RIVER FOREST, Ill. — Responding to concerns of adjacent homeowners, Metra will construct a sound wall at the site of the project filling in a gap in the triple-track Union Pacific main line between Chicago and Elburn, Ill.
OakPark.com reports that the commuter railroad has agreed to spend $60,000 to construct an “Acoustiblok” wall, which will study the results to determine if the material can be used elsewhere on Metra’s system. A spokeswoman for the homeowners said the material is supposed to lower sound levels from 78 decibels to 50.
Homeowners have expressed concerns about the increased noise level from tracks that will be closer to their home when the project adds a third track from 1.8 miles from Vale, just west of the River Forest Metra station, to Provo Junction, at the east end of Proviso Yard. Construction of the track is now under way [see “Trackwork begins to close gap in UP triple track near Chicago,” Trains News Wire, Oct. 7, 2019].
In response to another concern of homeowners, Union Pacific says it will put up an 8-foot security fence along the right-of-way. Original plans called for some portions of the fence to be just 4 feet tall.
Anyone who doesn’t think that politics is involved in the installation of sound walls need only to drive through Union County NJ east on I-78 to see the 1/2 mile of sound wall that was constructed in front of a cemetery. Wonder who complained?
Wonder if they’ll be installing sound walls at the front of these poor babies houses for when motorcycles run down the street.
Did we not just go through a similar situation on the Hiawatha line on the CP? Let’s do the same thing in Glenbrook. Oh no, I here a UP train coming past on the Lakeshore route to Milwaukee.
ANDREW — I don’t know where you live. I live in Wisconsin and frequently ride the Hiawatha and now and then ride Metra in the Chicago suburbs. Freight, Metra and on some routes Amtrak pass through attractive, beautifully kept up suburban and urban neighborhoods. If people minded the trains they’d live somewhere else. I would give the same advice to persons in working class or poverty class neighborhoods. Lower income people may believe they have less choice where to live, and there’s something to that. Just don’t feel so picked-on because there are trains in your neighborhood. The trains were there first.
As I posted earlier, acoustics is tricky. We used to live near to the USH 45 (now IH 41) Freeway in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. Due to whatever site factor, it was deafening, we couldn’t hear ourselves talk outside our front door, 200 yards or so from traffic. Prior to buying that condo, just days before attending the open house, work took me to literally onto the freeway shoulder below the condo. Twenty feet from moving vehicles, the noise was moderate.
If UP wants to have a consist be yarded in transit, (awaiting a crew or signal) then a wall is a great idea. Then UP can do whatever they want on their ROW without any “noise” from the neighbors.
Walls also help with the direction of diesel soot. No matter which way the wind blows, the soot will have to rise.
I have always been amused at the objection to railway noise, which is intermittant, but the constant noise of interstates especially in cities. No one seems to object to the larger quantity of highway noise.
I would guess the additional track likely doesn’t bring the right of way more than perhaps 15 yards closer to homes on that side of the tracks. It’s difficult for me to imagine that will noticeably increase the noise levels for homes abutting that side of the railroad.
Train (or highway) acoustics is a complicated question, best not answered by casual commentary by untrained people, even those who live close to the track (or the highway).
The larger point is, this is a journey without end. Metra’s rail system goes hundreds of miles, each mile with property lines to the left and to the right. One answered request for a noise wall leads to a thousand other requests.
Aside from construction costs (high) and maintenance costs (moderate) noise walls bring up all sorts of questions. Right of way, utilities, emergency access (fire and rescue), railroad crew detailing, snow patterns, weed control to the community side, and so forth. Utilities (overhead and underground) parallel railroad tracks – exactly the places where noise walls would be erected. A noise wall is not anodyne.
There really is only one answer to noise walls. The railroad was there first. If the community wants a noise wall, then the community should buy the property outbound of the rail and utility corridor, and erect and maintain the wall. Nearby property owners should be very careful what they wish for.
Then like any other question in the public facilities business there is the review process. Every single stakeholder gets a swing at it: each utility, police, fire / rescue, community public works, etc. etc. The railroad crosses many city town and village lines, so each local unit of government should take the lead. And take the heat.
BTW don’t assume noise walls are universally popular. What is noise control to one nearby resident is a mile-long ugly wall blocking the view to another citizen. And an ongoing target for neighborhood taggers.
Gerald, I did read the local news article. My concern is that this is an expenditure that is possibly going to be expanded at great cost by an agency that has been chronically underfunded for the past few decades. $60k might not seem like much, but we don’t know the linear length of the fence (paid for and installed by the railroad) that this sound barrier will cover. I can guarantee that the cost to install this sound barrier if Metra had to actually permit, buy, and install a new 8 foot tall fence with this material along the right of way will be much, much more than $60k for an equal length. There are most likely not many fences that exist elsewhere that are ‘shovel ready’ to accept this material at the minimal cost of installation such as this test area provides.
My primary question is, if Metra is undertaking this study in order to determine if it is feasible to expand its installation elsewhere, do they have any idea of how they will secure funding for other areas that are just as deserving? How will Metra decide which areas are deserving and which areas are not?
From the local news article, it sounds like it has become a politically charged unfunded mandate foisted on Metra by the local state Senator. Will she also ask to raise taxes next year to pay for all these wish list items?
Amazing that commuters for years have payed more to be able to live close to the tracks and stations and now that convenience has become to noisy.
As usual it appear no one actually read the story and then comprehended what was written, or just chose to ignore what was written. I’ll quote the article first: “OakPark.com reports that the commuter railroad has agreed to spend $60,000 to construct an “Acoustiblok” wall, which will study the results to determine if the material can be used elsewhere on Metra’s system. A spokeswoman for the homeowners said the material is supposed to lower sound levels from 78 decibels to 50.” It’s going to be used for a study, but what the article doesn’t say I found by following the link to the original story, which I will now post here, again quoting: “One of the biggest concerns — noise that impacts residents — will be remedied by Metra, who has agreed to use River Forest as part of its pilot program to try an “Acoustiblok” fence. The cost of adding the product, which will attach to the fencing that UP puts up, will be $60,000 and will be funded by Metra, which will be studied to see if the product can be used in other areas as well. They will conduct sound studies after installation to test its effectiveness.” Notice that the “Acoustiblok” fence attaches to the fence that the UP is putting up, so that means one, the fence will be on the railroad right of way, and two, the expense doesn’t appear to be excessive, for a change. Third, this is only a test, if it is determined the “Acoustiblok” doesn’t do it’s job only then will we be able to complain about a sound wall along the right of way if extended beyond or built in other locations at Metra’s expense.
Have to conclude that $60K is an inexpensive PR sop.
In my area the residents of a subdivision along an existing interstate wanted a sound wall. The state said no and the town said they would put it up if the neighbors paid for it. I haven’t heard another word about this in about 10 years.
I am curious about the expected level of noise (if that has even been studied as part of the NEPA process to get a baseline comparison between present and future impacts) versus what is experienced today. Adding another track that is at most 20 feet closer from the nearest existing track would, on its face, not result in significantly higher noise values. Are there plans to increase the train traffic through this area? To a degree that any increase in frequency of train noise is noticeable?
As has been posted before, the railroad and noise was there before most homes were built next to the railroad. I don’t see what makes these home owners along less than 2 miles of railroad “special” compared to the rest of the property owners along all Metra lines.
What were the results of the NEPA process? Was it a finding of no significant impact? Or did it get the level of an EIS with the requisite noise, vibration, and social impact studies and a finding that there was no negative impact? If either is the case, then let the adjacent property owners pay the full costs of this mitigation and not hang this on taxpayers. I suspect this was not mandated as part of any NEPA process since Metra seems to have voluntarily agreed to do this. The state of Illinois and the US government are not swimming in cash and have more pressing needs.
Obviously you have not noticed all of the sound walls being constructed along the highways in urban areas.
Charles, you mentioned snow patterns. I wonder if anyone takes that into consideration? Nothing like putting up a 20′ snow fence. Wait till some of those neighbors find a 5′ snow drift on their property. When anything is built in the northern climates, winter weather should always be a consideration.