Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-1 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

3.4 Noise and Vibration

This section describes the regulatory setting, affected environment, impacts, and mitigation 

measures to reduce noise and vibration impacts resulting from the Fresno to Bakersfield Project 

Section of the California High-Speed Rail Project (HSR Project). Noise and vibration are key 

elements of the environmental impact analysis because some increases in noise levels over 

existing conditions and the exceedance of vibration thresholds near the HSR project would result 

in an adverse impact. 

This section summarizes detailed information contained in Section 3.4 of the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section California High-Speed Train Final Project Environmental Impact 

Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) (California High-Speed Rail Authority 

[Authority] and Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] 2014b). This Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

compares the F-B LGA to the complementary portion of the Preferred Alternative that was 

identified in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. As discussed in Section 1.1.3 of this 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, the complementary portion of the Preferred Alternative consists of 

the portion of the BNSF Alternative from Poplar Avenue to Hageman Road and the Bakersfield 

Hybrid from Hageman Road to Oswell Street (further referenced as the “May 2014 Project” in this 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS). Since the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS does not 

evaluate the May 2014 Project as a discrete subsection of the Fresno to Bakersfield Project (as it 

did for example for the Allensworth Bypass), affected environment and impact summary 

discussion included in this section for the May 2014 Project has been extrapolated from the 

available information contained within the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS.

3.4.1 Regulatory Setting

Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and orders relevant to noise and vibration affected by 

the project are presented below.

3.4.1.1 Federal

The following federal regulations related to noise and vibration are defined in Section 3.4.2.1, 

Noise and Vibration, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA

2014b: page 3.4-1) and are also applicable to the Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated 

Alternative (F-B LGA): 

• United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Railroad Noise Emission

Standards (40 C.F.R. 201)

• FRA Railroad Noise Emission Compliance Regulations (49 C.F.R. 210)

• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise

and Construction Noise (23 C.F.R. 772)

• Use of Locomotive Horns at Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (49 C.F.R. Parts 222 and

229) 

The following federal regulations were not discussed in Section 3.4.2.1, Noise and Vibration, of 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. However, these federal regulations would apply 

to both the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA:

• NEPA (United States Code [U.S.C.] Title 42, Section 4321, et seq.) (Public Law 91–190)

(Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.] Title 40, Part 1506.5)

• Noise Control Act of 1972 (U.S.C. Title 42, Section 4910)

• Federal Rail Administration High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact

Assessment Guidelines

• Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

• Occupational Safety and Health Administration Occupational Noise Exposure (29 C.F.R.

1910.95)
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-2 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

3.4.1.2 State

The following state regulations related to noise are defined in Section 3.4.2.2, Noise and 

Vibration, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014b: page 

3.4-2) and are also applicable to the F-B LGA: 

• California Noise Control Act

The following state regulations were not discussed in Section 3.4.2.2, Noise and Vibration, of the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. However, these state regulations would apply to 

both the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA:

• California Code of Regulations Title 21, Chapter 2.5, Subchapter 6. The Caltrans Division

of Aeronautics defines a 65 dBA CNEL noise criterion as part of its noise standards with

respect to aviation traffic as measured at potentially impacted residences near an airport.

Reports of measured noise levels near airports can help describe and/or model current

existing noise levels as part of the HSR noise impact assessment.

• California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2. The California Noise Insulation Standard

limits interior noise exposure levels within multi-family residential developments to 45 dBA

CNEL or Ldn. City and county agencies adopt interior noise standards for land use planning

purposes.

• California Department of Transportation Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. The Caltrans

Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol establishes guidelines for the construction of noise barriers

along highways where receptor are located. It specifies parameters such as barrier

dimensions, locations, type of barriers, and standard aesthetic treatments. Under FHWA and

Caltrans policies, noise barriers should be considered for transportation improvement

projects.

3.4.1.3 Regional and Local

County of Kern

The exterior and interior noise standards from the Noise Element of the County of Kern General 

Plan (County of Kern 2009), along with the construction-hour limits from the Kern County Code, 

are provided in Section 3.2.4.4, Fresno to Bakersfield Noise and Vibration Technical Report

(Authority and FRA 2014a: page 3-21). 

City of Shafter, Metropolitan Bakersfield, and City of Bakersfield

The noise standards from the general plan noise elements, along with the construction-hour limits 

from the municipal codes, for the City of Shafter, Metropolitan Bakersfield, and the City of 

Bakersfield, are provided in Sections 3.2.5.6 and 3.2.5.7 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Noise and 

Vibration Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2014a: pages 3-28 through 3-30). 

3.4.2 Methods for Evaluating Impacts

The methodology used to analyze project noise and vibration impacts along with defining noise 

and vibration for HSR are described below.

3.4.2.1 What is Noise

The definition of noise for HSR and noise descriptors are provided in Section 3.4.3.1, Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014b; page 3.4-3).

3.4.2.2 What is Vibration

The definition of vibration for HSR is provided in Section 3.4.3.2, Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014b; page 3.4-4).
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-3 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

3.4.2.3 Impact Assessment Guidance

The impact assessment guidance is defined in Section 3.4.3.3, Noise and Vibration, of the Fresno 

to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014b: page 3.4-5) and remains 

applicable to the F-B LGA.

Construction Thresholds

The construction noise and vibration thresholds are defined in Section 3.4.3.3, Noise and 

Vibration, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014b: pages 

3.4-5 through 3.4-7) and remain applicable to the F-B LGA. Table 3.4-1 shows the construction 

noise criteria, which have an 8-hour daytime and nighttime dBA Leq noise level standard and a 

30-day dBA Ldn noise level standard for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. It 

should be noted that the FTA construction noise criteria cited in the Section 3.4.3.3, of the Fresno 

to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014b: page 3.4-5) are the same 

detailed construction noise criteria in the FRA manual. Construction vibration criteria are the FRA 

construction vibration damage criteria for various types of buildings, which are shown in Table 

3.4-2. 

Table 3.4-1 Federal Rail Administration Construction Noise Assessment Criteria

Land Use Eight-Hour Leq (dBA) Ldn (dBA)

Day1 Night2 30-Day Average

Residential 80 70 753

Commercial 85 85 804

Industrial 90 90 854

Sources: FTA, 2006; FRA, 2012 1 Daytime hours are 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 2 Nighttime hours are 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

3 In urban areas with very high ambient noise levels (Ldn > 65 dB), Ldn from construction operations should not exceed existing ambient noise levels + 

10 dB. 4 Twenty-four-hour Leq, not Ldn. 

dBA = A-weighted decibels

Ldn = day-night sound level, dBA

Leq = equivalent continuous sound level, dBA

Table 3.4-2 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria

Building Category PPV (in/sec) Approximate Lv1

I. Reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102

II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98

III. Nonengineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94

IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90

Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2006 1 RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 micro in/sec.

in/sec = inches per second

LV = root-mean-square vibration level

Project Thresholds

Noise and vibration criteria for HSR operations and noise effects on wildlife and domestic animals 

are defined in Section 3.4.3.3, Noise and Vibration, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014b: pages 3.4-7 through 3.4-12) and remain applicable to the F-B 

LGA. Table 3.4-3 shows the noise impact criteria for HSR noise effects on animals.
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-4 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 3.4-3 Interim Criteria for High-Speed Rail Noise Effects on Animals

Animal Category Class Noise Metric Noise Level

(dBA)

Domestic Mammals (Livestock) SEL 100

Birds (Poultry) SEL 100

Wild

Mammals SEL 100

Birds SEL 100

Source: Federal Railroad Administration, 2012

dBA = A-weighted decibels

SEL = sound exposure level

There are three types of noise criteria for traffic noise. The first two noise criteria for traffic are 

related to traffic noise increase. The first noise criterion is the perceptibility of project-related 

traffic noise increases that are perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. A change 

in noise level of 3 dBA or less is considered not perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor 

environment. The second criterion is the substantial (12 dBA) increase in traffic noise levels from 

existing without project noise levels to future with project noise levels1

. The third noise criterion is 

the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) defined by FHWA for project-related roadway modifications 

that are classified as a Type 1 project. Section 3.4.3.3, Noise and Vibration, of the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014b: pages 3.4-7 through 3.4-12) 

provides further details and remain applicable to the F-B LGA. 

Construction Noise Impact Methodology

The construction noise impact methodology is defined in Section 3.4.3.3, Noise and Vibration, of 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014b: pages 3.4-12 and 3.4-

13) and remains applicable to the F-B LGA. In addition, more details on the construction noise

impact methodology is defined in Section 8.4, Fresno to Bakersfield Noise and Vibration 

Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2014a: page 8-6).

Criteria for Construction Noise Impact Assessment

The criteria for construction noise impact assessment are defined in Section 3.4.3.3, Noise and 

Vibration, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014b: page 

3.4-13) and remain applicable to the F-B LGA.

Construction Vibration Impact Methodology

The construction vibration impact methodology is defined in Section 3.4.3.3, Noise and Vibration, 

of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014b: page 3.4-13) and 

remains applicable to the F-B LGA. Table 3.4-4 and Table 3.4-5 show the FRA ground-borne 

vibration and ground-borne noise impact criteria based on land use categories and for special 

buildings, respectively. 

1 A traffic noise impact from a substantial increase in traffic noise from existing to future with project noise levels is defined 

by Caltrans in the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-5 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 3.4-4 FRA Ground-Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria

Land Use Category Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Levels

(VdB relative to 1 micro inch/sec)

Ground-Borne Noise Impact Levels

(dB relative to 20 micropascals)

Frequent 

Events1

Occasional 

Events2

Infrequent 

Events3

Frequent 

Events1

Occasional 

Events2

Infrequent 

Events3

Category 1: Buildings 

where vibration would 

interfere with interior 

operations

65 VdB4 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 N/A5 N/A5 N/A5

Category 2:

Residences and 

buildings where people 

normally sleep

72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 38 dBA 43 dBA

Category 3:

Institutional land uses 

with primarily daytime 

use 

75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 43 dBA 48 dBA

Source: FTA, 2006 1 “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most rapid transit projects fall into this category.

2 “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most commuter trunk lines have this many 

operations. 3 "Infrequent Events" is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. This category includes most commuter rail branch lines.

4 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment, such as optical microscopes. Vibration-sensitive 

manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building 

often requires special design of the HVAC systems and stiffened floors. 5 Vibration-sensitive equipment is generally not sensitive to ground-borne noise. 

dB = decibel(s) inch/sec = inch(es) per second sec = second(s)

dBA = A-weighted decibel(s) N/A = not applicable VdB = RMS vibration velocity level

HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning RMS = root-mean-square

Table 3.4-5 FRA Ground-Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria for Special Buildings

Type of Building or 

Room

Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Levels

(VdB relative to 1 micro inch/sec)

Ground-Borne Noise Impact Levels

(dB relative to 20 micro-Pascals)

Frequent Events1 Infrequent Events2 Frequent Events1 Infrequent Events2

Concert hall 65 VdB 65 VdB 25 dBA 25 dBA

Television studio 65 VdB 65 VdB 25 dBA 25 dBA

Recording studio 65 VdB 65 VdB 25 dBA 25 dBA

Auditorium 72 VdB 80 VdB 30 dBA 38 dBA

Theater 72 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 43 dBA

Source: FTA, 2006 1 “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events per day. 2 “Occasional or Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 70 vibration events per day.

dB = decibel(s) inch/sec = inch(es) per second sec = second(s)

dBA = A-weighted decibel(s) RMS = root-mean-square VdB = RMS vibration velocity level, dB

Train Operation Noise and Vibration Methodology

The train operation noise and vibration methodology is defined in Section 3.4.3.3, Noise and 

Vibration, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014b: pages 

3.4-13 and 3.4-14) and remains applicable to the F-B LGA except for factoring in atmosphere 

absorption. The FRA noise-sensitive land use categories are shown in Table 3.4-6 and the FRA 

noise impact criteria are shown in Figure 3.4-1. 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-6 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 3.4-6 Land Use Categories and Metrics for High-Speed Rail Noise Impact Criteria

Land Use 

Category

Noise Metric

(dBA)

Description of Land Use Category

1 Outdoor Leq(h)1 Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose. 

This category includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet, and such land 

uses as outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as National 

Historic Landmarks with significant outdoor use.

2 Outdoor Ldn Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category 

includes homes, hospitals, and hotels where nighttime sensitivity to noise is 

assumed to be of utmost importance.

3 Outdoor Leq(h)1 Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening uses. This category 

includes schools, libraries, and churches, where it is important to avoid 

interference with such activities as speech, meditation, and concentration. 

Buildings with interior spaces where quiet is important, such as medical 

offices, conference rooms, recording studios, and concert halls, fall into this 

category, as well as places for meditation or study associated with cemeteries, 

monuments, and museums. Certain historical sites, parks, and recreational 

facilities are also included.

Source: FTA, 2006 1 Leq for the noisiest hour of transit-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity.

dBA = A-weighted decibels

Ldn = day-night sound level, dBA

Leq(h) = equivalent continuous sound level for a one-hour period, dBA

Figure 3.4-1 Noise Impact Criteria for High-Speed Rail Projects
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-7 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Station Noise

The noise impacts associated with HSR stations are evaluated and discussed separately based 

on two types of noise sources: mobile noise sources and stationary noise sources. The 

methodology to evaluate mobile noise sources associated with the HSR station is defined in 

Section 3.4.3.3, Noise and Vibration, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority 

and FRA 2014b: page 3.4-15) and remains applicable to the F-B LGA. It should also be noted 

that this methodology is the same as the methodology described above for train operations. The 

methodology to evaluate stationary noise sources associated with the HSR station is defined in 

the methodology below under stationary HSR-related noise sources. 

Traffic Noise at Stations

Traffic noise at the HSR station is defined in Section 3.4.3.3, Noise and Vibration, of the Fresno 

to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014b: page 3.4-15) and remains 

applicable to the F-B LGA. In addition, traffic noise at the Maintenance of Infrastructure Facility

(MOIF) and Traction Power Supply Stations (TPSS) would be applicable as well.

Stationary HSR-related Noise Sources

Stationary HSR-related noise sources from the MOIF and TPSS are defined in Section 3.4.3.3, 

Noise and Vibration, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 

2014b: page 3.4-15) and remain applicable to the F-B LGA. In addition, stationary noise sources 

from the HSR station would be applicable as well.

3.4.2.4 Method for Evaluating Effects under NEPA

In the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, analysts applied specified thresholds for each 

resource topic to assess whether the intensity of each impact is negligible, moderate, or 

substantial for the Build Alternatives, and provided a conclusion of whether the impact was 

“significant”. Since the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS does not evaluate the May 

2014 Project as a discrete subsection of the Fresno to Bakersfield Project (as it did for example 

for the Allensworth Bypass), it does not provide conclusions using intensity thresholds for the May 

2014 Project. Therefore, intensity thresholds are not used for the F-B LGA. Instead, the 

evaluation of impacts under NEPA in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS focuses on a 

comprehensive discussion of the project’s potential impacts in terms of context, intensity, and 

duration and provides agency decision makers and the public with a comparison between the 

May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA. 

3.4.2.5 CEQA Significance Criteria

The FRA noise and vibration criteria for evaluating effects under NEPA may be used as the 

CEQA significance criteria. In addition to these criteria, the CEQA Guidelines also define an 

impact pertaining to noise and vibration as significant if it would result in any of the following 

environmental effects:

• Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards for a severe

impact established by the FRA for high-speed ground transportation and by the FTA for

transit projects and other changes to non-HSR rail tracks. These standards cover both

permanent and temporary/periodic increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity

above levels existing without the project.

• Expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise

levels.

3.4.2.6 Study Area

Noise Study Area

The noise study area of the project includes sensitive receivers located within 2,500 feet of the 

proposed HSR track. This study area is consistent with that identified in the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Final EIR/EIS and has been determined based on typical screening distances (Table 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-8 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

3.4-7) defined by the FRA and project-specific conditions. Screening distances indicate whether 

any noise-sensitive receivers are near enough to the proposed alignment for a noise impact to be 

possible under typical conditions. If receivers are located farther away than these screening 

distances, FRA guidance has determined that impacts would be unlikely. Table 3.4-7, which 

groups screening distances by the type of corridor the project would occupy, takes into account 

whether the HSR alignment follows along an existing rail line or highway or along a new 

transportation corridor. 

Table 3.4-7 Screening Distances for Noise Assessments

Corridor Type Existing Noise Environment Screening Distance in Feet for HSR1

Steel-Wheeled

90 to 170 mph 170 mph or more

Railroad Urban/noisy suburban – unobstructed 300 feet 700 feet

Urban/noisy suburban – obstructed2 200 feet 300 feet

Quiet suburban/rural 500 feet 1,200 feet

Highway Urban/noisy suburban – unobstructed 250 feet 600 feet

Urban/noisy suburban – obstructed2 200 feet 350 feet

Quiet suburban/rural 400 feet 1,100 feet

New Urban/noisy suburban – unobstructed 350 feet 700 feet

Urban/noisy suburban – obstructed2 250 feet 350 feet

Quiet suburban/rural 600 feet 1,300 feet

Source: FRA, 2012 1 Measured from the centerline of the guideway or rail corridor. The minimum distance is assumed to be 50 feet.

2 Rows of buildings assumed to be 200, 400, 600, 800, and 1,000 feet parallel to the guideway.

HSR = high-speed rail

mph = miles per hour

The FRA noise impact screening distances for noise-sensitive receivers depend on the existing 

noise environment and speeds of the trains. For noise impact screening distance purposes, 

existing noise environments are defined by the existence of rail corridors, by the type of existing 

noise environment based on the nearby population density (urban, suburban, and rural), and by 

whether the noise-sensitive receiver is obstructed or unobstructed from view of the alternative 

alignments. Screening distances change based on the speeds of the trains. Trains moving up to 

100 mph have a shorter screening distance than trains moving up to 200 mph. Since train speeds 

are planned for 220 mph, the highest speed range category (Regime III – 170 miles per hour 

[mph] or greater) was used to define the screening distance for the F-B LGA alignment. These 

screening distances are based on general assumptions associated with typical projects, such as 

the number of train operations, train speeds, and existing noise conditions. The maximum 

screening distance of 1,300 feet was replaced by a screening distance of 2,500 feet because the 

FRA screening distance is based on the assumption of 50 trains per day, whereas the proposed 

F-B LGA project would operate at 225 trains per day. Therefore, specific factors of the HSR 

project were considered when the potential impact was assessed for all noise-sensitive receivers 

within approximately 2,500 feet. 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-9 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Vibration Study Area

For the F-B LGA, the study area for vibration is as follows:

• HSR station study area: 150 feet from the station boundary

• HSR alignment study areas, including existing railroads: up to 275 feet from the edge of the

right-of-way

• Highway study areas: 50 feet from the roadway centerline

The vibration impact assessment uses the FRA screening procedure. Screening distances 

indicate the potential for vibration impact on vibration-sensitive receivers. FRA guidance has 

determined that receivers located beyond the screening distances are not likely to be affected by 

the HSR project. Table 3.4-8 presents the screening distances for vibration assessment. As 

shown in Table 3.4-8, screening distances change based on the speeds of the train. Trains 

moving up to 100 mph have a shorter screening distance than trains moving up to 200 mph.

Table 3.4-8 Vibration Impact Screening Distances

Land Use Train Frequency Screening Distance for HSR (in feet from centerline)

Up to 100 mph Up to 200 mph Up to 300 mph

Residential Frequent or Occasional 120 feet 220 feet 275 feet

Infrequent 60 feet 100 feet 140 feet

Institutional Frequent or Occasional 100 feet 160 feet 220 feet

Infrequent 20 feet 70 feet 100 feet

Source: FRA, 2012 

Frequent = Greater than 70 passbys per day.

Infrequent = Less than 70 passbys per day.

The study area for the vibration impact assessment analysis documented in this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS generally follows the HSR corridor between Shafter and Bakersfield. Most 

of the study area along the north-south alignment lies along active railroad and highway rights-ofway. Vibration study areas are defined within the FRA vibration screening distances as ranging 

from 220 feet for institutional land uses to 275 feet for residential land uses (Table 3.4-8).

3.4.3 Affected Environment

3.4.3.1 Summary of the May 2014 Project Affected Environment

This section provides a summary of those effects of the May 2014 Project using information from 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. The May 2014 Project is the comparable portion 

of the Preferred Alternative used to compare impacts to the F-B LGA. In Shafter, noise levels 

measured along the May 2014 Project alignment generally ranged from 70 to 79 dBA Ldn. These 

levels reflect the proximity of an active freight rail line. Between Shafter and Bakersfield, the May 

2014 Project alignment continues through agricultural land, which includes some of the leastpopulated areas in the study area. Noise levels measured along this segment of the May 2014 

Project alignment ranged from 54 to 61 dBA Ldn, as expected in a quiet, rural environment. For 

residences adjacent to well-traveled roadways, noise levels ranged from 67 to 71 dBA Ldn. South 

of Reina Road, land uses transition from agricultural to residential, with several single-family 

residential neighborhoods. The noise levels measured at these residences ranged from 65 to 77 

dBA Ldn, which is reflective of residences directly adjacent to an active railroad line. Beyond this 

point, the May 2014 Project alignment turns east toward the freight yard and station in the city of 

Bakersfield. The land uses along this segment of the alignment are urban; roadways, freeways, 

and rail lines dominate the noise environment. The noise measurements conducted near the May 

2014 Project alignment and the Truxtun Avenue Station in this area ranged from 59 to 70 dBA 

Ldn, which are consistent with an urban environment.
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-10 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Vibration measurements ranged between 70 and 80 VdB with the highest measured vibration 

level being 92 VdB and the lowest measurement being 59 VdB. Specific vibration measurements 

were not taken at the Truxtun Avenue Station location as vibration sensitive receivers were not 

located within the FRA screening distances (275 feet from edge of right-of-way). 

3.4.3.2 Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

This section discusses the affected environment related to noise and vibration in the study area of 

the F-B LGA.

Noise-Sensitive Receivers

Noise-sensitive receivers located near the proposed alignment would experience potential noise 

impacts related to the proposed project. The FRA screening distances were used to identify 

noise-sensitive receivers based on the existing land uses and the speeds at which future railroad 

operations are expected to function. The FRA screening distances are shown in Table 3.4-7. As 

shown in Table 3.4-7, the proposed project would have a maximum screening distance of 1,300 

feet. However, this screening distance was replaced with a screening distance of 2,500 feet

because the FRA screening distance is based on the assumption of 50 trains per day, whereas 

the proposed F-B LGA project would operate at 225 trains per day. Noise-sensitive land uses 

include residences, schools, parks, libraries, and hospitals. There are two schools located within

the screening distance of 2,500 feet.

Measured Noise Levels

Ambient noise level measurements were conducted at representative noise-sensitive receiver 

locations within 2,500 feet of the proposed rail line to document the existing noise environment for 

project noise impact assessment. A combination of 37 long-term (24 hours in duration) and 126

short-term (20 minutes 2 in duration) noise level measurements were conducted consistent with 

the May 2014 Project and to represent the study area. Short-term noise level measurements 

were selected in areas not covered by the long-term noise level measurement in order to 

estimate the day-night average noise level (Ldn). The long-term and short-term noise level 

measurement locations are shown on Figure 3.4-2 and Figure 3.4-3. Table 3.4-B-1 in Appendix 

3.4-B, Noise and Vibration Measurements, provides a summary of the long-term noise level

measurement results. Table 3.4-B-2 in Appendix 3.4-B, Noise and Vibration Measurements, 

provides a summary of the short-term noise level measurement results. Each measurement 

location includes the date, start time, address, city/county, land use type, noise sources, and 

estimated Ldn noise level. The Ldn noise levels were estimated by comparing the short-term 

measured values to the corresponding equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) values at a nearby 

long-term measurement location subjected to a similar characteristic noise environment 

according to the following method:

A. Note the Leq value for the short-term measurement.

B. Compare the monitored short-term (ST) Leq value from Step A to the monitored Leq value for 

the nearby long-term (LT) measurement location for the same measurement period used for 

the short-term (ST) Leq value.

Then:

Leq (ST) – Leq (simultaneous) (LT) = delta

and

Ldn (ST) = Ldn (LT) + delta

2 Although the May 2014 Project conducted short-term 1-hour noise level measurements, short-term 20-minute noise level 

measurements of the ambient noise and traffic noise would be relatively the same as a short-term 1-hour noise level 

measurement because the ambient noise and traffic noise levels are constant. 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-11

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.4-2 Noise and Vibration Level Measurement Locations (North End)
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-12 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.4-3 Noise and Vibration Level Measurement Locations (South End)
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-13

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Existing Noise Conditions

• The existing noise environment within the project vicinity is dominated by traffic on the local

streets, nearby freeways, and train operations along the BNSF Railway (BNSF) and Union

Pacific Railroad (UPRR) lines. Noise levels were measured at the noise-sensitive land uses

throughout the area, as indicated in Tables 3.4-B-1 and 3.4-B-2 in Appendix 3.4-B, Noise and

Vibration Measurements, and the measured noise levels ranged from 48 A-weighted decibels

(dBA) Ldn along a quiet residential street to 81 dBA Ldn near a major roadway. These noise

levels are typical for urban settings dominated by vehicular traffic and railroad operations.

Below is a detailed description of the existing noise environment within the project

vicinity.From Poplar Avenue to Cherry Avenue, the F-B LGA is within the city of Shafter. Land

uses in this area are primarily residential and agricultural. The measured ambient noise levels

ranged from 48 to 74 dBA Ldn. These noise levels are dominated by traffic on local streets,

traffic on State Route (SR) 43, and train operations along the BNSF line. From Cherry

Avenue to 7th Standard Road, the F-B LGA is within the limits of the city of Shafter and Kern

County. Land uses in this area are primarily agricultural. The measured ambient noise levels

ranged from 51 to 72 dBA Ldn. These noise levels are dominated by traffic on local streets.

Tables 3.4-B-1 and 3.4-B-2 in Technical Appendix 3.4-B provide the sources contained in

each noise level measurement.

• From 7th Standard Road to Chester Avenue, the F-B LGA is within Kern County and the city

of Bakersfield. Land uses in this area are primarily residential, commercial, and industrial.

The measured ambient noise levels ranged from 48 to 80 dBA Ldn. These noise levels are

dominated by traffic on local streets, traffic on SR 99, and train operations along the UPRR

line.

• From Chester Avenue to Beale Avenue, the F-B LGA is within the city of Bakersfield. Land

uses in this area are primarily residential, commercial, and industrial. The measured ambient

noise levels ranged from 50 to 66 dBA Ldn. These noise levels are dominated by traffic on

local streets, SR 99, and SR 178, and by train operations along the UPRR line.

• From Beale Avenue to Oswell Street, the F-B LGA is within the city of Bakersfield and Kern

County. Land uses in this area are primarily residential. The measured ambient noise levels

ranged from 51 to 81 dBA Ldn. These noise levels are dominated by traffic on local streets

and train operations along the UPRR line.

Vibration-Sensitive Receivers

The vibration-sensitive receivers would be similar to the noise-sensitive receivers described in 

Section 3.4.2.1, except they would be limited to those with sensitive structures within an

appropriate screening distance of the F-B LGA, as described in Table 3.4-8. 

In general, the noise-sensitive receiver locations with structures that are within the limited 

vibration screening distance would be a small subset of the list of noise-sensitive receiver 

locations.

Unlike the FTA/FRA noise impact assessment method, train-related vibration impact thresholds 

are not dependent on existing ground vibration levels. Therefore, the empirical documentation of 

existing ground vibration levels is not as critical as for noise levels. However, ground propagation 

characteristics are inherently variable from one location to another, so it is helpful to collect traininduced ground vibration level data, where available, to assess whether established general trainrelated ground vibration prediction methods (such as those provided by the FRA) are sufficiently 

conservative.

Vibration measurements were conducted at a total of eight locations that were representative of 

actual potentially impacted areas within 220 feet of the F-B LGA and within approximately 260 

feet of an existing active rail line. The field vibration data was processed in accordance with the 

established FTA/FRA impact criteria (i.e., maximum event vibration level) and then compared to 

the value generated by the FTA general vibration assessment procedure (FTA 2006; page 10-2), 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-14 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

(using the Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curve for “locomotive-powered passenger or 

freight”).

The vibration level measurement locations are shown on Figure 3.4-2 and Figure 3.4-3. The

summary of the vibration level measurement results are provided in Table 3.4-B-3 in Appendix 

3.4-B, Noise and Vibration Measurements. Each vibration level measurement includes the

measured vibration levels for various train-related vibration events and a comparison to predicted 

values using the FTA prediction method (FTA 2006; page 10-2). As shown in Table 3.4-B-3 in 

Appendix 3.4-B, a majority of the measurements were approximately 70 VdB with the highest 

measured vibration level of 84.1 VdB and the lowest measured vibration level of 62.6 VdB. 

Vibration measurements were not conducted at the proposed F Street Station because there are 

no vibration sensitive receptors within the FRA screening distance of 275 feet from the proposed 

alignment at the proposed F Street Station. Based on the above, vibration levels are not expected 

to exceed the vibration criteria for vibration sensitive land uses located near the proposed F 

Street Station. 

3.4.4 Environmental Consequences

This section describes the impact analysis relating to noise and vibration for the F-B LGA. 

Potential noise and vibration impacts that would result from both construction and operation of the 

F-B LGA were evaluated within the study area. 

3.4.4.1 Summary of Analysis for the May 2014 Project

This section provides a summary of those effects of the May 2014 Project using information from 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. The May 2014 Project would create noise 

impacts during construction. Prior to mitigation, impacts would be significant under CEQA. 

Mitigation for these impacts (N&V-MM#1) includes noise monitoring during construction and 

requiring the contractor to implement one or more noise control measures to meet the noise limits

prescribed by FTA for construction noise limits, as shown in Table 3.4-1. Following 

implementation of mitigation measures, temporary impacts related to construction noise would be 

less than significant under CEQA.

Building damage from construction vibration is only anticipated from impact pile driving very close 

to buildings; impacts would be of moderate intensity. Damage from construction vibration is not 

anticipated if pile driving takes place more than 25 to 50 feet from buildings or if alternative 

methods, such as push driving or auger installation, can be used. Mitigation includes 

pre-construction surveys to document the existing condition of buildings located within 50 feet of 

pile installation and using methods other than a hammer to install piles close to buildings that 

could be damaged by vibration. Impacts from construction vibration would be significant under 

CEQA. However, arrangement for the repair of damaged buildings or compensation paid to the 

property owner would reduce impacts from construction vibration to less than significant under 

CEQA.

The May 2014 Project would result in operational noise impacts. Slab track was assumed to be 3 

dBA louder than ballast and tie track; therefore, slab track may result in additional noise impacts. 

Prior to mitigation, impacts would be significant under CEQA. Mitigation for operational noise 

includes the installation of sound barriers, vehicle noise specifications, special track work at 

crossovers and turnouts, and additional noise analysis during final design. In some locations, 

operational noise impacts would be significant under CEQA even after implementation of 

mitigation measures. 

In addition, no sensitive vibration receivers would be subject to impacts from project operations. 

Therefore, vibration levels generated from project operations would be less than significant under 

CEQA.
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-15

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

3.4.4.2 Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

Impact N&V #1 – Construction Noise

Rail Corridor Construction

The detailed FRA construction noise criteria were used to evaluate potential noise impacts from 

the construction of the proposed project. As discussed in Section 3.4.2.3, the detailed FRA 

construction noise criteria are the same as the detailed FTA construction noise criteria. Two types 

of short-term noise impacts would occur during the rail corridor construction. The first type would 

be from construction crew commutes. Also, the transport of construction equipment and materials 

to the project site as part of the rail corridor construction would incrementally raise noise levels on 

local roads leading to the site. The pieces of construction equipment would be moved on-site, 

where they would remain for the duration of each construction phase, and would not add to the 

daily traffic volumes in the project vicinity. The projected construction traffic volume would be 

minimal when compared to existing traffic volumes on affected local streets. Therefore, potential 

noise impacts from short-term construction-related worker commutes and equipment transport 

would be less than significant under CEQA.

The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during rail corridor

construction. Construction of the HSR corridor consists of seven construction phases that make 

up the construction schedule: mobilization, demolition, land clearing, earthmoving, road and canal 

overcrossing, track construction, and demobilization. Each phase has a unique set of construction 

equipment that will be utilized. Table 3.4-B-4 in Appendix 3.4-A, Noise and Vibration, provides a 

complete list of the construction equipment that will be used for each phase of construction for the 

F-B LGA. In addition to the construction equipment list, pile driving may be used for road and 

canal overcrossing and track construction. Table 3.4-9 lists typical maximum construction 

equipment noise levels (Lmax) recommended for use in noise impact assessments based on a 

distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receiver. 

Table 3.4-9 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels

Equipment Description Spec 721.5601

Lmax at 50 feet

Actual Measured2

Lmax at 50 feet

All Other Equipment > 5 HP 85 85

Auger Drill Rig 85 84

Backhoe 80 78

Crane 85 81

Dozer 85 82

Drill Rig Truck 84 79

Dump Truck 84 76

Excavator 85 81

Flat-Bed Truck 84 74

Front-End Loader 80 79

Grader 85 85

Impact Pile Driver 95 101

Jackhammer 85 89

Man Lift 85 75

Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 90 90

Paver 85 77

Pickup Truck 55 75
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-16 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Equipment Description Spec 721.5601

Lmax at 50 feet

Actual Measured2

Lmax at 50 feet

Pneumatic Tools 85 85

Pumps 77 81

Rock Drill 85 81

Roller 85 80

Sand Blasting (single nozzle) 85 96

Scraper 85 84

Shears (on backhoe) 85 96

Slurry Plant 78 78

Slurry Trenching Machine 82 80

Tractor 84 84

Vacuum Excavator (vac-truck) 85 85

Vacuum Street Sweeper 80 82

Impact Pile Driver 95 101

Source: Authority and FRA, 2017 1 Maximum noise levels were developed based on Spec 721.560 from the Central Artery/Tunnel program to be consistent with the City 

of Boston’s Noise Code for the “Big Dig” project. 2 The maximum noise level was developed based on the average noise level measured for each piece of equipment during the Central 

Artery/Tunnel program in Boston, Massachusetts.

Note: The noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number.

HP = horsepower

Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level

Table 3.4-10 summarizes the distance to construction noise impact thresholds for daytime and 

nighttime work for each phase of construction when a small set of construction equipment was 

assumed to operate simultaneously as a worst-case scenario. As shown in Table 3.4-10, 

residences located up to 156 feet from the construction boundary (without pile driving) would be 

exposed to noise levels greater than the detailed Federal Rail Administration (FRA) construction 

noise criteria of 80 dBA Leq during daytime hours. There are 105 residences located within 156 

feet from the rail corridor footprint. Residences located up to 493 feet from the construction 

boundary would be exposed to noise levels greater than the detailed FRA construction noise 

criteria of 70 dBA Leq during nighttime hours. If pile driving is required and is conducted 

simultaneously with other construction, residences located up to 316 feet from the construction 

boundary would be exposed to noise levels greater than the detailed FRA construction noise 

criteria of 80 dBA Leq during daytime hours. There are 443 residences located within 316 feet 

from the rail corridor footprint. Residences located up to 998 feet from the construction boundary 

would be exposed to noise levels greater than the detailed FRA construction noise criteria of 70 

dBA Leq during nighttime hours. Even though these impacts are temporary during construction, 

potential noise impacts would be significant under CEQA. If pile driving is required, the potential 

noise impacts would be significant under CEQA. The implementation of mitigation measures 

N&V-MM#1 would reduce potential noise impacts to less than significant under CEQA. 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-17

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 3.4-10 Distances to Federal Railroad Administration Noise Impact Contours from 

Construction Activities for the High-Speed Rail Corridor

Construction Activity Daytime1

80 dBA Leq (feet)

Nighttime2 

70 dBA Leq (feet)

Mobilization 80 253

Demolition 63 199

Land Clearing 156 493

Earthmoving 141 447

Road and Canal Overcrossing 143 454

Road and Canal Overcrossing (with pile driving) 316 998

Track Construction

At-Grade Track 

Elevated Track

Elevated Structure

50

113

134

158

357

424

Track Construction (with pile driving)

At-Grade Track 

Elevated Track

Elevated Structure

286

303

311

903

958

985

Demobilization 113 357

Source: Authority and FRA, 2017 1 Daytime hours are 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 2 Nighttime hours are 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

dBA = A-weighted decibels

Leq = equivalent continuous sound level

Schools

Schools located along the HSR alignment and HSR stationary facilities would be exposed to 

construction-related noise. The transport of construction equipment and materials to the project 

site as part of the rail corridor construction or HSR stationary facilities would incrementally raise 

noise levels on local roads leading to the site. The pieces of construction equipment would be 

moved on-site, where they would remain for the duration of each construction phase and would 

not add to the daily traffic volumes in the project vicinity. The projected construction traffic volume 

would be minimal when compared to existing traffic volumes on affected local streets. Therefore, 

potential noise impacts at schools within the project area from short-term construction-related 

worker commutes and equipment transport would be less than significant under CEQA.

As shown in Table 3.4-10, schools located up to 156 feet from the construction boundary (without 

pile driving) would be exposed to noise levels greater than the detailed FRA construction noise 

criteria of 80 dBA Leq during daytime hours. There are no schools located within 156 feet from the 

rail corridor footprint. If pile driving is required and is conducted simultaneously with other 

construction, schools located up to 316 feet from the construction boundary would be exposed to 

noise levels greater than the detailed FRA construction noise criteria of 80 dBA Leq during 

daytime hours. Schools would not be impacted during nighttime hours because they would not be 

in operation. Even though these impacts are temporary during construction, potential noise 

impacts would be significant under CEQA. If pile driving is required, the potential noise impacts

would be significant under CEQA. The implementation of mitigation measures N&V-MM#1 would 

reduce potential noise impacts to less than significant under CEQA. 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-18 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

The following construction noise analysis is provided due to the availability of project specific 

information and more detailed construction information. In addition, the construction of the 

following HSR facilities may or may not coincide with the construction of the rail corridor.

Elevated BNSF Construction

Potential construction noise impacts from constructing the elevated BNSF railway would be 

similar to the construction noise impacts from high-speed rail corridor track construction, as 

discussed above. Table 3.4-10 shows the noise impact distance to the daytime noise threshold of 

the detailed FRA construction noise criteria of 80 dBA Leq and the nighttime threshold of the 

detailed FRA construction noise criteria of 70 dBA Leq from the construction boundary for each 

construction phase. As shown in Table 3.4-10, residences and schools located up to 156 feet 

from the construction boundary (without pile driving) would be exposed to noise levels greater 

than the detailed FRA construction noise criteria of 80 dBA Leq during daytime hours. There are 

12 residences and no schools located within 156 feet from the environmental footprint (without 

pile driving). Residences located up to 493 feet from the construction boundary would be exposed 

to noise levels greater than the detailed FRA construction noise criteria of 70 dBA Leq during 

nighttime hours (without pile driving). There are 244 residences located within 493 feet from the 

elevated BNSF footprint. If pile driving is required and is conducted simultaneously with other 

construction, residences and schools located up to 316 feet from the construction boundary 

would be exposed to noise levels greater than the detailed FRA construction noise criteria of 80 

dBA Leq during daytime hours. There are 100 residences and no schools located within 316 feet 

from the elevated BNSF footprint. Residences located up to 998 feet from the construction 

boundary would be exposed to noise levels greater than the detailed FRA construction noise 

criteria of 70 dBA Leq during nighttime hours. There are 842 residences located within 998 feet 

from the elevated BNSF footprint. Schools would not be impacted during nighttime hours because 

they would not be in operation. Even though these impacts are temporary during construction, 

potential noise impacts would be significant under CEQA. If pile driving is required, the potential 

noise impacts would be significant under CEQA. The implementation of mitigation measures 

N&V-MM#1 would reduce potential noise impacts to less than significant under CEQA. 

Roadway Construction

The proposed F-B LGA would improve a number of local roadways in the project vicinity. Some 

roadway improvements are considered minor while others are considered more extensive, such 

as grade separations. Below is a list of roadways that would be improved as part of the proposed 

F-B LGA. 

• Grade Separation at Poplar Avenue

• Grade Separation at Riverside Street

• Interchange at SR 99/7th Standard Road

• Interchange at SR 204/F Street

• Intersection Modification at Tulare Avenue and Shafter Avenue

• Intersection Modification at Chester Avenue and 34th Street

• Intersection Modification at E Los Angeles Street and Beech Avenue

• Edison Highway between Mount Vernon Avenue and south of Oswell Street

• Central Avenue

• Coffee Road

• Fresno Avenue

• State Road (North and South)

Construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to each 

roadway improvement site would incrementally raise noise levels on local roads leading to the 

site. The pieces of construction equipment would be moved on-site, where they would remain for 

the duration of the construction phase, and therefore would not add to the daily traffic volumes in 

the project vicinity. Projected construction traffic volumes would be minimal when compared to 

existing traffic volumes on affected local streets and therefore would not result in a perceptible 

change in noise. Therefore, potential noise impacts from short-term construction-related worker 

commutes and equipment transport would be less than significant under CEQA. 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-19

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Roadway construction activity would be similar to typical noise levels from construction activities 

for public works projects described in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Noise and Vibration 

Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2014a: page 8-1). As shown in Table 8-1 in the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2014a), 

construction activities would generate noise levels up to 89 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet. Table 

3.4-11 shows that residences and schools within 143 feet of the construction boundary would be 

exposed to noise levels greater than the detailed FRA construction noise criteria of 80 dBA Leq

during daytime hours. There are 108 residences and two schools located within 143 feet from the 

footprint of roadway improvements. Residences within 454 feet of the construction boundary 

would be exposed to noise levels greater than the detailed FRA construction noise criteria of 70 

dBA Leq during nighttime hours. There are 1,057 residences located within 454 feet from the 

footprint of roadway improvements. Schools would not be impacted during nighttime hours 

because they would not be in operation. Residences and schools within these distances would be 

exposed to noise generated from construction activities that is greater than the recommended 

detailed FRA construction noise criteria. If pile driving is required for the grade separation 

projects, and if it is conducted simultaneously with operation of other pieces of construction 

equipment, noise levels would reach up to 96 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet. Table 3.4-11

shows that residences and schools within 316 feet of the construction boundary would be 

exposed to noise levels greater than the detailed FRA construction noise criteria of 80 dBA Leq

during daytime hours. There are 624 residences and three schools located within 316 feet from 

the footprint of roadway improvements. Residences within 998 feet of the construction boundary 

would be exposed to noise levels greater than the detailed FRA construction noise criteria of 70 

dBA Leq during nighttime hours. There are 3,470 residences located within 998 feet from the 

footprint of roadway improvements. As mentioned above, no noise impacts would occur at 

schools during nighttime hours. Residences and schools within these distances would be 

exposed to noise generated from construction activities that is greater than the recommended 

FRA construction noise criteria. Even though these impacts are temporary during construction, 

potential noise impacts would be significant under CEQA. If pile driving is required, the potential 

noise impacts would be significant under CEQA. The implementation of mitigation measures 

N&V-MM#1 would reduce potential noise impacts to less than significant under CEQA. 

Table 3.4-11 Distances to Federal Railroad Administration Noise Impact Contours from 

Roadway Construction Activities

Construction Activity Daytime1

80 dBA Leq (feet)

Nighttime2 

70 dBA Leq (feet)

Roadway Construction 143 454

Roadway Construction (with pile driving) 316 998

Source: Authority and FRA, 2017 1 Daytime hours are 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 2 Nighttime hours are 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

dBA = A-weighted decibels

Leq = equivalent continuous sound level

F Street Station

Construction of the F-Street Station is anticipated to take 21 months to complete. The list of 

construction equipment for the F-Street Station is provided in Table 3.4-A-4 in Appendix 3.4-A, 

Noise and Vibration. Construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment 

and materials to the project site would incrementally raise noise levels on local roads leading to 

the site. The pieces of construction equipment would be moved on-site, where they would remain 

for the duration of each construction phase, and would not add to the daily traffic volumes in the 

project vicinity. However, the projected construction traffic volume would be minimal when 

compared to existing traffic volumes on affected local streets and the change in noise would not 

be perceptible. Therefore, potential noise impacts from short-term construction-related worker 

commutes and equipment transport would be less than significant under CEQA.
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-20 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Assuming a small set of construction equipment that would operate simultaneously as a worstcase scenario, the worst-case composite noise level during this phase of construction would be 

87 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the construction boundary. Table 3.4-12 shows that 

residences and schools within a distance of 112 feet from the construction boundary would be 

exposed to noise levels greater than the detailed FRA construction noise criteria of 80 dBA Leq

during daytime hours. There are no residences and schools located within 112 feet from the F 

Street Station footprint. Residences within a distance of 353 feet from the construction boundary 

would be exposed to noise levels greater than the detailed FRA construction noise criteria of 70 

dBA Leq during nighttime hours. There are 58 residences located within 353 feet from the F Street 

Station footprint. Schools would not be impacted during nighttime hours because they would not 

be in operation. Residences and schools within these distances from the construction boundary 

would be impacted by noise generated from construction-related activities that is greater than the 

recommended detailed FRA construction noise criteria. Even though these impacts are temporary 

during construction potential noise impacts would be significant under CEQA. However, the 

implementation of mitigation measure N&V-MM#1 would reduce potential noise impacts to less 

than significant under CEQA.

Table 3.4-12 Distances to Federal Railroad Administration Noise Impact Contours from 

Station Construction Activities

Construction Activity Daytime1

80 dBA Leq (feet)

Nighttime2 

70 dBA Leq (feet)

F Street Station Construction 112 353

Source: Authority and FRA, 2017 1 Daytime hours are 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 2 Nighttime hours are 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

dBA = A-weighted decibels Leq = equivalent continuous sound level

Maintenance of Infrastructure Facility

Construction of the proposed MOIF is anticipated to take nine months to complete. The list of 

construction equipment for the proposed MOIF is provided in Table 3.4-A-4 in Appendix 3.4-A, 

Noise and Vibration. Construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment 

and materials to the project site would incrementally raise noise levels on local roads leading to 

the site. The pieces of construction equipment would be moved on-site, where they would remain 

for the duration of each construction phase, and would not add to the daily traffic volumes in the 

project vicinity. However, the projected construction traffic volume would be minimal when 

compared to existing traffic volumes on affected local streets and therefore would not result in a

perceptible change in noise. Therefore, potential noise impacts from short-term constructionrelated worker commutes and equipment transport would be less than significant under CEQA.

Assuming a small set of construction equipment that would operate simultaneously as a worstcase scenario, the worst-case composite noise level during this phase of construction would be 

88 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the construction boundary. Table 3.4-13 shows that 

residences and schools within a distance of 122 feet from the construction boundary would be 

exposed to noise levels greater than the detailed FRA construction noise criteria of 80 dBA Leq

during daytime hours. There are no residences and schools located within 122 feet from the 

MOIF footprint. Residences within a distance of 385 feet from the construction boundary would be 

exposed to noise levels greater than the detailed FRA construction noise criteria of 70 dBA Leq

during nighttime hours. There are nine residences located within 385 feet from the MOIF footprint. 

Schools would not be impacted during nighttime hours because they would not be in operation.

Residences and schools within these distances from the construction boundary would be 

impacted by noise generated from construction-related activities that is greater than the 

recommended detailed FRA construction noise criteria. Even though these impacts are temporary 

during construction, potential noise impacts would be significant under CEQA. However, the 

implementation of mitigation measure N&V-MM#1 would reduce potential noise impacts to less 

than significant under CEQA.
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-21

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 3.4-13 Distances to Federal Railroad Administration Noise Impact Contours from 

MOIF Construction Activities

Construction Activity Daytime1

80 dBA Leq (feet)

Nighttime2 

70 dBA Leq (feet)

MOIF Construction 122 385

Source: Authority and FRA, 2017 1 Daytime hours are 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 2 Nighttime hours are 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

dBA = A-weighted decibels

Leq = equivalent continuous sound level

Traction Power Supply Station

Construction of the traction power supply station (TPSS) is anticipated to take 19 months to 

complete. TPSS are located along the F-B LGA at approximately 5-mile intervals beginning near 

E Los Angeles Avenue and continuing south. The list of construction equipment for the TPSS is 

provided in Table 3.4-A-4 in Appendix 3.4-A, Noise and Vibration. Construction crew commutes 

and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the project site would incrementally 

raise noise levels on local roads leading to the site. The pieces of construction equipment would 

be moved on-site, where they would remain for the duration of each construction phase, and 

would not add to the daily traffic volumes in the project vicinity. However, the projected 

construction traffic volume would be minimal when compared to existing traffic volumes on 

affected local streets and therefore would not result in a perceptible change in noise. Therefore, 

potential noise impacts from short-term construction-related worker commutes and equipment 

transport would be less than significant under CEQA.

Assuming a small set of construction equipment that would operate simultaneously as a worstcase scenario, the worst-case composite noise level during this phase of construction would be 

90 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the construction boundary. Table 3.4-14 shows that 

residences and schools within a distance of 178 feet from the construction boundary would be 

exposed to noise levels greater than the detailed FRA construction noise criteria of 80 dBA Leq

during daytime hours. There are 18 residences and no schools located within 178 feet from the 

TPSS footprint. Residences within a distance of 562 feet from the construction boundary would 

be exposed to noise levels greater than the detailed FRA construction noise criteria of 70 dBA Leq

during nighttime hours. There are 165 residences and no schools located within 562 feet from the 

TPSS footprint. Schools would not be impacted during nighttime hours because they would not 

be in operation. Residences and schools within these distances from the construction boundary 

would be impacted by noise generated from construction-related activities that is greater than the 

recommended detailed FRA construction noise criteria. Even though these impacts are temporary 

during construction, potential noise impacts would be significant under CEQA. However, the 

implementation of mitigation measure N&V-MM#1 would reduce potential noise impacts to less 

than significant under CEQA.

Table 3.4-14 Distances to Federal Railroad Administration Noise Impact Contours from 

TPSS Construction Activities

Construction Activity Daytime1

80 dBA Leq (feet)

Nighttime2 

70 dBA Leq (feet)

TPSS Construction 178 562

Source: Authority and FRA, 2017 1 Daytime hours are 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 2 Nighttime hours are 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

dBA = A-weighted decibels

Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-22 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Electric Power Utility Improvements

Construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the 

project site would incrementally increase noise levels on local roads leading to the site. The 

pieces of construction equipment would be moved on-site, where they would remain for the 

duration of each construction phase, and would not add to the daily traffic volumes in the project 

vicinity. However, the projected construction traffic volume would be minimal when compared to 

existing traffic volumes on affected local streets and therefore would not result in a perceptible

change in noise. Therefore, potential noise impacts from short-term construction-related worker 

commutes and equipment transport would be less than significant under CEQA

Assuming a dozer, drill rig, flatbed truck, crane, and a concrete mixer truck would be used to 

perform electric power utility improvements and would operate simultaneously as a worst-case 

scenario, the worst-case composite noise level during this phase of construction would be 87 dBA 

Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the construction boundary. Table 3.4-15 shows that residences 

and schools within a distance of 108 feet from the construction boundary would be exposed to 

noise levels greater than the detailed FRA construction noise criteria of 80 dBA Leq during 

daytime hours. There are 33 residences and no schools located within 108 feet from the electric 

power utility improvements footprint. Residences within a distance of 342 feet from the 

construction boundary would be exposed to noise levels greater than the detailed FRA 

construction noise criteria of 70 dBA Leq during nighttime hours. There are 250 residences located 

within 108 feet from the electric power utility improvements footprint. Schools would not be 

impacted during nighttime hours because they would not be in operation. Residences and 

schools within these distances from the construction boundary would be impacted by noise 

generated from construction-related activities that is greater than the recommended detailed FRA 

construction noise criteria. Even though these impacts would be temporary during construction, 

potential noise impacts would be significant under CEQA. However, the implementation of 

mitigation measure N&V-MM#1 would reduce potential noise impacts to less than significant 

under CEQA. 

Table 3.4-15 Distances to Federal Railroad Administration Noise Impact Contours from 

Electric Power Utility Improvements

Construction Activity Daytime1

80 dBA Leq (feet)

Nighttime2 

70 dBA Leq (feet)

Electric Power Utility Improvements 108 342

Source: Authority and FRA, 2017 1 Daytime hours are 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 2 Nighttime hours are 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

dBA = A-weighted decibels

Leq = equivalent continuous sound level

Impact N&V #2 – Construction Vibration 

Rail Corridor Construction

The FRA construction vibration damage criteria shown in Table 3.4-2 were used to evaluate 

potential vibration impacts from the construction of the proposed project. During construction of 

the HSR project, construction equipment has the potential to increase ground-borne vibration 

levels near sensitive receivers. For construction-related vibration, the FRA manual provides some 

vibration source levels for various pieces of construction equipment, which are listed in Table 

3.4-16. Table 3.4-16 shows the peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec) and the 

corresponding root-mean-square velocity level (Lv) in vibration velocity decibels (VdB) at a 

distance of 25 feet for each type of construction equipment.
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-23

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 3.4-16 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment

Equipment PPV at 25 feet 

(in/sec)

Approximate

Lv1 at 25 feet

Pile driver (impact) Upper range 1.518 112

Typical 0.644 104

Pile driver (vibratory) Upper range 0.734 105

Typical 0.170 93

Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94

Hydromill (slurry wall)

In soil 0.008 66

In rock 0.017 75

Vibratory roller 0.210 94

Hoe ram 0.089 87

Large bulldozer 0.089 87

Caisson drilling 0.089 87

Loaded trucks 0.076 86

Jackhammer 0.035 79

Small bulldozer 0.003 58

Source: FRA, 2012 1 RMS VdB re 1 micro in/sec. 

in/sec = inches per second RMS = root-mean-square

Lv = RMS velocity level VdB = vibration velocity decibels

PPV = peak particle velocity

Based on the equations provided below, the distances within which annoyance or interference 

would occur with vibration-sensitive activities were calculated for each of the three-land use 

categories defined in Table 3.4-4 and are shown in Table 3.4-17. In addition, the distances within 

which the damage criteria of 0.12 PPV (in/sec) for buildings that are extremely susceptible to 

vibration damage and the damage criteria of 0.20 PPV (in/sec) for buildings constructed of nonengineered timber and masonry were calculated and are shown in Table 3.4-18. Fragile or 

historic structures are extremely susceptible to vibration damage. Wood-frame structures are 

buildings constructed of non-engineered timber and masonry, such as residential structures. 

 25 

1.5

PPVequip = PPVref ×    D 

and

 D  Lv (D) = Lv (25 ft) − 30log   25 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-24 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 3.4-17 Distances to Construction Vibration Annoyance Criteria

Construction 

Equipment

Vibration Source 

Level (approximate 

Lv at 25 feet)

Approximate 

Vibration Impact 

Distance to 65 VdB 

for Category 11

Land Use (feet)

Approximate 

Vibration Impact 

Distance to 72 VdB 

for Category 22

Land Use (feet)

Approximate 

Vibration Impact 

Distance to 75 VdB 

for Category 33

Land Use (feet)

Pile Driver (impact) 104 499 291 232

Caisson Drilling 87 135 79 63

Large Bulldozer 87 135 79 63

Source: Authority and FRA, 2017 1 Category 1 comprises buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations. The distances are from the location of 

construction activity for the specific construction equipment. 2 Category 2 comprises residences and buildings where people normally sleep. The distances are from the location of construction 

activity for the specific construction equipment. 3 Category 3 comprises institutional land uses with primarily daytime use. The distances are from the location of construction activity for 

the specific construction equipment.

Lv = root-mean-square vibration level VdB = vibration velocity decibels

Table 3.4-18 Distances to Construction Vibration Damage Criteria

Source Vibration Source Level 

PPV at 25 feet (in/sec)

Approximate Vibration 

Impact Distance to 0.12 

PPV (feet)1

Approximate Vibration 

Impact Distance to 0.2 PPV 

(feet)2

Pile Driver (impact) 0.644 77 55

Caisson Drilling 0.089 20 15

Large Bulldozer 0.089 20 15

Source: Authority and FRA, 2017 1 Vibration damage threshold for buildings that are extremely susceptible to vibration damage, such as fragile or historic structures. 

2 Vibration damage threshold for buildings that are constructed of non-engineered timber and masonry, such as residential structures.

in/sec = inches per second PPV = peak particle velocity

The list of construction equipment for all phases of rail corridor construction is provided in Table 

3.4-B-4 in Appendix 3.4-B, Noise and Vibration. Because pile driving, caisson drilling, or 

bulldozing are not anticipated under the mobilization, demolition, land clearing, earthmoving, and 

demobilization phase, no vibration impacts would occur under these phases. 

Pile driving may be required during the road and canal overcrossing and track construction (atgrade track, elevated track, and elevated structure) phase. Land uses located within the 

distances of road and canal overcrossing construction activities shown in Table 3.4-17 would 

experience annoyance or interference with vibration-sensitive activities. In addition, as shown in 

Table 3.4-18, fragile or historic structures located within 77 feet or residential structures within 55

feet of pile driving would experience vibration levels that exceed the construction damage criteria.

Because vibration-sensitive structures are located within the distances mentioned above from rail 

corridor construction that would exceed the construction damage criteria, potential vibration

impacts would be significant under CEQA. However, the implementation of mitigation measure 

N&V-MM#2, which requires the use of alternative methods to pile driving, such as cast-in-drilled

hole, would reduce potential vibration impacts to less than significant under CEQA.

Schools

The construction of the HSR rail corridor anticipates the use of pile driving, caisson drilling, and

bulldozing. As all schools within the project area would be located more than 232 feet from the 

construction of the HSR rail corridor, construction-related vibration levels would not result in 

annoyance or damage to school structures. No vibration impacts from construction-related 

activities would occur. Therefore, potential vibration impacts would be less than significant under 

CEQA.
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-25

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

The following construction vibration analysis is provided due to the availability of project specific 

information and more detailed construction information. In addition, the construction of the 

following HSR facilities may or may not coincide with the construction of the rail corridor.

Elevated BNSF Construction

Potential construction vibration impacts for elevating the BNSF railway would be similar to the 

construction vibration impacts for the high-speed rail corridor construction, as discussed above. 

Therefore, as vibration-sensitive structures are located within the distances mentioned above 

from rail corridor construction that would exceed the construction damage criteria, potential 

vibration impacts would be significant under CEQA. However, the implementation of mitigation 

measure N&V-MM#2, which requires the use of alternative methods to pile driving, such as castin-drilled hole, would reduce potential vibration impacts to less than significant under CEQA.

Roadway Construction

Roadway construction would likely use a bulldozer and may require the use of pile drivers. Land 

uses located within the distances shown in Table 3.4-17 for bulldozing and pile driving would 

experience annoyance or interference with vibration-sensitive activities. In addition, bulldozing 

and pile driving activities within the distances shown in Table 3.4-18 would damage building 

structures. The location of bulldozing associated with roadway construction would occur near the 

construction boundary. As schools, residences, and other noise sensitive land uses would be 

located within 63 feet to 135 feet of bulldozing, vibration levels generated from bulldozing would 

result in annoyance. However, schools and residences would not be located within 20 feet of 

bulldozer driving, and fragile or historic structures would not be located within 15 feet of 

bulldozing activities. Therefore, no vibration impacts would occur from vibration levels generated 

by bulldozing activities. 

In addition, the location of pile driving associated with roadway construction would typically occur 

at the location of the roadway structure and would not be located near the construction boundary. 

As schools, residences, and other noise sensitive land uses would be located within 232 feet to 

499 feet of pile driving, vibration levels generated from pile driving would result in annoyance. 

However, schools and residences would not be located within 55 feet of pile driving, and fragile or 

historic structures would not be located within 77 feet of pile driving. Therefore, no vibration 

impacts would occur from vibration levels generated by pile driving activities. Therefore, potential 

vibration impacts would be less than significant under CEQA.

F Street Station

The list of construction equipment for the proposed F Street Station is provided in Table 3.4-A-4 

in Appendix 3.4-A, Noise and Vibration. Drilling and pile driving are not anticipated under this 

phase. However, bulldozing is anticipated, and land uses located within the distances shown in 

Table 3.4-17 would experience annoyance or interference with vibration-sensitive activities. In 

addition, as shown in Table 3.4-18, fragile or historic structures located within 20 feet or 

residential structures within 15 feet of bulldozing activities would experience vibration levels that 

exceed the construction damage criteria. There are no residential or fragile structures located 

within the distances shown in Table 3.4-18. Therefore, the construction of the proposed F Street 

Station would not result in damage to residential or fragile structures, and no vibration impacts 

from construction-related activities would occur. Therefore, potential vibration impacts from the 

construction of the proposed F Street Station would be less than significant under CEQA.

The construction of the proposed F Street Station anticipates bulldozing, but not drilling or pile 

driving. As all schools within the project area would be located more than 63 feet from the 

construction of the proposed F Street Station, construction-related vibration levels would not 

result in annoyance or damage to school structures. No vibration impacts from constructionrelated activities would occur. Potential vibration impacts from the construction of the proposed F 

Street Station would be less than significant under CEQA.
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-26 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Maintenance of Infrastructure Facility

The list of construction equipment for the proposed MOIF is provided in Table 3.4-A-4 in 

Appendix 3.4-A, Noise and Vibration. Because pile driving, caisson drilling, or bulldozing are not 

anticipated, no vibration impacts would occur. Therefore, potential vibration impacts from the 

construction of the proposed MOIF would be less than significant under CEQA.

In addition, as the construction of the proposed MOIF would not anticipate pile driving, caisson 

drilling, or bulldozing, construction-related vibration levels would not result in annoyance or 

damage to school structures. No vibration impacts from construction-related activities would 

occur. Potential vibration impacts from the construction of the proposed MOIF would be less than 

significant under CEQA.

Traction Power Supply Station

The list of construction equipment for the proposed TPSS is provided in Table 3.4-A-4 in 

Appendix 3.4-A, Noise and Vibration. Because pile driving, caisson drilling, or bulldozing are not 

anticipated, no vibration impacts would occur. Therefore, potential vibration impacts from the 

construction of the proposed TPSS would be less than significant under CEQA.

In addition, as the construction of the proposed TPSS would not anticipate pile driving, caisson 

drilling, or bulldozing, construction-related vibration levels would not result in annoyance or 

damage to school structures. No vibration impacts from construction-related activities would 

occur. Potential vibration impacts from the construction of the proposed TPSS would be less than 

significant under CEQA.

Electric Power Utility Improvements

Electric power utility improvements would require the use of drilling and bulldozing, and land uses 

located within the distances shown in Table 3.4-17 would experience annoyance or interference 

with vibration-sensitive activities. In addition, as shown in Table 3.4-18, fragile or historic 

structures located within 20 feet or residential structures within 15 feet of drilling or bulldozing 

activities would experience vibration levels that exceed the construction damage criteria. Since 

the location of proposed electric power utility improvements are currently not available, potential 

vibration impacts are based on the distance in which damage would occur. Therefore, if land uses 

are located within the distances shown in Table 3.4-18, potential vibration impacts from the 

construction of the proposed electric power utility improvements would be significant under 

CEQA. However, the implementation of mitigation measure N&V-MM#2, which requires the use 

of alternative methods to pile driving, such as cast-in-drilled hole, would reduce potential vibration 

impacts to less than significant under CEQA.

The construction of the proposed electric power utility improvements at most anticipates drilling 

and bulldozing, but not pile driving. As all schools within the project area would be located more 

than 63 feet from the construction of the proposed electric power utility improvements, 

construction-related vibration levels would not result in annoyance or damage to school 

structures. No vibration impacts from construction-related activities would occur and no mitigation 

measures are required. 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-27

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impact N&V #3 – Moderate and Severe Noise Impacts from Project Operation to Sensitive 

Receivers

Table 3.4-19 summarizes the design speed parameters presented in the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Final EIR/EIS and were the basis of assumptions for modelling model future with project 

noise levels. This data includes the type of HSR car to be modeled, the number of cars per train, 

the length of the train, the number of operations expected throughout the day, and the basic track 

geometries for the at-grade and aerial portions of the project alignment. Note that any change in 

the number of operations, particularly during nighttime hours, will result in a change in predicted 

noise levels. The reference noise data used to model the HSR operations were taken from the 

High-Speed Electric-Multiple-Unit systems for the propulsion and wheel rail sources and the VeryHigh-Speed Electric systems for the aerodynamic source. A specific speed profile for the entire 

project alignment was not available. Therefore, in order to conduct the most conservative 

analysis, the speed of the trains was assumed to be 220 mph along the entire project corridor for 

all trains (as was done in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS) even though trains 

would reduce their speed when approaching or departing from stations or may have designated 

speeds at certain sections of the alignment. For example, the BNSF Bakersfield Alternative 

between Union Avenue and Mount Vernon under the May 2014 Project would have a reduced 

speed of 125 to 150 mph. Any changes to the speeds of the modeled operations would result in a 

change in the corresponding noise impacts. It is assumed that the HSR track would be 

constructed of ballast and slab track with continuous welded rail, which is consistent with the 

assumptions in the FRA Guidance Manual (FRA 2012). If slab construction would be used for 

structures exceeding 1,000 feet in length and where operating speeds are planned for 220 mph 

operations, noise emanating from trains operating on a slab-track system would be approximately 

3 dBA louder than noise from trains operating on a ballast-and-tie track system because of the 

decreased acoustic absorption compared to that provided by the ballast and changes to the track 

stiffness.

Table 3.4-19 HSR Operational and Geometric Assumptions

Parameter Value

Number of Cars per Train 8

Number of Powered Cars per Train 8

Car Length 82.5 feet

Train Length 660 feet

Number of Daytime Operations 188

Number of Nighttime Operations 37

Number of Peak-Hour Trains 24

Maximum Speed 220 mph

Track Geometry Two-track; 16.5 feet on center

Geometric Cross-Sections Two types: at-grade and aerial

Near Track to Noise Barrier – At-Grade 21.5 feet

Near Track to Noise Barrier – Aerial 15.5 feet

Source: Authority and FRA, 2017

HSR = high-speed rail mph = miles per hour

The projected HSR noise levels were calculated at each noise measurement location along the 

project alignment using the operational assumptions listed above. The calculated noise levels 

were then compared to the measured noise levels at each location, and the moderate impact and 

severe impact distances were determined under the FRA noise impact criteria shown in Figure 

3.4-1. Noise modeling projections do not include the effects of atmospheric absorption. However, 

using atmospheric absorption of sound based on the International Organization for 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-28 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Standardization’s ISO 9613-2 would result in an additional 1 dBA drop in noise level per 1,000 

feet from the F-B LGA alignment.

A detailed noise impact analysis was conducted for the proposed project using FRA methodology 

as discussed in Section 3.2.1.3 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Noise and Vibration Technical Report

(page 3-6). Noise impacts using the FRA methodology are determined by the increase in noise 

exposure levels attributed to the proposed project based on the existing noise environment.

A preliminary noise impact analysis was conducted for the long-term and short-term 

measurement locations to show potential noise impacts within the project vicinity. The measured 

existing noise level and project noise level were used to determine the total noise level and the 

project-related noise level increase at each measurement location. The results of the impact 

analysis for the long-term and short-term measurement locations under the F-B LGA, along with 

various parameters used to determine the noise impact, are shown in Table 5 in Appendix 3.4-A, 

Noise and Vibration. These parameters include the track elevation, receiver base elevation, land 

use, land use category, existing noise level, project noise level unmitigated, total noise level 

unmitigated, noise level increase, and FRA impact. The noise levels shown in Table 5 in 

Appendix 3.4-A, Noise and Vibration, are described in either Ldn or Leq depending on the land use 

category. For land use categories 1 and 3, the noise descriptor is Leq; the noise descriptor for land 

use category 2 is Ldn. The existing noise, project noise level (unmitigated), and total noise level 

(unmitigated) were rounded to the nearest whole number. Also, Table 3.4-A-5 in Appendix 3.4-A, 

Noise and Vibration, provides the calculated distances to the moderate and severe impacts for 

each measurement location for generalization purposes. 

The existing noise levels at noise-sensitive receivers were established using the representative 

long-term and short-term measurement results. The existing noise levels for some of the noisesensitive receivers were averaged from the long-term and short-term noise level measurements 

to obtain a general background noise level for areas that would have similar noise environments. 

The project noise levels were calculated at each noise-sensitive receiver location (a total of 

13,836 noise-sensitive receivers) to determine the total noise level and the project-related noise 

level increase. Table 3.4-20 summarizes the results of the noise impact analysis without 

mitigation by reporting the number of impacted noise-sensitive receivers based on their land use 

category and their noise impact classification (either moderate or severe impact). Figure 3.4-4 

and Figure 3.4-5 show all noise-sensitive receivers that would experience either moderate or 

severe impacts as a result of the proposed HSR operations. Project noise impacts for many 

receivers along the F-B LGA before consideration of mitigation would be significant under CEQA. 

The implementation of mitigation measures N&V-MM#3 would reduce project noise impacts. 

However, the construction of noise barriers may not be feasible or economically reasonable, 

sound insulation may not be acoustical feasible or practical for certain structures, and special 

track work may not reduce noise impacts. Therefore, project noise impacts with the 

implementation of mitigation measures would still remain significant under CEQA. 

Table 3.4-20 Noise Impact Summary Without Mitigation

Level of 

Impact

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3

Recording 

Studios

Residential Hospitals Other1 Schools Churches Parks Other2

Severe 3 4,697 1 16 4 17 6 8 

Moderate 0 7,263 0 4 16 32 4 13

None 0 1,712 0 0 2 30 0 8 

Source: Authority and FRA, 2017 1 Other Category 2 land uses include 16 hotels, 2 homeless shelters, and 2 prisons/correctional facilities. 2 Other Category 3 land uses include 12 meeting halls, 5 mortuaries, 2 libraries, 3 museums, 2 theaters, 2 day cares, 1 cemetery, 1 

disability services, and 1 club. 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-29

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.4-4 Noise Impacts
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-30 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.4-5 Noise Impacts
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-31

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Schools

A more detailed impact information on schools within 2,500 feet of the HSR rail alignment is 

shown in Table 3.4-21. As shown in Table 3.4-20 and Table 3.4-21, of the 22 schools within 

2,500 feet of the study area, 4 schools would experience a severe noise impact, 16 schools 

would experience a moderate noise impact, and 2 schools have no impact. The noise impacts

from HSR operations would be significant under CEQA. The implementation of mitigation 

measures N&V-MM#3 would reduce project noise impacts. However, the construction of noise 

barriers may not feasible or economically reasonable. Therefore, project noise impacts with the 

implementation of mitigation measures would still remain significant under CEQA.

Table 3.4-21 Impact on Schools

School Name Existing Noise

Exposure

(dBA Leq) 

Total Noise Level

Unmitigated

(dBA Leq) 

FRA Manual

Impact Rating

(No Mitigation)

FRA Manual

Impact Rating

(Mitigation)

International S. Sikaran Academy 63.8 67.2 Moderate None

Amerillo College 63.8 68.1 Moderate None

Lyles College of Beauty 63.8 68.2 Moderate None

Summit Bible College 61.8 69.1 Moderate None

University of La Verne 60.2 67.1 Moderate None

Central Valley High School 50.8 60.0 Moderate None

Williams Elementary School 54.6 62.4 Moderate None

Redwood Elementary School 61.6 67.7 Moderate None

Head Start (Shafter) 61.7 69.7 Severe None

San Lauren Elementary School 54.2 64.5 Moderate None

Beardsley School (Elementary/Junior High) 70.9 72.6 None None

Bakersfield Adult School 63.8 67.4 Moderate None

Valley Oaks Charter School 55.3 69.9 Severe Moderate

Stella I. Hills Elementary School 59.2 62.2 None None

Blanton Academy 57.6 63.1 Moderate None

Bakersfield Play Center 54.6 69.1 Severe Moderate

Bessie E. Owens Intermediate School 55.1 65.5 Moderate None

Mt. Vernon Elementary School 59.6 65.3 Moderate None

Bethel Christian School 60.2 70.6 Severe None

Head Start Preschool (Bakersfield) 60.2 68.1 Moderate None

Sierra Middle School 61.3 68.0 Moderate None

Ramon Garza Elementary 61.3 67.8 Moderate None

Source: Authority and FRA, 2017

dBA = A-weighted decibel(s) FRA = Federal Railroad Administration

Leq = equivalent continuous sound level

Elevated BNSF Railway Operations

The existing noise environment near the BNSF rail line in the city of Shafter includes noise 

generated from BNSF rail operations and train horns. The BNSF rail line in the city of Shafter 

would be elevated as part of the proposed HSR project. Noise levels generated from the BNSF 

rail operations would continue, but would generally be lower due to shielding of the retained fill 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-32 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

and elimination of the train horns. Since the background noise level would either be the same or 

lower, noise impacts from both the elevated BNSF railway and the proposed HSR would remain 

the same as shown in Table 3.4-20. Therefore, project noise impacts for many receivers along 

the F-B LGA in the city of Shafter before consideration of mitigation would be significant under 

CEQA. The implementation of mitigation measures N&V-MM#3 would still remain significant 

under CEQA.

Annoyance and Startle Effects from Rapid Onset of HSR Passbys

As discussed in the Fresno to Bakersfield Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Authority and 

FRA 2014a:page 5-1), an onset rate of 15 decibels per second (dB/sec) at a distance of 90 feet 

would result in annoyance, and an onset rate of 30 dB/sec at a distance of 45 feet would result in 

startle effects. Noise-sensitive human receivers located within 90 feet of the track would 

experience annoyance from onset rates caused by the proposed HSR. In addition, noisesensitive human receivers located within 45 feet of the track would experience startle effect from 

onset rates caused by the proposed HSR. Since there are a number of unresolved issues 

regarding the application of the U.S. Air Force research (Stusnick et al. 1992) to determine the 

startle effects of HSR and without further direction from research, the FRA manual recommends

that sensitive receptors be identified when located in the area where startle effects would occur. 

As the proposed HSR would be located on viaduct that is more than 50 feet above the ground, 

people and animals would be located more than 45 feet from the HSR track and would not 

experience startle effect from onset rates caused by the proposed HSR. Therefore, rapid onset 

noise events are considered a less than significant impact under CEQA. 

Impact N&V #4 – Noise Effects on Wildlife and Domestic Animals

As discussed in the Fresno to Bakersfield Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Authority and 

FRA 2014a: page 5-3), all wildlife and domestic animals near the HSR project railway corridor 

may be affected by train passbys if they are subjected to sound exposure level values of 100 dBA 

or higher. Table 3.4-22 show the screening distance from the HSR tracks at which the 100 dBA 

SEL would be exceeded based on an operating speed of 220 mph. As shown in Table 3.4-22, the 

screening distance for a single train passby SEL of 100 dBA would be approximately 100 feet 

from the track centerline when the track is at-grade. Also, when the track is located on an 

elevated structure, the screening distance for a single train passby SEL of 100 dBA would be 

approximately 15 feet from the track centerline. According to the screening distance information 

provided in Table 3.4-22, wildlife and domestic animals might be within the screening distance of 

100 feet when the HSR track is at-grade or 15 feet when the HSR track is on an elevated 

structure. At locations adjacent to existing railways and highways and within urban areas where 

the existing noise is already high, there would be no impacts under CEQA. However, in rural 

areas there could be impacts. These impacts are discussed in Section 3.7, Biological Resources 

and Wetlands, and Section 3.14, Agricultural Lands. 

Table 3.4-22 Screening Distances for Noise Effects on Wildlife and Domestic Animals

Track Location Speed 

(mph)

SEL1

(dBA)

Distance from Track Centerline Where 

Impacts Could Result (feet)

HSR at-grade 220 100 100

HSR 60-foot-high elevated structure 220 100 152

Freight train, no horn 50 100 75

Freight train, sounding horn at at-grade crossing 50 100 40

Source: Authority and FRA, 2012 1 The SEL represents a receiver's cumulative noise exposure from an event and represents the total A-weighted sound during the event 

normalized to a 1-second interval. This noise descriptor is used to assess effects on wildlife and domestic animals. 2 These projections assume a safety barrier on the edge of the aerial structure as shown in typical cross sections (see Chapter 2, 

Alternatives). The safety barrier is assumed to be 3 feet above the top of rail height and 15 feet from the track centerline.

dBA = A-weighted decibel(s)

mph = mile(s) per hour SEL = sound exposure level
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-33

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impact N&V #5 – Impacts from Project Vibration

Rail Corridor Operation

The FRA Detailed Vibration Assessment (FRA 2012) was used to determine potential vibration 

impacts on vibration-sensitive land uses in the project vicinity from long-term operation of the F-B 

LGA. The FRA Detailed Vibration Assessment is utilized to get an in-depth analysis of potential 

vibration impacts. 

A transfer mobility test was conducted in the project vicinity to determine the actual transmission 

characteristics of vibration through the soils along the project right-of-way. Transfer mobility test 

results were used to develop a better understanding of how vibrations from HSR operations 

would propagate through different soil types throughout the length of the project corridor.

Transfer mobility is a measure of the relationship between the exciting force and the velocity 

response at each measurement position. The transfer mobility measurements were taken 

between November 10, 2015, and November 12, 2015. A total of four vibration propagation 

measurements were conducted to estimate the vibration transfer mobility along the proposed F-B 

LGA. Descriptions of the propagation test equipment and protocol are provided below. The sitespecific details of the transfer mobility testing are presented in Appendix F in the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 

Noise and Vibration Technical Report (F-B LGA Noise and Vibration Technical Report; Authority 

and FRA 2017). 

The locations of the transfer mobility sites are listed in Table 3.4-23. The details of the transfer of 

mobility measurements are provided in Section 6.3 in the Fresno to Bakersfield Noise and 

Vibration Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2016). The vibration levels at each measurement 

site, corrected for velocity (220 mph) and plotted relative to distance from the source, are 

presented on Figure 3.4-6. 

Table 3.4-23 Location of Transfer Mobility Measurement Sites

Site Location

1 McMurtrey Avenue and Wishon Drive, Bakersfield

2 Cherry Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue, Shafter

3 McCrumb Lane and Venable Lane, Shafter

4 Pierce Place, Bakersfield

Source: Authority and FRA, 2017
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-34 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Overall Vibration Velocity Level, VdB re 1uin/sec

40 400

Distance from Track Centerline, feet

Band Maximum Vibration Velocity Level vs. Distance, 220 mph

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Figure 3.4-6 Ground-Borne Vibration vs. Distance (from 1/3-Octave Band Data)

The fall-off rate for overall vibration levels due to distance has been derived from the curves 

presented on Figure 3.4-6. Both these curves and the resulting formula have been adjusted to 

take into account the 220 mph speed associated with the HSR project. The formula for estimating 

the overall vibration level with distance from the tracks is as follows:

Lv(d) = 84.21 - 19.8 Log(d/50)

where: Lv(d) = RMS vibration velocity level at distance d

d = distance from the tracks

Table 3.4-24 summarizes the distance to the ground-borne vibration impact level for each land 

use category. The vibration contours are based on the fall-off rate equation determined by the 

transfer mobility measurements. The distance to the ground-borne vibration impact level for each 

land use category and the fall-off rate are different than the May 2014 Project because the four 

transfer of mobility test locations were conducted in Shafter and Bakersfield rather than eighteen

transfer of mobility test locations between Fresno and Bakersfield for the May 2014 Project. Table 

3.4-24 shows that land use categories 1, 2, and 3, located within a distance of 467 feet, 207 feet, 

and 146 feet, respectively, from the nearest rail line on at-grade or retained profile, would be 

impacted by vibration levels above the vibration criterion level generated by the proposed F-B 

LGA. When the alignment is on viaduct or straddle-bent structure, Table 8-2 (Page 8-6) of the 

FRA’s High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2012) 

indicates that an aerial/viaduct structure reduces vibration levels by approximately 10 VdB.

Therefore, land use categories 1, 2, and 3, located within a distance of 146 feet, 65 feet, and 46 

feet, respectively, from the nearest rail line on structure profiles, would be impacted by vibration 

levels above the criterion level generated by the proposed F-B LGA. 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-35

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 3.4-24 Distances to Vibration Criterion Level Contours

Land Use Vibration 

Criterion Level (VdB)

Distance to Vibration 

Contour (feet)1

Category 1 – At-Grade/Retained Profile 65 467

Category 2 – At-Grade/Retained Profile 72 207

Category 3 – At-Grade/Retained Profile 75 146

Category 1 – Viaduct/Straddle Bents 65 146

Category 2 – Viaduct/Straddle Bents 72 65

Category 3 – Viaduct/Straddle Bents 75 46

Source: Authority and FRA, 2017

1 The distance to vibration criterion was calculated based on the track centerline and the fall-off rate from the transfer of mobility 

measurements within the F-B LGA project area. The distance to vibration criterion for the May 2014 project is different than the 

distance to vibration criterion for the F-B LGA project because the location and the extent of the transfer of mobility measurements 

were different.

Using the equation developed from the transfer mobility testing, the projected vibration levels 

were calculated at receivers within 275 feet, as shown in Table 3.4-8 in Section 3.4.2.6, from the 

nearest HSR rail line. A total of 80 vibration-sensitive receivers are located within 275 feet of the 

nearest track. Of the 80 vibration-sensitive receivers, 18 receivers would be impacted by the 

proposed F-B LGA. Vibration impacts would occur under the F-B LGA project due to more 

detailed property acquisition information whereas all impacted receptors under the May 2014 are 

located within the project right-of-way and would be acquired when the project is constructed.

Table 3.4-25 shows the number of vibration impacts for each land use category. The details of 

the vibration analysis for the 80 vibration-sensitive receivers are shown in Table 6 in Appendix

3.4-A, Noise and Vibration. Project vibration levels for the 18 receivers along the F-B LGA before 

consideration of mitigation would be significant under CEQA. However, the implementation of 

mitigation measures N&V-MM#5, requires special track work and mitigation strategies to reduce 

operational vibration levels to less than significant under CEQA.

Table 3.4-25 Vibration Impacts

Land Use Category 1 Land Use Category 2 Land Use Category 3 

Vibration-Sensitive 

Buildings

Residential Hotel/Motel Hospital Shelter Schools Churches Parks

0 14 2 0 2 0 0 0

Source: Authority and FRA, 2017

F Street Station

The long-term operations of the proposed F Street Station would not generate vibration levels as 

no vibration-generating track equipment would be used. For the operations of the HSR rail 

corridor, receptors located near the F Street Station were evaluated with trains traveling at the 

maximum speed of 220 mph. Receptors within 250 feet from the track centerline were evaluated

for potential vibration impacts. Schools would not be impacted from long-term operations of the

proposed F Street Station because no vibration-generating track equipment would be used. 

Therefore, no long-term operational vibration impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures 

are required. There would be no impacts under CEQA. 

Maintenance of Infrastructure Facility

The long-term operations of the proposed MOIF would not generate vibration levels, as no 

vibration-generating track equipment would be used. For the operations of the HSR rail corridor, 

receptors located near the MOIF were evaluated with trains traveling at the maximum speed of 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-36 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

220 mph. Receptors within 250 feet from the track centerline were evaluated for potential 

vibration impacts. Schools would not be impacted from long-term operations of the proposed 

MOIF because no vibration-generating track equipment would be used. Therefore, no long-term 

operational vibration impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. There would 

be no impacts under CEQA.

Traction Power Supply Station

The long-term operations of the TPSS would not generate vibration levels, as no vibrationgenerating track equipment would be used. For the operations of the HSR rail corridor, receptors 

located near the TPSS were evaluated with trains traveling at the maximum speed of 220 mph. 

Receptors within 250 feet from the track centerline were evaluated for potential vibration impacts. 

Schools would not be impacted from long-term operations of the TPSS because no vibrationgenerating track equipment would be used. Therefore, no long-term operational vibration impacts 

would occur and no mitigation measures are required. There would be no impacts under CEQA.

Electric Power Utility Improvements

The long-term operations from proposed electric power utility improvements would not generate 

vibration levels as no vibration-generating track equipment would be used. In addition, schools 

would not be impacted from long-term operations of proposed electric power utility improvements 

because no vibration-generating track equipment would be used. Noise and vibration generated 

from utility maintenance and repair activities were not considered under this analysis as they are 

negligible and would not lead to an increase over existing conditions. Therefore, no long-term 

operational vibration impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. There would 

be no impacts under CEQA.

Impact N&V #6 – Traffic Noise

As previously discussed in the Section 3.4.2.3, there are three types of noise criteria for traffic 

noise, which will be discussed separately to address CEQA and NEPA. The first two noise criteria 

for traffic are related to traffic noise increase. The first noise criterion is the perceptibility of 

project-related traffic noise increases that are perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor 

environment. A change in noise level of 3 dBA or less is considered not perceptible to the human 

ear in an outdoor environment. The second criterion is the substantial (12 dBA) exposure of traffic 

noise levels from existing without project noise levels to future with project noise levels. The third 

noise criterion is the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) defined by FHWA for project-related 

roadway modifications that are classified as a Type 1 project. 

Traffic in the City of Shafter

Traffic noise in the city of Shafter is characterized by vehicular traffic in the surrounding area. 

Table 6-11 from the F-B LGA Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2017) 

shows the project-related change in traffic noise levels in the Shafter area under the existing and 

future with and without project scenarios. The change in traffic noise levels is described as 

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) because average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were 

used to determine the change in noise levels. As shown in Table 6-11 from the F-B LGA Noise 

and Vibration Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2017), the project-related traffic noise 

increase would be less than 3 dBA (increase in noise level is not perceptible to the human ear in 

an outdoor environment), except for Poplar Avenue between Madera Avenue and SR 43 and 

Fresno Avenue between SR 43 and Shafter Avenue under existing conditions. Since the 

proposed project would not be completed under the existing conditions and the project-related 

traffic noise increase under future conditions would be less than 3 dBA, no traffic noise impacts 

would occur. Therefore, project-related traffic noise increases in the Shafter area would result in a 

less than significant impact under CEQA.

The proposed F-B LGA would increase traffic noise in areas surrounding the MOIF. Traffic 

volumes shown in Table 6-11 from the F-B LGA Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Authority 

and FRA 2017) reflect trips associated with the MOIF. As discussed previously, the projectrelated traffic noise increase would be less than 3 dBA, except for Poplar Avenue between 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-37

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Madera Avenue and SR 43 and Fresno Avenue between SR 43 and Shafter Avenue under 

existing conditions. Since the proposed project would not be completed under the existing 

conditions and the project-related traffic noise increase under future conditions would be less 

than 3 dBA, no traffic noise impacts would occur in the Shafter area and the proposed project 

would result in a less than significant impact under CEQA. 

A substantial traffic noise increase from the existing peak-hour traffic volume without the 

proposed project to the future peak-hour traffic volume with the proposed project is likely the

result of roadway improvement projects that are classified as Type 1 projects. Traffic noise

increases from these types of roadway improvements are further discussed below. Table 6-12 

from the F-B LGA Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2017) shows the 

increase in traffic noise levels from the existing peak-hour traffic volume without the proposed 

project to future peak-hour traffic volume with the proposed project for roadway intersections in 

the Shafter area. The change in traffic noise levels is described in Leq because peak-hour traffic 

volumes were used to determine the change in noise levels. As shown in Table 6-12 from the F-B 

LGA Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2017), the traffic noise increases 

would not exceed 12 dBA except at one intersection leg. The increase in traffic noise of 12 dBA 

or more at the north leg of Mettler Avenue/Fresno Avenue intersection is the result of the 

proposed grade separation at Poplar Avenue along with the Madera Avenue closure at Poplar 

Avenue. As the increase in traffic noise for the one intersection leg would be associated with 

roadway improvements that are classified as Type 1 projects, noise abatement measures would

be considered, as discussed below.

Traffic in the City of Bakersfield

Traffic noise in the city of Bakersfield is characterized by vehicular traffic near the F Street Station 

and the surrounding area of Bakersfield. Tables 6-6 and 6-7 from the F-B LGA Noise and 

Vibration Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2017) show the project-related traffic noise level 

change for the F Street Station area under the existing and future conditions with and without the 

project. The change in traffic noise levels is described in CNEL because ADT volumes were used 

to determine the change in noise levels. As shown in Tables 6-6 and 6-7 from the F-B LGA Noise 

and Vibration Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2017), the project-related traffic noise 

increase would be less than 3 dBA (increase in noise level is not perceptible to the human ear in 

an outdoor environment) for the F Street Station area, except for the F Street Station area along 

30th Street between F Street and H Street. Although noise levels along 30th Street between F 

Street and H Street would have a project-related noise increase of up to 3.3 dBA, the land uses 

along this segment of 30th Street are not considered noise-sensitive. Therefore, traffic noise 

increases surrounding the F Street station would result in a less than significant impact under 

CEQA. 

Table 6-8 from the F-B LGA Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2017) 

show the increase in traffic noise levels from the existing peak-hour traffic volumes without the 

proposed project to the future peak-hour traffic volume with the proposed project for roadway 

intersections surrounding the proposed F Street Station. The change in traffic noise levels is 

described in Leq because peak-hour traffic volumes were used to determine the change in noise 

levels. As shown in Table 6-8 from the F-B LGA Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Authority 

and FRA 2017), the traffic noise increase would be less than 12 dBA except for five roadway 

segments. The north leg of F Street and Golden State Avenue and the north leg of F Street and 

SR 204 would increase noise levels by 11.4 dBA. The substantial noise increase is associated 

with the entrance to the proposed F Street Station and the adjacent land uses are not considered 

to be noise-sensitive. The east leg of the Knudsen Drive and Hageman Road intersection would 

increase noise levels by 23.7 dBA. However, the increase is not project-related and the adjacent 

land uses are not considered to be noise-sensitive. The west leg of Q Street and 23rd Street and 

the west leg of Q Street and 14th Street would increase noise levels by 11.9 (close to 12 dBA) 

and 12.0 dBA, respectively. However, the increases in noise levels along these two legs are not 

project-related. Therefore, traffic noise level increases for all five roadway segments would not be 

considered substantial based on FHWA and California Department of Transportation guidelines. 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-38 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 6-9 from the F-B LGA Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2017) 

shows the project-related traffic noise level changes in the Bakersfield area under the existing 

and future with and without project scenarios. The change in traffic noise levels is described in 

CNEL because ADT volumes were used to determine the change in noise levels. As shown in 

Table 6-9 from the F-B LGA Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2017), the 

project-related traffic noise increases would be less than 3 dBA under both existing and future 

conditions. Therefore, project-related traffic noise increases in the Bakersfield area would result in 

a less than significant impact under CEQA. 

The proposed F-B LGA would also increase traffic noise in areas surrounding the TPSS. As traffic 

volumes are not available in the draft supplemental traffic study for roadways surrounding the 

proposed TPSS, traffic noise increases were assumed to be less than the traffic noise increases 

from the proposed heavy maintenance facilities evaluated in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Noise and Vibration Technical Report (page 6-184). Therefore, traffic noise increases 

surrounding the proposed TPSS would result in a less than significant impact under CEQA.

A substantial traffic noise increase from the existing peak-hour traffic volume without the 

proposed project to the future peak-hour traffic volume with the proposed project is likely the 

result of roadway improvement projects that are classified as Type 1 projects. Traffic noise 

increases from these types of roadway improvements are further discussed later in this section.

Table 6-10 from the F-B LGA Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2017) 

shows the increase in traffic noise levels from the existing peak-hour traffic volume without the 

proposed project to the future peak-hour traffic volume with the proposed project for roadway 

intersections in the Bakersfield area. The change in traffic noise levels is described in Leq

because peak-hour traffic volumes were used to determine the change in noise levels. As shown 

in Table 6-10, the traffic noise increase would be less than 12 dBA. Therefore, traffic noise level 

increases would not be considered substantial based on FHWA and Caltrans guidelines.

Traffic in Kern County

Traffic noise in Kern County is characterized by vehicular traffic in the surrounding area. Table 6-

13 from the F-B LGA Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2017) shows the 

project-related change in traffic noise level in the Kern County area under the existing and future 

with and without project scenarios. The change in traffic noise levels is described in CNEL 

because ADT volumes were used to determine the change in noise levels. As shown in Table 6-

13 from the F-B LGA Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2017), the 

project-related traffic noise increase would be less than 3 dBA (increase in noise level is not 

perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment). Therefore, project-related traffic noise 

increases in the Kern County area would result in a less than significant impact under CEQA.

A substantial traffic noise increase from the existing peak-hour traffic volume without the 

proposed project to the future peak-hour traffic volume with the proposed project is likely the 

result of roadway improvement projects that are classified as Type 1 projects. Traffic noise 

increases from these types of roadway improvements are further discussed later in this section. 

Table 6-14 from the F-B LGA Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2017) 

shows the increase in traffic noise levels from the existing peak-hour traffic volume without the 

proposed project to the future peak-hour traffic volume with the proposed project in the Kern

County area. The change in traffic noise levels is described in Leq because peak-hour traffic 

volumes were used to determine the change in noise levels. As shown in Table 6-14 from the F-B 

LGA Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2017), traffic noise increases 

would not exceed 12 dBA. 

Traffic Noise from Roadway Improvements

Roadway improvements that are not classified as Type 1 projects, such as the intersection 

modifications at East Los Angeles Street/Beech Avenue, Edison Highway between Mount Vernon 

Avenue and south of Oswell Street, Central Avenue, Coffee Road, Fresno Avenue, and State 

Road (north and south), would not have traffic noise impacts because the project-related traffic 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-39

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

noise increase would be less than 3 dBA (increase in noise level is not perceptible to the human 

ear in an outdoor environment), as shown in Tables 6-6, 6-7, 6-9, 6-11, and 6-13 from the F-B 

LGA Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2017). Therefore, project-related 

traffic noise increases due to roadway improvements that are not classified as Type 1 projects 

would result in a less than significant impact under CEQA.

Roadway improvements that are classified as Type 1 projects require the preparation of a Noise 

Study Report (NSR) to identify traffic noise impacts for all land uses within the project study area. 

Traffic noise impacts occur when predicted noise levels in the design year approach or exceed 

the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) or a predicted noise level substantially exceeds the existing 

without project noise level by 12 dBA or more. When traffic noise impacts are identified, feasible 

and reasonable noise abatement measures such as noise barriers must be considered. The NSR 

evaluates the acoustic feasibility of noise barriers and whether or not they can reduce noise 

levels by 5 dBA or more for receptors located behind the barriers. If the noise barrier is 

acoustically feasible (reducing noise levels by 5 dBA or more), the Authority will prepare a Noise 

Abatement Decision Report (NADR) after the completion of the NSR to evaluate constructability 

issues and determine whether the barrier is reasonable (cost-effective).

A noise barrier may be considered not feasible for various factors that include not meeting 

geometric standards, such as the minimum line-of-sight, safety, maintenance, security, 

geotechnical considerations, and utility relocations. In addition, noise barriers would be 

considered not feasible when they are located in front of single-family residences or along 

properties with pedestrian sidewalks because the maintenance of property access would be 

required. In addition, constructing a noise barrier in front of a single-family residence or including 

properties with pedestrian sidewalks would result in a non-continuous wall, which would not 

provide the minimum noise reduction of 5 dBA.

A noise barrier would be considered reasonable when at least one or more benefited receptor 

achieves a minimum noise reduction of 7 dBA and when the estimated construction cost is within 

the reasonable allowance. Other reasonableness factors include the viewpoints of the benefited 

receptors. 

Below is a summary of the Type 1 projects within the project vicinity: 

• Poplar Avenue Grade Separation. Land uses within the project vicinity for the Poplar

Avenue Grade Separation include agricultural land and residential uses. The NSR will report

the highest expected noise level that is not closer than 100 feet from the edge of the outside

traffic lane for the agricultural land and determine if the residential land uses would approach

or exceed the NAC.

• Riverside Street Grade Separation. Land uses within the project vicinity for the Riverside

Street Grade Separation include agricultural land along with facilities associated with

agricultural uses. Since there are no land uses within the project vicinity that have a NAC, the

NSR will report the highest expected noise level that is not closer than 100 feet from the edge

of the outside traffic lane.

• SR 99/7th Standard Road Interchange. Land uses within the project vicinity for the SR 99/

7th Standard Road Interchange include a single-family residence, vacant land, agricultural

land, and commercial and industrial uses. The NSR will report the highest expected noise

level that is not closer than 100 feet from the edge of the outside traffic lane for vacant land,

agricultural land, commercial, and industrial uses. The NSR will also determine if residential

land uses would approach or exceed the NAC.

• SR 204/F Street Interchange. Land uses within the project vicinity for the SR 204/F Street

Interchange include single-family residences and office, commercial, and industrial uses. The

NSR will report the highest expected noise level that is not closer than 100 feet from the edge

of the outside traffic lane for office, commercial, and industrial uses. The NSR will also

determine if residential land uses would approach or exceed the NAC.
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-40 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

• Tulare Avenue/Shafter Avenue Intersection. Land uses within the project vicinity for the

Tulare Avenue/Shafter Avenue intersection include residences, the Golden Living Center, a

baseball field, vacant land, and industrial uses. The NSR will report the highest expected

noise level that is not closer than 100 feet from the edge of the outside traffic lane for the

baseball field, vacant land, and industrial uses, and determine if residences and the Golden

Living Center land uses would approach or exceed the NAC.

• Chester Avenue/34th Street Intersection. Land uses within the project vicinity for the

Chester Avenue/34th Street intersection include residences, a school, a museum, and

commercial and industrial uses. The NSR will report the highest expected noise level that is

not closer than 100 feet from the edge of the outside traffic lane for commercial and industrial

uses. The NSR will also determine if the school, museum, and residential land uses would

approach or exceed the NAC.

Impact N&V #7 – Noise from HSR Stationary Facilities

The following discussion evaluates potential long-term operation noise impacts from stationary 

noise sources generated by HSR stationary facilities. The potential long-term operation noise 

impacts from mobile noise sources generated by the HSR are discussed above under Impact 

N&V #3. Stationary noise sources generated by HSR stationary facilities include PA systems, 

signal horns, impact tools, human activity, and vehicle activity. 

F Street Station

Potential long-term operational noise impacts from the proposed F Street Station were evaluated 

using a screening distance of 250 feet for commuter rail without horn-blowing from the FTA 

Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006). There are a total of 150 noisesensitive receivers within 250 feet of the boundary of the proposed F Street Station. Of these 150

noise-sensitive receivers, 108 receivers would be fully acquired by the proposed HSR project. 

The remaining receivers include 39 residences, 1 museum, 1 school, and 1 recreational area. 

The Kern County Museum is located at 3801 Chester Avenue in the city of Bakersfield 

(Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 332-200-05). The Valley Oaks Charter School is located at 

3501 Chester Avenue in the city of Bakersfield (APN 120-080-15). The Northwest Bakersfield 

Baseball Complex is located at 40th Street in the city of Bakersfield (APN 332-200-04). Potential 

noise impacts from long-term operations of the F Street State would be significant under CEQA. 

However, the implementation of mitigation measures N&V-MM#7, such as noise barriers to 

reduce long-term operational noise impacts would result in a less than significant impact under 

CEQA. 

As discussed above, the Valley Oaks Charter School is the only school that would be potentially 

impacted from long-term operations of the proposed F Street Station. Therefore, potential noise 

impacts from long-term operations of the proposed F Street Station would be significant under 

CEQA. However, the implementation of mitigation measures N&V-MM#7, such as noise barriers 

to reduce long-term operational noise impacts would result in a less than significant impact under 

CEQA.

Maintenance of Infrastructure Facility

Potential long-term operational noise impacts from the proposed MOIF were evaluated using 

information for yards and shops from the manual using a screening distance of 1,000 feet from 

the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006). Based on a distance of 

1,000 feet from the boundary of the proposed MOIF, there are a total of 377 noise-sensitive 

receivers. Of these 377 noise-sensitive receivers, 374 are residences and 3 are churches (APN 

089-051-34, APN 026-080-25, and APN 028-010-29). Potential noise impacts from long-term 

operations of the proposed MOIF would be significant under CEQA. However, the implementation 

of mitigation measures N&V-MM#7, such as noise barriers to reduce long-term operational noise 

impacts would result in a less than significant impact under CEQA.

As schools would not be located within 1,000 feet from the boundary of the proposed MOIF, no 

noise impacts would occur from long-term operations of the proposed MOIF. Potential noise 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-41

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

impacts from long-term operations of the proposed MOIF would be less than significant under 

CEQA.

Traction Power Supply Station

Potential long-term operational noise impacts from the proposed TPSS were evaluated for power 

substations using a screening distance of 250 feet from the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration 

Impact Assessment (FTA 2006). Based on a distance of 250 feet from the boundary of the 

proposed TPSS, there is a total of one noise-sensitive receiver represented by the Capri Motel at 

2020 Union Avenue in the City of Bakersfield (APN 016-140-01). Potential noise impacts from 

long-term operations of the proposed TPSS would be significant under CEQA. However, the 

implementation of mitigation measures N&V-MM#7, such as noise barriers to reduce long-term 

operational noise impacts would result in a less than significant impact under CEQA.

As schools would not be located within 250 feet from the boundary of the proposed TPSS, no 

noise impacts would occur from long-term operations of the proposed TPSS. Potential noise 

impacts from long-term operations of the proposed TPSS would be less than significant under 

CEQA.

Electric Power Utility Improvements

Long-term operational noise impacts from the proposed electric power utility improvements would 

generate corona noise. Corona noise is noise generated from transmission or subtransmission 

lines in operation due to the ionization of the air that occurs at the surface of the energized 

conductor and suspension hardware due to very high electric field strength at the surface of the 

metal during certain conditions. However, noise generated from corona noise would not exceed 

noise standards in the cities of Shafter and Bakersfield and the Kern County. No noise impacts 

would occur from the operation of the proposed electric power utility improvements, and no 

mitigation measures are required. Potential noise impacts from long-term operations of the 

proposed electric power utility improvements would be less than significant under CEQA.

Noise generated from corona noise would not exceed noise standards for schools in the cities of 

Shafter and Bakersfield and the Kern County. No noise impacts would occur from the operation of 

the proposed electric power utility improvements, and no mitigation measures are required. 

Potential noise impacts from long-term operations of the proposed electric power utility 

improvements would be less than significant under CEQA.

3.4.5 Avoidance and Minimization Measures 

All of the avoidance and minimization measures (referred to as project design features in Chapter 

3.4 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS [page 3.4-55] are applicable to the F-B 

LGA. The applicable list is provided in Technical Appendix 2-G: Mitigation Monitoring and 

Enforcement Plan. Technical Appendix 2-H describes how implementation of these measures 

reduces adverse effects on noise and vibration. Descriptions of how these measures reduce 

adverse effects are also included in the individual impact analysis discussed previously in this 

Section. The following Avoidance and Minimization Measure would be applicable to the May 2014 

Project as well as the F-B LGA. 

• NV-AM # 1: General Construction Guidelines-Noise and Vibration. The FTA and FRA

have guidelines for minimizing noise and vibration impacts at sensitive receptors that will be

followed during construction.

The Authority and the FRA have incorporated impact avoidance and minimization measures into 

the project design, consistent with the Statewide and Bay Area to Central Valley Program 

EIR/EIS commitments. 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-42 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

3.4.6 Mitigation Measures

3.4.6.1 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Final EIR/EIS

Table 3.4-26 lists the approved mitigation measures under the Fresno to Bakersfield Project 

Section Mitigation and Monitoring Enforcement Plan (FRA 2014). These measures have been 

revised for applicability to the F-B LGA (as shown below in underline and strike through) and

would be implemented to mitigate for impacts that cannot be rectified, reduced, eliminated or 

avoided.

Table 3.4-26 Mitigation Measures Applicable to the F-B LGA

Number Description

N&V-MM#1 Construction Noise Mitigation Measures

During construction the contractor will monitor construction noise to verify compliance with the noise 

limits shown in Table 3.4-1 of the Final EIR/EIS. The contractor would be given the flexibility to meet 

the FRA construction noise limits in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. This would be 

done by either prohibiting certain noise-generating activities during nighttime hours or providing 

additional noise control measures to meet the noise limits. A noise-monitoring program will be 

developed to meet required noise limits, and the following noise control mitigation measures will be 

implemented as necessary, for nighttime and daytime: 

• Install a temporary construction barrier near the noise source

• Avoid nighttime construction in residential neighborhoods

• Locate stationary construction equipment as far as possible from noise-sensitive sites

• Re-route construction truck traffic along roadways that will cause the least disturbance to

residents

• During nighttime work, use smart backup alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm levels

based on the background noise level, or switch off back-up alarms and replace with spotters

• Use low-noise emission equipment

• Implement noise-deadening measures for truck loading and operations

• Monitor and maintain equipment to meet noise limits

• Line or cover storage bins, conveyors, and chutes with sound-deadening material

• Use acoustic enclosures, shields, or shrouds for equipment and facilities

• Use high-grade engine exhaust silencers and engine-casing sound insulation

• Prohibit aboveground jackhammering and impact pile driving during nighttime hours

• Minimize the use of generators to power equipment

• Limit use of public address systems

• Grade surface irregularities on construction sites

• Use moveable sound barriers at the source of the construction activity

• Limit or avoid certain noisy activities during nighttime hours

• To mitigate noise related to pile driving, the use of an auger to install the piles instead of a pile

driver would reduce noise levels substantially. If pile driving is necessary, limit the time of day

that the activity can occur

Noise impacts would occur during construction activities and would cease after construction is 

complete. Mitigation Measure N&V-MM#1 would reduce construction noise below the FRA 

construction noise limits, and this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant impact under 

CEQA.
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-43

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Number Description

N&V-MM#2 Construction Vibration Mitigation Measures

Building damage from construction vibration is only anticipated from impact pile driving at very close 

distances to buildings. If pile driving occurs more than 77 feet from fragile or historic buildings, 55

feet from residential structures25 to 50 feet from buildings, or if alternative methods such as push 

piling, or auger piling, or cast-in-drill-hole (CIDH) can be used, damage from construction vibration 

is not expected to occur. Other sources of construction vibration do not generate high enough 

vibration levels for damage to occur. When a construction scenario has been established, 

preconstruction surveys are conducted at locations within 50 feet of pile driving to document the 

existing condition of buildings in case damage is reported during or after construction. The Authority 

will arrange for the repair of damaged buildings or will pay compensation to the property owner.

Although vibration impacts would occur during construction activities, the construction activities are 

considered temporary, as they would cease after completion. The construction vibration impacts 

would be substantially lessened or avoided, and reduced to a less-than-significant impact under 

CEQA, with implementation of Mitigation Measure N&V-MM #2.

N&V-MM#3 Implement Proposed California High-Speed Train Project Noise Mitigation Guidelines

To determine the appropriate mitigation measure for properties experiencing severe noise impacts, 

noise mitigation guidelines would be applied as follows: 

• Prior to operation of the HSR, the Authority will install sound barriers where they can achieve

between 5 and 15 dBA of noise reduction, depending on their height and location relative to the

tracks. The primary requirements for an effective sound barrier are that the barrier must (1) be

high enough and long enough to break the line-of-sight between the sound source and the

receiver, (2) be of an impervious material with a minimum surface density of 4 pounds per

square foot, and (3) not have any gaps or holes between the panels or at the bottom. Because

many materials meet these requirements, aesthetics, durability, cost, and maintenance

considerations usually determine the selection of materials for sound barriers (examples are

shown in Figure 3.4-14 of the Final EIR/EIS). Depending on the situation, sound barriers can

become visually intrusive. Typically, the sound barriers style is selected with input from the local

jurisdiction to reduce the visual effect of barriers on adjacent lands uses. For example, sound

barriers could be solid or transparent, and made of various colors, materials, and surface

treatments.

• The minimum number of affected sites should be at least 10, and the length of a sound barrier

should be at least 800 feet. The maximum sound barrier height would be 14 feet for at-grade

sections; however, all sound barriers would be designed to be as low as possible to achieve a

substantial noise reduction. Berm and berm/wall combinations are the preferred types of sound

barriers where space and other environmental constraints permit. On aerial structures, the

maximum sound barrier height would also be 14 feet, but barrier material would be limited by

engineering weight restrictions for barriers on the structure. Sound barriers on the aerial

structure will still be designed to be as low as possible to achieve a substantial noise reduction.

Sound barriers on both aerial structures and at-grade structures could consist of solid,

semitransparent, or transparent materials.

• The Authority will work with the communities to identify how the use and height of sound

barriers would be determined using jointly developed performance criteria. Other solutions may

result in higher numbers of residual impacts than reported herein. Options may be to reduce the

height of sound barriers and combine barriers with sound insulation or to accept higher noise

thresholds than the FRA’s current noise thresholds.

• If sound walls are not proposed or do not reduce sound levels to below a severe impact level,

building sound insulation can be installed. Sound insulation of residences and institutional

buildings to improve the outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction is a mitigation measure that can be

provided when the use of sound barriers is not feasible in providing a reasonable level (5 to 7

dBA) of noise reduction. Although this approach has no effect on noise in exterior areas, it may

be the best choice for sites where sound 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 of 5 to 10 dBA) can often be achieved by adding an extra layer of
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-44 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Number Description

glazing to windows, by sealing holes in exterior surfaces that act as sound leaks, and by 

providing forced ventilation and air conditioning so that windows do not need to be opened. 

Performance criteria would be established to balance existing noise events and ambient 

roadway noise conditions as factors for determining mitigation measures. 

• If sound walls or sound installation is not effective, the Authority can acquire easements on

properties severely affected by noise. Another option for mitigating noise impacts is for the

authority to acquire easements on residences likely to be impacted by HSR operations in which

the homeowners would accept the future noise conditions. This approach is usually taken only

in isolated cases where other mitigation options are infeasible, impractical, or too costly.

Table 3.4-27 shows the reasonableness of each feasible noise barrier. Of the six noise barriers 

evaluated, all noise barriers were determined to be feasible and reasonable because the barrier 

would provide a noise level reduction of 5 dBA or more and the cost to construct the barriers would 

not exceed $55,000 per benefited receiver. Table 3.4-27 also shows the height, approximate length, 

number of benefited receivers, total construction cost, the number of unmitigated severe impacts, 

and number of residual impacts (with mitigation) for each barrier height. Table 3.4-28 shows the 

breakdown of residual severe impacts based on each land use in each category. Figure 3.4-7 

through Figure 3.4-10 show the noise barrier locations.

A total of 31 receivers that would be severely impacted were not evaluated with a noise barrier 

because they are located in areas that do not meet the minimum number of 10 severely impacted 

receivers and a minimum barrier length of 800 feet. The 31 receivers consist of 28 residential land 

uses, 1 park, 1 Category 2 land use, and 1 Category 3 land use. Therefore, these receivers would 

be eligible for either sound insulation or payment of property for noise easements.

N&V-MM#4 Vehicle Noise Specification

In the procurement of an HSR vehicle technology, the Authority will require bidders to meet the 

federal regulations (40 CFR Part 201.12/13) at the time of procurement for locomotives (currently a 

90-dBA-level standard), for cars operating at speeds of greater than 45 mph. Depending on the 

available technology, this could significantly reduce the number of impacts throughout the corridor.

N&V-MM#5 Special Track Work at Crossovers and Turnouts

Because the impacts of HSR wheels over rail gaps at turnouts increases HSR noise by 

approximately 6 dBA over typical operations, turnouts can be a major source of noise impact. If the 

turnouts cannot be moved from sensitive areas, the project can use special types of track work that 

eliminate the gap.

Table 3.4-29 provides additional mitigation measures that would reduce operational vibration levels 

when the train, railway, and railway structures are already in good condition. As shown in Table 

3.4-29, mitigation would take place at the source, sensitive receptor, or along the propagation path 

from the source to the sensitive receptor. If mitigation measures provided in Table 3.4-29 are not 

feasible, the Authority would attempt to negotiate a vibration easement with property owners or the 

Authority would negotiate to relocate the property owner outside of the area subject to significant 

vibration impacts.

N&V-MM#6 Additional Noise and Vibration Analysis Following Final Design

If final design or final vehicle specifications result in changes to the assumptions underlying the 

noise and vibration analysis (including analysis regarding resident and business displacements), 

reassess noise and vibration impacts and recommendations for mitigation and provide 

supplemental environmental documentation, as required by law.

Traffic Noise Impacts

Several single-family homes will be subject to traffic peak-hour noise levels in excess of 66 dBA Leq. 

These noise levels would exceed the Caltrans Noise Abatement Criteria and potentially require the 

preparation of Noise Study Reports and noise abatement measures. In determining the 

reasonableness of abatement, FHWA highway traffic noise regulation requires, among other 

factors, the feasibility of the noise mitigation measure as well as the consideration of the viewpoints 

of the affected residents and property owners. Feasibility generally deals with considering whether it 

is possible to build an abatement measure, given site constraints; and whether the abatement 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-45

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Number Description

measure provides a minimum reduction in noise levels. Feasibility also requires that all of the 

homes potentially affected face the roadway from which the noise emanates. As a result, noise 

mitigation measures would be infeasible for any home with a driveway for which access must be 

maintained. The noise barrier would not be continuous, and subsequently would not provide the 

minimum 5 dBA of noise reduction. A noise abatement measure is not feasible unless the measure 

achieves a noise reduction of at least 5 dBA for front-row receivers. Highway noise barriers are 

designed to protect areas of “frequent human use,” which generally do not include the front yards of 

homes. Also, Caltrans does not generally put noise barriers across the front yards of homes 

because they are acoustically infeasible and because most homeowners wish to maintain the views 

from the fronts of their homes.

N&V-MM#7 Heavy Maintenance Facilities Station, Maintenance of Infrastructure Facility, and Traction 

Power Supply Station

In order to reduce the noise from the heavy maintenance facilities, the following noise mitigation 

measures are recommended:

• Enclose as many of the maintenance activities within the facility as possible.

• Eliminate windows in the maintenance building that would face toward noise sensitive land uses

adjacent to the facility. If windows are required to be located on the side of the facility facing

noise-sensitive land uses, they should be the fixed type of windows with a sound transmission

class (STC) rating of at least 35. If the windows must be operable, they should be closed during

nighttime maintenance activities.

• Close maintenance facility doors where the rails enter the facility during nighttime maintenance

activities.

• Locate Maintenance Tracks that cannot be located within the maintenance facility should be

located on the far side of the facility from adjacent noise-sensitive receivers.

• For maintenance tracks that cannot be installed away from noise-sensitive receivers, install

sound barrier along the maintenance tracks in order to protect the adjacent noise-sensitive

receivers.

• Locate all mechanical equipment (compressors, pumps, generators, etc.) should be located

within the maintenance facility structure.

• Locate any mechanical equipment located exterior to the maintenance facility (compressors,

pumps, generators, etc.) should be located on the far side of the facility from adjacent noisesensitive receivers. If this is not possible, this equipment should be located within noise

enclosures to mitigate the noise during operation.

• Point all ventilation ducting for the maintenance facility should be pointed away from the

adjacent noise-sensitive receivers.

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

HSR = high-speed rail

MOIF = maintenance of infrastructure facility

TPSS = traction power supply station
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-46 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank 
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-47

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 3.4-27 Noise Barrier Analysis

Barrier Track Location Track Type Total Length 

(feet)

Height (feet) Area (square feet) Total Cost Benefited 

Receivers

Cost per Benefited 

Receiver

Cost 

Exceed 

$55,000?

Is Barrier 

Reasonable?

5 dBA 

Reduction?

Unmitigated 

Severe 

Impacts

Severe Residual 

Impacts (With 

Mitigation)

NB No. 1 Southbound 

Track 

South of Madera

Avenue to north of 

E Ash Avenue

Viaduct/Fill

(fill = 6,360 feet) 11,930

10 119,300 $6,336,960 79 $80,215 Yes No Yes

589

206

12 143,160 $7,604,352 1,456 $5,223 No Yes Yes 32

14 167,020 $8,871,744 1,456 $6,093 No Yes Yes 11

NB No. 2 Northbound 

Track 

North of Venable 

Lane to south of E 

Ash Avenue

Viaduct/Fill

(fill = 1,660 feet) 8,425

10 84,250 $4,203,360 169 $24,872 No Yes Yes

496

169

12 101,100 $5,044,032 967 $5,216 No Yes Yes 136

14 117,950 $5,884,704 967 $6,086 No Yes Yes 45

NB No. 3 Southbound 

Track 

North of Fruitvale 

Avenue to Olive 

Drive

Viaduct 9,925

10 99,250 $4,764,000 497 $9,586 No Yes Yes

527

127

12 119,100 $5,716,800 1,160 $4,928 No Yes Yes 61

14 138,950 $6,669,600 1,160 $5,750 No Yes Yes 28

NB No. 4 Northbound 

Track 

Norris Road to

north of Elm Street Viaduct 12,460

10 124,600 $5,980,800 104 $57,115 Yes No Yes

306

130

12 149,520 $7,176,960 1,608 $4,433 No Yes Yes 22

14 174,440 $8,373,120 1,608 $5,172 No Yes Yes 8

NB No. 5 Southbound 

Track 

North of Elm Street

to Oswell Street Viaduct 26,700

10 262,000 $12,816,000 759 $16,885 No Yes Yes

1,060

154

12 320,400 $15,379,200 3,200 $4,806 No Yes Yes 7

14 373,800 $17,942,400 3,200 $5,607 No Yes Yes 0

NB No. 6 Northbound 

Track 

North of H Street to 

Oswell Street Viaduct 23,275

10 232,750 $11,172,000 900 $12,413 No Yes Yes

1,743

436

12 279,300 $13,406,400 5,334 $2,513 No Yes Yes 87

14 325,850 $15,640,800 5,334 $2,932 No Yes Yes 29

1 Height above the top of the rail.

dBA = A-weighted decibel(s)

NB = Noise Barrier
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-48 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-49

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 3.4-28 Severe Residual Impacts with Mitigation

Land Use 

Categories

Residual Severe

Noise Impacts

Noise Barrier Height3

10 feet 12 feet 14 feet

1 Recording Studios 3 3 0

2 

Residential 2,874 1,376 121

Hospitals 1 1 0

Other1 14 7 0

3 

Schools 2 1 0

Churches 9 4 0

Parks 3 2 0

Other2 5 4 0

Source: Authority and FRA, 2017

1 Other Category 2 uses include: 16 hotels, 2 homeless shelters, and 2 prisons/correctional facilities.

2 Other Category 3 uses include: 12 meeting halls, 5 mortuaries, 2 libraries, 3 museums, 2 theaters, 2 day cares, 1 

cemetery, 1 disability service, and 1 club. 3 There are 31 receptors that are not located behind noise barriers with a residual severe noise impact. These 31 receptors

include 28 residential land uses, 1 park, 1 Category 2 land use, and 1 Category 3 land use. See Mitigation Measure 

N&V-MM#9 in Section 3.4.4.3 for a discussion of the residences that are not behind noise barriers.
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-50 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-51

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.4-7 Noise Barrier Locations Inset Area 1
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-52 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.4-8 Noise Barrier Locations Inset Area 2
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-53

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.4-9 Noise Barrier Locations Inset Area 3
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-54 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.4-10 Noise Barrier Locations Inset Area 4
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.4-55

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 3.4-29 Potential Vibration Mitigation Procedures and Descriptions

Mitigation 

Procedure

Location of 

Mitigation

Description

Maintenance Source Rail condition monitoring systems with rail grinding on a regular basis. 

Wheel truing to re-contour the wheel, provide a smooth running surface, and 

remove wheel flats. Reconditioning vehicles. Installing wheel condition 

monitoring systems. 

Location and 

Design of Special 

Trackwork 

Source Careful review of crossover and turnout locations during the preliminary 

engineering stage. When feasible, relocate special trackwork to a less 

vibration-sensitive area. Installation of spring frogs eliminates gaps at 

crossovers and helps reduce vibration levels.

Vehicle Suspension Source Rail vehicles should have a low unsprung weight, soft primary suspension, 

minimum metal-on-metal contact between the moving parts of the truck, and 

smooth wheels that are perfectly round.

Special Track 

Support Systems

Source Floating slabs, resiliently supported ties, high-resilience fasteners, resilient 

subroadbed materials, and ballast mats all help reduce vibration levels from 

the track support system. 

Building 

Modifications

Receiver For existing buildings, if vibration-sensitive equipment is affected by train 

vibration, the floor upon which the vibration-sensitive equipment is located 

could be stiffened and isolated from the remainder of the building. For new 

buildings, the building foundation should be supported by elastomer pads 

that are similar to bridge bearing pads. 

Trenches Along Vibration 

Propagation 

Path

A trench can be an effective vibration barrier if it changes the propagation 

characteristics of the soil. It can be open or solid. Open trenches can be 

filled with Styrofoam. Solid barriers can be constructed with sheet piling, 

rows of drilled shafts filled with either concrete or a mixture of soil and lime, 

or concrete poured into a trench.

Operational

Changes

Source Reduce vehicle speed. Adjust nighttime schedules to minimize train 

movements during sensitive hours. Operating restrictions require continuous 

monitoring and may not be practical. 

Buffer Zones Receiver Negotiate a vibration easement from the affected property owners or expand 

the rail right-of-way.

• Mitigation Measure N&V-MM#1 would reduce construction-related noise levels from the

construction of the proposed project. Measures to reduce construction-related noise levels

would not expand the construction area and the increase in noise would be minimal in

comparison to the scope of the project. Therefore, the impacts of mitigation would be less

than significant under CEQA.

• Mitigation Measure N&V-MM#2 would reduce construction-related vibration levels or reduce

construction-related vibration impacts. Although pre-construction surveys and repair of

damaged buildings would likely be conducted outside of the construction boundary, increases

in vibration levels would be minimal to negligible in comparison to the scope of the project.

Therefore, the impacts of mitigation would be less than significant under CEQA.

• Mitigation Measure N&V-MM#3 would reduce operational-related noise from the proposed

HSR. The installation of noise barriers along the HSR alignment would be installed on edges

of the HSR viaduct and would not obstruct wildlife movement. Installation of noise barriers

along the HSR would occur in urbanized areas and would not be located in areas that have

been identified as wildlife corridors; expect for a short portion of the HSR that would span the

Kern River Corridor, where installation of the noise barrier would occur on the viaduct

spanning the corridor, thus not impeding wildlife movement. The installation of noise barriers
Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.4-56 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

has the potential to affect visual and aesthetic qualities. Section 3.16.5, Aesthetics and Visual 

Resources, addresses potential impacts to visual and aesthetic resources in the project area. 

Although providing sound insulation would occur beyond the construction boundary, 

increases in noise would be minimal to negligible in comparison to the scope of the project. 

Therefore, the impacts of mitigation would be less than significant under CEQA. Final location 

and design of noise barriers would be determined during the testing and certification phase of 

the project. Once trainsets are operable (at the outset of the testing and certification phase), 

noise measurements would be taken at nearby sensitive receptors to acquire baseline noise 

measurements. Where severe noise impacts would remain with the installation of noise 

barriers, noise measurements during the testing and certification phase would indicate 

whether sound insulation would reduce noise impacts in interior spaces to an acceptable 

level. If noise impacts would remain severe after the installation of sound insulation, then a 

noise easement would be negotiated with the property owner. 

• Mitigation Measure N&V-MM#4 would require the construction of HSR locomotives to meet

federal regulations (40 C.F.R. 201.12/13). This measure would not increase noise and

vibrations levels within the project area. Therefore, the impacts of mitigation would be less

than significant under CEQA.

• Mitigation Measure N&V-MM#5 would require special types of track work to eliminate gaps

that would reduce noise levels generated from rail turnouts. This measure would be

conducted within the HSR rail right-of-way and staging areas. The increase in noise and

vibration would be minimal to negligible in comparison to the scope of the project. Therefore,

the impacts of mitigation would be less than significant under CEQA.

• Mitigation Measure N&V-MM#6 would require a reassessment of noise and vibration

impacts and recommendations for mitigation if there are changes in assumptions during final

design or final design of the locomotive. Additional mitigation measures that may result from

changes to the assumptions for the proposed project would be minimal in comparison to the

scope of the project. Therefore, the impacts of mitigation would be less than significant under

CEQA.

• Mitigation Measure N&V-MM#7 would reduce noise levels generated from long-term

operations of stationary facilities associated with the proposed HSR project. These measures

would not expand the project boundary and the increase in noise would be minimal to

negligible in comparison to the scope of the project. Therefore, the impacts of mitigation

would be less than significant under CEQA.

3.4.6.2 Mitigation Measures Specific to the F-B LGA

There are no additional measures specific to the F-B LGA. All measures identified in the May 

2014 Project would be applicable to the F-B LGA and are available to mitigate for impacts that 

cannot be rectified, reduced, eliminated or avoided.