 feet
east of the alignment in an office park north of Hover Street. The Radisson Hotel and Conference
Center is located west of the alignment on Industrial Court. Otherwise, the alignment is surrounded
by office and commercial buildings, and the dominant noise sources are roadway and freight rail
traffic.

Longmont Diagonal Rail Project

3.11-5

Ken Pratt Boulevard to the North End of the Corridor North of Ken Pratt Boulevard, the BNSF
alignment diverges from SH 119 and then turns to the east, crossing under Pratt Parkway where
it parallels 1st Avenue and then continues across Main Street to the Sugar Mill area. This area is
predominately industrial and commercial, with only two residential communities adjacent to the
tracks. These communities are the St. Vrain Village Mobile Home Park along Price Road and a trailer
park at the intersection of 1st Avenue and Terry Street. The existing noise environment in these areas
is dominated by freight trains, local activities, and street traffic.
Existing ambient noise levels in the areas described above were characterized through direct
measurements at selected sites along the Longmont corridor during the period from February 13
through February 16, 2006. These results were supplemented by data from previous measurements
conducted in Boulder during the period from February 23 to February 26, 2004, for the US 36
Corridor DEIS (CDOT, 2006). Estimating existing noise exposure is an important step in the noise
impact assessment because the thresholds for noise impact are based on the existing levels of noise
exposure. The measurements included both long-term (24-hour) and short-term (30- to 60-minute)
monitoring of the A-weighted sound level at representative noise-sensitive locations.
All of the measurement sites were located in noise-sensitive areas and were selected to represent a
range of existing noise conditions along the corridor. Figure 3.11-5 shows the general location of the
seven long-term monitoring sites (LT-A and LT-1 through LT-6) and four short-term monitoring sites
(ST-A and ST-1 through ST-3). At each site, the measurement microphone was positioned to
characterize the exposure of the site to the dominant noise sources in the area. For example,
microphones were located at the approximate setback lines of the receptors from adjacent roads or rail
lines, and were positioned to avoid acoustic shielding by landscaping, fences, or other obstructions.

3.11-6

Longmont Diagonal Rail Project

FIGURE 3.11-5

Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations

Source: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., 2006

The results of the existing ambient noise measurements, summarized in Table 3.11-1, serve as the
basis for determining the existing noise conditions at all noise-sensitive receptors along the Longmont
corridor. The results for each site are described below.
Longmont Diagonal Rail Project

3.11-7

TABLE 3.11-1

Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Measurement Results

Start of
Measurement

Outdoor Noise Exposure (dBA)

Ldn

Site
No.

Measurement Location
Description

Distance
from Track
(ft.)

Date

Leq

Time

Meas.
Time
(hrs)

With
Trains

w/o
Trains

With
Trains

w/o
Trains

LT-A

3865 B Talisman Place (town home)

Boulder

125

2-23-04

0:00

34

66

61

--

--

LT-1

5577 Pioneer Road Juhl (Boulder County)

200

2-13-06

16:00

24

69

63

--

--

LT-2

6632 Bean Mountain Lane Boulder

520

2-14-06

17:00

24

58

58

--

--

LT-3

330 Murray Street Niwot

180

2-13-06

17:00

24

70

66

--

--

LT-4

2225 Watersong Circle Longmont

1200

2-14-06

18:00

24

59

58

--

--

LT-5

417 Forbes Court Longmont

125

2-14-06

16:00

24

59

57

--

--

LT-6

Unit #2 Trailer Park @ First & Terry

Longmont

75

2-13-06

19:00

24

72

58

--

--

ST-A

Family Learning Center Boulder

50

2-26-04

09:00

--

--

51

--

ST-1

Boulder Steelyards Mixed-Use Development

260

2-14-06

10:30

0.5

--

--

50

--

ST-2

Kings Ridge Condominiums Boulder

350

2-15-06

13:40

--

--

63

--

ST-3

Front Range Community College Longmont

100

2-14-06

13:30

--

--

78

59

Source: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., 2006

Site LT-A: 3365 B Talisman Place (Boulder) The measured Ldn of 66 dBA at this site, located
about 125 feet from the BNSF track, was dominated by train noise. The Ldn from other ambient
sources, primarily traffic on elevated SH 157, is estimated to be 61 dBA. However, the apartments to
the south of this site are largely shielded from traffic noise and are estimated to have an Ldn from
other sources of 50 dBA.
Site LT-1: 5577 Pioneer Road (Boulder) The Ldn measured over a 24-hour period at this singlefamily residence/horse property was 69 dBA, dominated by freight trains on the BNSF track that
sound horns on approaching the nearby 55th Street grade crossing. The Ldn from other ambient
sources, primarily from traffic on adjacent SH 119, is estimated to be 63 dBA.
Site LT-2: 6632 Bean Mountain Lane (Boulder) The Ldn measured over a 24-hour period at this
single-family residence was 58 dBA. This site represents the homes east of the corridor that overlook
the BNSF track and SH 119. The ambient noise exposure at this location is dominated by SH 119
traffic and local activity.
Site LT-3: 330 Murray Street (Niwot) The Ldn measured over a 24-hour period at this single
family residence was 70 dBA. This site is near downtown Niwot, east of the corridor, and the ambient
noise level is dominated by SH 119 traffic and by freight trains on the BNSF track that sound horns
on approaching the nearby 2nd Avenue grade crossing.
Site LT-4: 2225 Watersong Circle (Longmont) The Ldn measured over a 24-hour period at this
townhouse was 59 dBA. The ambient noise level at this location is dominated by roadway traffic and
local activity.
3.11-8

Longmont Diagonal Rail Project

Site LT-5: 417 Forbes Court (St. Vrain Mobile Home Park) (Longmont) The Ldn measured
over a 24-hour period at this single family residence was 59 dBA. The ambient noise level is
dominated by local activity and traffic on Price Road, with a lesser contribution from freight trains.
Site LT-6: Unit #2 of Mobile Home Park near Intersection of First Avenue and Terry Street
(Longmont) The Ldn measured over a 24-hour period at this single family residence was 72 dBA.
The ambient noise exposure is dominated by freight trains on the BNSF track that sound horns on
approaching the grade crossings at Terry Street, Coffman Street, and Main Street (US 287), as well as
street traffic and trains idling in this area.
Site ST-A: Family Learning Center (Boulder) The existing Leq at this site was measured to be
51 dBA, dominated by noise from traffic on elevated SH 157.
Site ST-1: Boulder Steelyards Development (Boulder) The Leq measured over a 0.5-hour
period at this mixed-use residential/commercial development was 50 dBA. While parts of this new
development are still under construction, some of the town homes are already occupied. The ambient
noise exposure in this area is dominated by local activity.
Site ST-2: Kings Ridge Condominiums (Boulder) The Leq measured over a 1-hour period at
these condominiums was 63 dBA. The ambient noise level is dominated by traffic on 47th Street and
on SH 157.
Site ST-3: Front Range Community College (Longmont) The Leq measured over a 1-hour
period that included the passage of a freight train at this location was 78 dBA. Without the freight
train noise, the Leq was 59 dBA, dominated by traffic on Hover Street.
Vibration Fundamentals
Groundborne vibration is the oscillatory motion of the ground above some equilibrium position.
When assessing the vibration impacts of transit project, it is typically described in terms of velocity.
Vibration above certain levels can damage buildings, disrupt sensitive operations, and cause
discomfort to humans within buildings. Figure 3.11-6 illustrates typical groundborne vibration levels
for common sources, as well as criteria for human and structural response to groundborne vibration.
As shown, the range of interest is from approximately 50 vibration decibels (VdB) to 100 VdB, from
imperceptible background vibration to the threshold of damage. Although the threshold of human
perception to vibration is approximately 65 VdB, annoyance is not usually significant unless the
vibration exceeds 70 VdB.

Longmont Diagonal Rail Project

3.11-9

FIGURE 3.11-6

Typical Groundborne Vibration Levels and Criteria

Human/Structural Response

VELOCITY
LEVEL*

Threshold, minor cosmetic damage

fragile buildings

100

Difficulty with tasks such as

reading a VDT screen

90

Typical Sources
(50 ft from source)
Blasting from construction projects

Bulldozers and other heavy tracked

construction equipment

High speed rail, upper range

Residential annoyance, infrequent
events (e.g., commuter rail)

80

Rapid transit, upper range

High speed rail, typical

Residential annoyance, frequent

events (e.g., rapid transit)

Limit for vibration sensitive

equipment. Approx. threshold for
human perception of vibration

Bus or truck over bump

70

Bus or truck, typical

60

50

Typical background vibration

* RMS Vibration Velocity Level in VdB relative to 10-6 inches/second

Source: FTA, 2006

Vibration Criteria
The FTA groundborne vibration impact criteria are based on land use and train frequency, as shown
in Table 3.11-2. Some buildings, such as concert halls, recording studios, and theaters, can be very
sensitive to vibration but do not fit into any of the three categories listed in Table 3.11-2. Because of
their sensitivity, these buildings usually warrant special attention during the environmental
assessment of a transit project. Table 3.11-3 gives criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne
vibration for various types of special buildings.
Table 3.11-2 and Table 3.11-3 include separate FTA criteria for groundborne noise, the rumble that
can be radiated from the motion of room surfaces in buildings due to groundborne vibration.
Although expressed in dBA, which emphasizes the more audible middle and high frequencies, the
criteria are set significantly lower than for airborne noise to account for the annoying low-frequency
character of groundborne noise. Because airborne noise often masks groundborne noise for above
ground (that is, at grade or elevated) rail systems, groundborne noise criteria are primarily applied to
subway operations where airborne noise is not a factor. Thus, groundborne noise criteria are not
applied for the above-grade commuter rail system planned along the Longmont corridor.

3.11-10

Longmont Diagonal Rail Project

TABLE 3.11-2

Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria by Land Use Category

Groundborne Vibration
Impact Levels
(VdB re 1 micro-inch/second)

Groundborne Noise
Impact Levels
(dB re 20 micro Pascals)

Frequent
1
Events

Infrequent
2
Events

Frequent
Events

Infrequent
Events

Category 1: Buildings where low ambient vibration is

essential for interior operations

65 VdB3

65 VdB3

See Note 4

See Note 4

Category 2: Residences and buildings where people

normally sleep

72 VdB

80 VdB

35 dBA

43 dBA

Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily

daytime use

75 VdB

83 VdB

40 dBA

48 dBA

Land Use Category

Frequent Events are defined as more than 70 vibration events per day. Most transit projects fall into this category.
Infrequent Events are defined as fewer than 70 vibration events per day. This category includes most commuter rail systems.
3 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment, such as optical microscopes.
Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research would require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring
lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the heating, ventilating and air-conditioning systems and stiffened
floors.
4 Vibration-sensitive equipment is not sensitive to groundborne vibration.
1
2

Source: FTA, 2006

TABLE 3.11-3

Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria for Special Buildings

Type of Building or
Room

Groundborne Vibration
Impact Levels
(VdB re 1 micro-inch/second)
Frequent Events
Infrequent Events

Groundborne Noise
Impact Levels
(dB re 20 micro Pascals)
Frequent Events
Infrequent Events

Concert Halls

65 VdB

65 VdB

25 dBA

25 dBA

TV Studios

65 VdB

65 VdB

25 dBA

25 dBA

Recording Studios

65 VdB

65 VdB

25 dBA

25 dBA

Auditoriums

72 VdB

80 VdB

30 dBA

38 dBA

Theaters

72 VdB

80 VdB

35 dBA

43 dBA

Source: FTA, 2006

Existing Vibration Conditions

The only major sources of existing ground vibration along the rail alignment are freight trains that
operate on the BNSF track, with speeds ranging from 20 miles per hour (mph) to 49 mph. Estimates
of maximum existing ground vibration levels as a function of distance from the track are provided in
Figure 3.11-7 for freight trains operating at various speeds. These estimates are based on ground
vibration measurements conducted at a site adjacent to the BNSF track just south of Valmont Road in
Boulder for the US 36 Corridor DEIS (CDOT, 2006). The results in Figure 3.11-7 suggest that
existing train vibrations may be perceptible in buildings located up to about 150-200 feet from the
track, depending on train speed.

Longmont Diagonal Rail Project

3.11-11

FIGURE 3.11-7

Typical Existing Ground Vibration Levels from Freight Trains

Existing Ground Vibration from Freight Trains on BNSF Corridor
(Based on Measurements in Boulder, CO)
100

Maximum rms Vibration Velocity Level (VdB re 1 uips)

95

90

85

80

75

70

65

60
10

100

1000

Distance from Track (feet)

Range of Train Speeds:

20 mph

35 mph

49 mph

Source: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., 2006

Impact Evaluation
This section describes the methodology and results of the commuter rail noise and vibration impact
evaluation. Noise and vibration impacts were modeled for both DMU and EMU passenger rail
vehicles, the only two types of commuter rail technology under consideration by RTD, for
Alternatives A and B, stations, and layover/storage facilities.
Noise Impact Evaluation Methodology
The primary components of wayside noise from the proposed commuter rail operations are
mechanical noise from the power units for DMU operations and wheel/rail noise from DMU or EMU
rail cars. Near grade crossings, horn noise is typically the dominant source. The projection of wayside
noise from these sources was conducted using the model specified in the current FTA Guidance
Manual (FTA, 2006), based on the following assumptions:

3.11-12

Each DMU or EMU train would consist of two cars for initial year operations and four cars
for year 2030 operations. In the case of DMU technology, only one of the cars in each train
would be powered
For initial year operations, the daily schedule would include a total of 66 trains in both
directions, with 53 trains operating during daytime hours (between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM),
and 13 trains operating during nighttime hours (between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM)

Longmont Diagonal Rail Project

For year 2030 operations, the daily schedule would include a total of 84 trains in both
directions, with 70 trains operating during daytime hours and 14 trains operating during
nighttime hours
The maximum commuter train operating speeds would be 20 mph in Longmont and 79 mph
elsewhere, with location-dependent operation speeds taken from the Rail Operations Plan
(RTD, 2006b)
Train horns, generating a sound level of 90 dBA at 50 feet, would be sounded within 0.25
mile of grade crossings as trains approach the crossings
The added noise near crossovers and other special trackwork is not included in the noise
projections because the locations for these have not yet been determined

The projected noise exposures (in terms of Ldn) at unshielded community locations for year 2030
commuter rail operations are graphed as a function of distance in Figure 3.11-8 and Figure 3.11-9 for
trains operating at 20 mph and 79 mph, respectively. Figure 3.11-8 shows that at 20 mph, the noise
exposure for DMU trains is about 5 dB higher than for EMU trains; this is because DMU engine
noise dominates at lower speeds. The figure also shows that the noise exposure is significantly higher
near grade crossings where the horn is sounded. Because noise from the horn dominates at low
speeds, there is no significant difference in noise exposure for DMU and EMU operations in these
areas. At the maximum train speed of 79 mph, wheel-rail interaction is the dominant noise source and
there is no significant difference in noise exposure for DMU and EMU trains. In addition, as shown in
Figure 3.11-9, the noise exposure for trains operating at this speed is only slightly greater near grade
crossings where train horns are sounded.
FIGURE 3.11-8

Projected Commuter Rail Noise Exposure for Year 2030 Operations at 20 mph
Projected Commuter Rail Noise Exposure (Year 2030, 20 mph Operation)
75

70

Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn), dBA

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Distance from Near Track (Feet)

EMU

DMU

WITH HORN

Source: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., 2006

Longmont Diagonal Rail Project

3.11-13

FIGURE 3.11-9

Projected Commuter Rail Noise Exposure for Year 2030 Operations at 79 mph
Projected Commuter Rail Noise Exposure (Year 2030, 79 mph Operation)
75

70

Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn), dBA

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Distance from Near Track (Feet)

WITHOUT HORN

WITH HORN

Source: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., 2006

The assessment of noise impact from commuter rail operations is based on a comparison of existing
and projected future noise exposure for different land use categories. The following steps were taken
to assess train noise impact:

A detailed land use survey was conducted along the project corridor to identify and classify
all noise-sensitive receptors according to the categories defined by FTA. The vast majority of
these receptors fall under FTA Category 2, including single- and multi-family residences and
hotels. The remaining receptors are primarily institutional sites falling under FTA Category 3,
including schools and parks
The receptors were clustered based on distance to the tracks, acoustical shielding between the
receptors and the tracks, and location relative to grade crossings
The existing noise exposure at each cluster of receptors was estimated based on the
generalization of the ambient noise measurements. These exposures were used to determine
the thresholds for moderate impact and severe impact based on the FTA criteria
Projections of future commuter train noise at each cluster of receptors were developed based
on distance from the tracks, train schedule, and train speed using the methods described
above
In areas where the projections show either moderate impacts or severe impacts, mitigation
options were evaluated

Vibration Impact Evaluation Methodology

The projection of groundborne vibration from the proposed commuter rail operations in the corridor
was based on the measurements of existing freight train vibration in Boulder described above,
assuming that maximum groundborne vibration levels are due to the locomotive. These levels were

3.11-14

Longmont Diagonal Rail Project

reduced by 6 VdB for DMU trains and by 12 VdB for EMU trains. The vibration levels then were
adjusted for the actual train speed by location, according to FTA methodology. The projections
assume a ground-to-building coupling loss of 0 VdB.
The projected maximum ground vibration levels from commuter rail operations at a typical average
operating speed of 50 mph are shown as a function of distance in Figure 3.11-10 for both DMU and
EMU trains. The increased vibration near crossovers and other special trackwork is not included in
the vibration projections because the locations for these have not yet been determined.
FIGURE 3.11-10

Projected Commuter Rail Noise Groundborne Vibration Levels

Projected Commuter Rail Ground-borne Vibration Levels at 50 mph

Maximum rms Vibration Velocity Level (VdB re 1 uips)

90

80

70

60

50

40

30
10

100

1000

Distance from Track (feet)

EMU

DMU

Source: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., 2006

The approach used to assess vibration impact generally follows the approach used to assess noise
impact, except that the existing vibration levels are not considered. Based on the initial year daily
train operating frequency, the impact thresholds for commuter rail operations are 80 VdB for
residential buildings (Category 2) and 83 VdB for institutional buildings (Category 3). For the
planned year 2030 operating frequency, the impact thresholds are 72 VdB for residential buildings
(Category 2) and 75 VdB for institutional buildings (Category 3).

No-Build Alternative
No significant changes in rail operations are anticipated under the No-Build Alternative, and future
noise and vibration conditions along the rail alignment are expected to remain similar to the existing
conditions.

Longmont Diagonal Rail Project

3.11-15

Alternatives
Due to the similarity of impacts, Alternative A and Alternative B are described together below.
Rail Alignment
The potential noise and vibration impacts of Alternatives A and B were assessed for initial year and
year 2030 operations and for DMU and EMU technology. The results are described below.
Noise Impact Assessment
The results of the noise impact assessment indicate that the potential for noise impacts is limited to
some of the single-family residences located near the corridor in the St. Vrain Mobile Home Park in
Longmont. The projected Ldn from 50-mph commuter rail operations is 57 to 60 dBA at these homes,
which are located 100 to 140 feet from the proposed rail line. Based on the existing Ldn of 59 dBA
measured in this area, the thresholds of impact and severe impact are 57 dBA and 63 dBA,
respectively; therefore none of the noise impacts are in the severe category.
Under Alternative A, the nearest commuter rail track would be closest to the mobile home park.
Noise impacts are projected at four homes for initial year operations and 11 homes for year
2030 operations. Under Alternative B, no noise impacts are projected for initial year operations; noise
impacts are projected at four homes for year 2030 operations. In all cases, the impacts are primarily
due to the projected noise from commuter train horns in this area just north of the grade crossing at
Ken Pratt Boulevard. Therefore, the projected noise levels are essentially the same for DMU and
EMU technology.
Vibration Impact Assessment
The results of the vibration impact assessment indicate that the potential for vibration impacts is
limited to one school (the Family Learning Center in Boulder) and two residential areas (the St. Vrain
Mobile Home Park in Longmont and the north end of Murray Street in Niwot). The school is located
25 feet from the near track under Alternative A and 50 feet from the near track under Alternative B.
The vibration velocity levels for the proposed 50-mph commuter rail operations are projected to be
88 VdB or 84 VdB for DMU technology (for Alternatives A and B, respectively) and 82 VdB or
78 VdB for EMU technology. At the homes in the St. Vrain Mobile Home Park that are located 90 to
110 feet from the near track, the vibration levels for 50-mph DMU train operations are projected to be
74 to 77 VdB. At the homes at the north end of Murray Street in Niwot that are located 125 feet from
the near track under Alternative B, the vibration level for 79-mph DMU train operations is projected
to be 74 VdB.
Vibration impacts were assessed by comparing the projected vibration levels with the FTA criteria,
which depend on land use category and train operating frequency. For the initial year schedule,
assuming fewer than 70 trains per day, the vibration impact criteria are 80 VdB for residences
(Category 2) and 83 VdB for schools (Category 3). For the year 2030 schedule, with more than
70 trains per day, the vibration impact criteria are 72 VdB for residences and 75 VdB for schools.
The numbers of projected vibration impacts are summarized in Table 3.11-4. As shown in the table,
the impacts depend on the alternative chosen (which determines the distance to the tracks), the year of
operation (which affects the schedule), and the rail technology (i.e., vehicle type). The results indicate
that no vibration impacts are projected for either alternative in the initial year with EMU technology.
The greatest number of impacts is projected for DMU operation in year 2030, with impacts at
six residences and one school under Alternative A and at three residences and one school under
Alternative B. For the remaining cases, vibration impacts are limited to one school (the Family
Learning Center in Boulder).
3.11-16

Longmont Diagonal Rail Project

TABLE 3.11-4

Summary of Predicted Groundborne Vibration Impacts without Mitigation

Alternative
Alternative A

Technology

Residences

Initial

DMU

EMU

DMU

EMU

DMU

EMU

DMU

EMU

2030

Alternative B

Number of Impacts
Schools

Operation Year

Initial

2030

Total

Source: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., 2006

Station Areas
None of the proposed station areas are within the FTA noise impact screening distance of 250 feet
from any noise-sensitive land use. Therefore, no noise or vibration impacts are anticipated from the
commuter rail stations. This assumes that all 13 residential properties within the footprint of the
1st/Terry station site are acquired.
Layover/Storage Facilities
Of the two candidate layover/storage facilities, only the FRCC Layover site (Location 2) is within the
FTA noise impact screening distance of 1,000 feet from any noise-sensitive land use. At this site, the
facility has the potential to cause noise impacts at one of the college classroom buildings, particularly
from idling DMU equipment if this technology is selected. However, noise impacts would be
somewhat moderated given that the peak activity hours for the layover/storage facility (including
overnight storage periods) would not coincide with the typical periods of classroom use. A detailed
analysis of the potential noise impacts from the FRCC Layover site would be conducted at a later
phase of the project if this site is ultimately selected.

Conceptual Mitigations
Proposed conceptual mitigation measures for rail noise and vibration are presented in Table 3.11-5
and further described below.

Longmont Diagonal Rail Project

3.11-17

TABLE 3.11-5

Proposed Conceptual Mitigation Measures Noise and Vibration

Conceptual Mitigation Measures
Impact

Impact
Type

Alternative A:
Double Track to West

Alternative B:
Double Track to East

Noise impacts of commuter rail

on adjoining land uses

Operation

RTD will investigate the feasibility of limiting train horn use

at the grade crossing near the St. Vrain Mobile Home
Park by grade separation or by establishing a quiet zone.
Because quiet zones need to be initiated by local political
entities and cannot be sponsored by RTD, a noise wall
will be provided in this area if needed (subject to
refinement during preliminary engineering

Same as Alternative A

Vibration impacts of commuter

rail on adjoining land uses

Operation

RTD will investigate the feasibility of track vibration

isolation treatments during preliminary engineering

Same as Alternative A

Source: Longmont Environmental Evaluation Team, 2006

Commuter Rail Noise Mitigations

Potential mitigation measures for reducing commuter rail noise impacts are described below.
Limits on Use of Train Horns Because the sounding of horns is the dominant noise source for
trains near grade crossings, the reduction or elimination of horn use can be an extremely effective
noise mitigation measure. One way to eliminate horn noise is by grade separation at the crossing. In
addition, the FRA has published a Final Rule (FRA, 2005) that allows reduction of horn noise under
certain conditions. The rule permits local public authorities to establish Quiet Zones in which train
horns may not be routinely sounded, provided that adequate supplementary safety measures
(e.g., four quadrant gates and channelization arrangements) are applied at the crossings to compensate
for the absence of the horn. This rule also authorizes the use of automated wayside horns at crossings
with flashing lights and gates as a substitute for the train horn. Although activated by the approach of
trains, these devices are mounted at the grade crossings, thereby limiting the horn noise exposure area
to the immediate vicinity. While the establishment of quiet zones or the use of wayside horns would
be very effective noise mitigation measures, considerable design analysis and coordination efforts
with the BNSF Railroad and local communities along the corridor would be required to determine if
these measures are feasible.
Noise Barriers Use of noise barriers is a common approach to reducing noise impacts from surface
transportation sources. The primary requirements for an effective noise barrier are (1) the barrier must
be high enough and long enough to break the line of sight between the sound source and the receiver,
(2) the barrier must be constructed of an impervious material with a minimum surface density of
4 lb/square feet, and (3) the barrier must not have any gaps or holes between the panels or at the
bottom. Because numerous materials meet these requirements, the selection of materials for noise
barriers is usually dictated by aesthetics, durability, cost, and maintenance considerations. Where
wheel-rail interaction is the dominant noise source, commuter rail barriers with a height of about
8 feet are generally suitable. However, if the major source is DMU exhaust or high-mounted horns,
the barriers may need to be as high as 12 to 15 feet.
Building Sound Insulation Sound insulation of residences and institutional buildings to reduce
outdoor-to-indoor noise has been widely applied around airports and has seen limited application for
transit projects. Although this approach has no effect on noise in exterior areas, it may be the best
choice for sites where noise barriers are not feasible or desirable and for buildings where indoor
sensitivity is of most concern. Substantial improvements in building sound insulation (on the order
3.11-18

Longmont Diagonal Rail Project

of 5 to 10 dBA) can often be achieved by adding an extra layer of glazing to the windows, sealing any
holes in exterior surfaces that act as sound leaks, and providing forced ventilation and airconditioning so that windows do not need to be opened.
The FTA states that in implementing noise impact criteria, severe impacts should be mitigated if at all
practicable. At the moderate impact level, more discretion can be used, and other project-specific
factors should be included in considering mitigations. These factors can include the predicted increase
over existing noise levels, the types and number of noise-sensitive land uses affected, existing
outdoor-to-indoor sound insulation, and the cost-effectiveness of mitigating the noise.
The most effective ways to mitigate the noise impacts projected at the homes in the St. Vrain Mobile
Home Park would be to either grade separate the Ken Pratt Boulevard grade crossing or establish a
quiet zone to avoid the use of horns on the commuter trains in the vicinity of the crossing. However,
given that quiet zones need to be initiated by local political entities and cannot be sponsored by RTD,
the alternative of constructing a 1,400-feet-long sound wall to protect these homes may need to be
considered. Because the BNSF alignment is on an embankment in this area, the sound wall may need
to be as high as 12 to 15 feet, depending on the location of the horns on the commuter trains.
Commuter Rail Vibration Mitigation
Beyond ensuring that the commuter rail vehicle wheels and track are maintained in good condition,
several materials can be applied to the rails themselves to reduce groundborne vibration, as described
below.
Ballast Mats A ballast mat consists of a pad made of rubber or rubber-like material placed on an
asphalt or concrete base with the normal ballast, ties, and rail on top. The reduction in groundborne
vibration provided by a ballast mat is strongly dependent on the frequency content of the vibration
and the design and support of the mat.
Tire Derived Aggregate (TDA) Also known as shredded tires, a typical TDA installation consists
of an underlayment of 12 inches of nominally 3-inch size tire shreds or chips wrapped with filter
fabric, and covered with 12 inches of sub-ballast and 12 inches of ballast above that to the base of the
ties. Tests suggest that the vibration attenuation properties of this treatment are midway between that
of ballast mats and floating slab track. While this is a low-cost option, it has only recently been
installed on two LRT systems in the U.S. (San Jose and Denver), and its long-term performance is
unknown.
Under-Tie Pads This treatment consists of resilient rubber pads placed underneath the ties.
Although tests using the Amtrak Acela high speed train set indicated that inserting such pads under
the concrete ties provided significant vibration attenuation over a wide frequency range, experience
with this treatment is limited.
Vibration impacts that exceed FTA criteria are considered to be significant and to warrant mitigation,
if reasonable and feasible. To evaluate the feasibility of mitigation, typical vibration reductions for
potential measures were applied, on a one-third octave frequency basis, to the average ground
vibration spectra measured for existing freight trains at a distance of 75 feet from the track in
Boulder. The baseline and reduced one-third octave frequency band levels were each combined to
determine the overall vibration levels and the estimated reduction in overall levels for the candidate
mitigation measures. The results suggest potential vibration reductions of 3 VdB for ballast mats, 8
VdB for TDA, and 6 VdB for under-tie pads.
Given the range of effectiveness for potential vibration mitigation measures, it appears that it would
be feasible to mitigate the projected vibration impacts at all residential locations. This would involve

Longmont Diagonal Rail Project

3.11-19

applying vibration isolation treatment along a 1,400-feet segment for Alternative A and along three
300-feet segments for Alternative B. It also appears feasible to mitigate the projected impact at the
school for the initial year operations and for year 2030 operations using EMU technology by applying
treatment along a 300-feet segment in this area. For year 2030 operations, however, it will not likely
be feasible to fully mitigate the projected vibration impacts at this location if DMU technology is
selected. A detailed analysis will be conducted for the selected alternative during preliminary
engineering to determine the actual extent of feasible mitigation measures.

3.11-20

Longmont Diagonal Rail Project