posted 02/13/09 10:50 AM | updated 02/14/09 10:27 AM

Round-the-clock construction noise vs. public projects that don't drag on and on

Pick your poison. Night time noise for neighbors or even slower construction schedules for large projects like Capitol Hill's light rail construction? I'll take the noise -- but I don't live near the light rail construction zone on Broadway.

Seattle City Council is scheduled to vote next Tuesday on legislation that would create variances to the city's noise ordinances for "major public construction projects." At stake are limits on the duration of variances that these projects require -- and typically get -- for round-the-clock work. The new rules would make it possible for projects to apply for -- and likely typically get -- long-term and sometimes life-of-project variances to allow for things like night-time construction.

Here is the proposal:


1.  C.B.  116204
Relating to noise control, amending various sections
and adding new sections to Chapter 25.08 of the
Seattle Municipal Code, to provide for a major
public project construction variance for major public
construction projects, to update various provisions
to conform to new technology and changes in
technology, to revise the enforcement procedures to
provide for stop work orders, revocation of
variances, citations and civil penalties, to revise
various provisions to update and clarify references
and correct grammar and other errors, and repealing
Sections 25.08.130, 25.08.240, 25.08.535,
25.08.620, 25.08.750, 25.08.770, 25.08.780,
25.08.790 and 25.08.810.
HELD January 26, 2009
(From Transportation
Committee)
PASS AS AMENDED
(Drago, Clark, McIver)

And here is what the Quiet Alliance and the Seattle Community Council Federation have to say about it:


With projects like the Alaska Way Viaduct replacement, SR-520, and light rail, Seattle is about to suffer the largest and noisiest construction in its history.  This is the worst time to weaken an important bulwark of livability and public health.  The noise ordinance also protects us from the vibration, dust, light, and truck traffic that come with night-time construction.  Without it, we're lost.  The proposed variance locks in permissive treatment of public construction that all would suffer from for a decade.

I've invited Sound Transit to provide their feedback on what effect the revised rules would have on their Capitol Hill station plans. Will update this post when I hear back from them later today.

Regardless of how you come down on the situation, you should take a minute to drop a mail to your favorite councilmember to let them know how you feel.


UPDATE: Here's what a spokesperson for Sound Transit had to say about the proposed legislation and round-the-clock work on the Capitol Hill light rail construction:


Due to the need to operate the tunnel boring machines for University Link around the clock, Sound Transit's contractor will need to be able to work during the night time hours. In order to do that, the agency is applying for a technical noise variance from the City of Seattle.

Whether or not to change the process for granting variances is a decision for the Seattle City Council. Sound Transit did not request any change to the existing ordinance, and the agency is prepared to apply for a variance under either the existing ordinance or a new one because the variance is a necessary part of completing the project.

Part of the process to apply for a noise variance is to evaluate the steps that can be taken to mitigate noise, such as building sound walls, shrouding generators, etc. Our experience with nighttime construction on Beacon Hill has been that these methods are successful at reducing the impacts of the noise.

Add Your Comment ( 7 )
Name:
Email:
(will not be displayed)
Subject:
Comment:
or

What noise?
During Beacon Hill construction, there were basically no complaints about noise. I was also under the impression that trucks wouldn't run at night (and by under the impression, I mean it was explicitly stated at the last capitol hill light rail station meeting...)
Comment by Ben Schiendelman
February 13, 2009
RE: What noise?
First, let me say again that I am ok with easing the variance process so don't think this info is posturing against the council legislation, etc.

1) Capitol Hill project is hugely different than Beacon Hill. For one, the tunnel 'spoils' will need to be removed vertically -- straight from the Hill and out. Beacon Hill was able to remove the spoils to the south away from residences.
2) The tunnel boring machines will run 24 hours a day.
3) Trucks will need to remove spoils 24 hours a day.

There will be noise. The price of progress?
Comment by jseattle
February 13, 2009
RE: What noise?
According to Bruce Grey, who is with SoundTransit, the tunneling is going to go from UW to the Hill, making most of the dirt come out of the UW side. I don't understand why having to bulldoze some buildings and dig downwards is goign to require umpteen years of 24 hour a day dumptrucks on Denny and Olive (I wonder how long until someone gets hurt by one--my vote is in the first 2 months).

As for jseattle over in the fancy pants neighborhood, I think your permissive approach probably differs from that of the thousands who stand to be much more impacted by a permissive approach like that. From what I understand, the noise variance project is mostly a rubber stamp to begin with, but at least it gives we the people a chance to give some input (at 10:25 on a workday, usually :).
Comment by Brant P
February 14, 2009
Noise is everywhere,
I believe the question is: Would you rather have this finished sooner than later? I know I would not want to have to deal with it for 8 years if we could shrink that time by running the project 24 hours a day. If you can sleep with constant sirens, drunks, and airplanes overhead, I am sure construction equipment will not be much worse. I am for this.
Comment by oiseau
February 13, 2009
bait and switch (and switch, and switch)
Remember, when Sound Transit convinced us to support their proposal -- and Capitol Hill residents were big supporters -- their motto was "You'll never know we're here."

Allowing construction crews to create more noise than they would otherwise be allowed to create would probably reduce construction costs, as effective noise abatement doesn't come cheap. But they've already lowered costs by changing from deep-bore to drastically more invasive cut-and-cover station construction in our neighborhood and also by completely eliminating the First Hill station. It seems unreasonable to ask our neighborhood to absorb even more of the cost of construction, and it seems likely that the cost of doing noisy construction in a densely-populated residential area in a responsible manner would have been factored in long ago before plans were approved.

If we are to accept another change in plans, we should find out what led to adoption of the current plans, and in what ways the situation has changed and led to the desire to change plans. In other words, if it once made sense to construct the tunnel and our station within the bounds of the law, why is changing the law (in order to allow construction that would otherwise be illegal) warranted now?
Comment by Phil M
February 18, 2009
tunnel routing, spoils removal
Brant P., consider that the tunnel will be built not between UW and Capitol Hill, but also between Capitol Hill and downtown.
Comment by Phil M
February 18, 2009
correction
s/not between/not only between/

(no editing or deleting comments?)
Comment by Phil M
February 18, 2009