December 2007 -- PennDOT engineers and members of its project design team met with residents who live in the study area for the I-95/Cottman Avenue Interchange Reconstruction Project (I-95/CPR) on Thursday, Dec. 6, 2007, to discuss the results of the project’s recently completed Noise Abatement Study.
The study area included the following Tacony neighborhoods:
• Keystone Street: From Levick Street to Princeton Avenue
• State Road: From Longshore Avenue to Cottman Avenue
• Wissinoming Street: From Princeton Avenue to Cottman Avenue
• Friendship Street / Wellington Street / Cottman Avenue: From Wissinoming Street to State Road
• Longshore Avenue / Disston Street: From State Road to Keystone Street
• Princeton Avenue: From Wissinoming Street to Keystone Street
The meeting was held at Our Lady of Consolation Church Hall, 7051 Tulip Street, Philadelphia, PA., from 6:30 p.m. until 8:30 p.m.
PennDOT and its engineering consultant on the I-95/CPR project conducted a brief presentation about the planned improvements and gave an overview of the noise study beginning at 7 p.m. An informal workshop followed to allow study-area property owners and residents to discuss noise-related issues in small groups with a member of the design team.
Presentations and discussions at the meeting were limited to Noise Abatement Study issues in the I-95/CPR project area.
Summary of Public Comments and Concerns
The following information generally summarizes the questions and comments made by the attendees:
• COMMENT: What is the official means by which PennDOT will collect the communities input with respect to whether a noise wall is wanted or not?
RESPONSE: PennDOT distributed a questionnaire at the meeting to solicit this input. Property owners who receive the most benefit from the noise wall will be offered the opportunity to vote on whether they want a noise wall or not. These property owners were identified with blue shading on the presented mapping. Their properties are identified as “impacted” because either the anticipated noise levels at these locations will approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria threshold (67 decibels) or are anticipated to have existing I-95 traffic related noise levels increase by 10 or more decibels.
• COMMENT: The City of Philadelphia-owned Disston Park will realize a significant benefit if a noise wall is built. Considering there will be a new City administration beginning in January 2008, any City decisions pertaining to this noise wall should be delayed until after the new administration takes over.
RESPONSE: PennDOT has met with City officials and will do so again to specifically address this topic once the new administration is in place. It was stressed that PennDOT was not forcing the construction of noise walls. The residents need to make their opinion known by voting.
• COMMENT: Noting there are many impacted property owners not in attendance at the meeting, it was questioned if the “yes” or “no” vote for noise walls would need to be submitted at the meeting?
RESPONSE: Votes will be collected through the end of the year and this information will be shared with the City as part of a follow-up meeting with the new administration.
• COMMENT: It was questioned if a noise wall along I-95 would have any impact on train noise?
RESPONSE: The noise wall would only serve to reduce vehicular noise from I-95. “Reflective” noise from trains would be unperceivable. Although train noise would not increase as a result of the placement of a highway noise wall, a reduction in the “background” I-95 traffic noise may produce a perception that train noise has increased as it would be more discernable.
• COMMENT: Concern was expressed that noise walls would serve to divide the neighborhood.
RESPONSE: This concern should be reflected in the completed questionnaire and returned to PennDOT.
• COMMENT: Concern was expressed that a noise wall would degrade the view across the park and of I-95.
RESPONSE: This concern should be reflected in the completed questionnaire and returned to PennDOT.
• COMMENT: Concern was expressed that a noise wall would attract graffiti. This would be a nuisance worse than noise and the City would not clean the walls.
RESPONSE: It was noted that noise walls would be owned by PennDOT and clearing of graffiti would be PennDOT’s responsibility. To facilitate the cleaning process, PennDOT traditionally applies an anti-graffiti coating to the noise walls.
• COMMENT: It was questioned how traffic projections for the year 2030 were generated?
RESPONSE: Traffic projections were generated by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC).
• COMMENT: It was questioned why the noise wall is proposed along the shoulder edge of I-95 and not at a location closer to the homes receiving the benefit?
RESPONSE: Noise wall placement along the park side of the railroad was considered, but determined not to be feasible given the number of structures over local streets, which would have meant breaks in the wall along with associated issues of effectiveness. PennDOT also noted that there would be no I-95 traffic-related noise benefit to placing a wall at that distance away from the traffic source on the highway.
• COMMENT: Concern was expressed that the meeting notice on the 95revive.com web site was not sufficient and impacted property owners were potentially not aware of the meeting.
RESPONSE: In addition to posting the meeting notice on the 95revive.com web site, PennDOT mailed letters to each of the impacted property owners. In addition, meeting invitations were distributed door-to-door on November 15, 2007.