STUDY OF THE NOISE POLLUTION AT CONTAINER TERMINALS AND THE SURROUNDINGS

STUDY OF THE NOISE POLLUTION AT CONTAINER TERMINALS

AND THE SURROUNDINGS

FINAL REPORT

METRANS PROJECT 09-09

JULY 2011

I-Hung Khoo, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of Electrical Engineering

and

Tang-Hung Nguyen, Ph.D., P.E

Associate Professor

Department of Civil Engineering & Construction Engineering Management

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH

LONG BEACH, CA 90840

ii

Disclaimer

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the

accuracy of the data and information presented herein. This document is disseminated

under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation

Centers Program, and the California Department of Transportation, and the Center for

International Trade and Transportation (CITT), California State University, Long Beach

(CSULB) in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government, the California

Department of Transportation, and CSULB assume no liability for the contents or use

thereof. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State

of California, CSULB, or the Department of Transportation. This report does not

constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

iii

Abstract

Noise emissions from various transportation modes including seaports have become a

major concern to environmental and governmental agencies in recent years due to the

impact they have on the community. The Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex is the

nation’s largest ocean freight hub and its busiest container port complex. As the container

sector has the highest growth potential, the levels of noise generated by activities at the

container terminals may affect the port personnel as well as the residential neighbors. In

this research effort, the noise distribution at the port of Long Beach was evaluated.

Specifically, the following tasks were accomplished:

Determine, using noise mapping, the level of noise generated by the cargo

handling and transport activities at the container terminals. A noise model of the

port and its surroundings was created, and validated with field measurements.

Assess whether the noise level in any area exceeds the relevant noise regulation or

guideline, and to identify the key noise source in the area.

Determine the noise and activity variations during the period of study.

The developed noise model will be a very valuable tool for the city and port authorities in

making planning decisions as it allows the prediction of the noise impact of future

development projects on the port and the surroundings.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover page ........................................................................................................................... i

Disclaimer .......................................................................................................................... ii

Abstract ............................................................................................................................. iii

Table of contents ............................................................................................................... iv

List of Figures .....................................................................................................................v

List of Tables ................................................................................................................... vii

Disclosure ....................................................................................................................... viii

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................... viii

1.0 Background and statement of the problem ....................................................................1

1.1 Impact of noise ...................................................................................................1

1.2 Standard noise levels..........................................................................................2

1.2.1 Definitions of Acoustical Terms .........................................................2

1.2.2 Noise regulations ................................................................................4

1.3 Measurement of noise levels ..............................................................................6

1.4 Noise mapping ...................................................................................................7

1.5 Overview of the Port of Long Beach .................................................................8

1.6 Transportation and industrial noise at ports .....................................................10

1.7 Noise mapping of the port................................................................................11

2.0 Research methodology .................................................................................................13

2.1 Identifying the locations for collection of noise levels ....................................13

2.2 Collecting data .................................................................................................14

2.2.1 Noise data..........................................................................................14

2.2.2 The operational information of the Port ............................................16

2.2.3 The spatial and geographical information for the Port ....................17

2.3 Creating a 3D computer model of the Port of Long Beach .............................20

2.4 Using a computer software to create a noise map ............................................22

2.5 Generating a noise map for the Port of Long Beach ........................................22

3.0 Research results ...........................................................................................................29

3.1 Noise distributions ...........................................................................................29

3.1.1 Hourly noise and activity distribution...............................................29

3.1.2 Daily noise and activity distribution .................................................33

3.1.3 Monthly noise and activity distribution ............................................35

3.1.4 Overall noise and activity distribution ..............................................38

3.2 Noise maps for the Port of Long Beach and validation of results ...................42

3.3 Evaluation of noise impact using noise maps ..................................................44

4.0. Research findings and discussions ..............................................................................48

4.1 Key findings .....................................................................................................48

4.2 Data analysis ....................................................................................................49

4.3 Observations ....................................................................................................50

4.4 Recommendations ............................................................................................51

5.0 Conclusions and Future Research ................................................................................53

Appendix: Data worksheet .................................................................................................55

References ..........................................................................................................................56

v

List of Figures

Figure 1. Port of Long Beach Terminals

Figure 2. Noise measurement locations

Figure 3. Sound meter set up in the field

Figure 4. Portable weather meter

Figure 5. Topographic map of the Port

Figure 6. Digital elevation model of the Port with Pier J extension added

Figure 7. High resolution orthoimagery of the Port

Figure 8. Details of ship at Pier J from the high resolution orthoimager

Figure 9. Digital spatial model of the Port

Figure 10. Two-dimension digital spatial model of the Port with elevation contour

Figure 11. Three-dimension digital spatial model for Pier F

Figure 12. Sound power and spectrum of the various noise sources

Figure 13. Map of ship and cargo handling locations.

Figure 14. Hourly noise distribution for each location and the average

Figure 15. Hourly truck activity for each location and the average

Figure 16. Hourly rail activity for each location

Figure 17. Hourly crane activity for each location

Figure 18. Hourly forklift activity for each location

Figure 19. Hourly yard tractor activity for each location

Figure 20. Daily noise level for each location and the average

Figure 21. Daily truck activity for each location and the average

Figure 22. Daily rail activity for each location

Figure 23. Daily crane activity for each location

Figure 24. Daily forklift activity for each location

Figure 25. Daily yard tractor activity for each location

Figure 26. Monthly noise level for each location and the average

Figure 27. Monthly truck activity for each location and the average

Figure 28. Monthly rail activity for each location

Figure 29. Monthly crane activity for each location

Figure 30. Monthly forklift activity for each location

Figure 31. Monthly yard tractor activity for each location

Figure 32. Overall average noise level for each location

Figure 33. Overall average truck activity for each location

Figure 34. Overall rail activity for each location

Figure 35. Overall average crane activity for each location

Figure 36. Overall average forklift activity for each location

Figure 37. Overall average yard tractor activity for each location

Figure 38. Overall noise map for day period (6am-10pm)

Figure 39. Overall noise map for night period (10pm-6am)

Figure 40. Noise map for day period (6am-10pm) with only truck traffic

Figure 41. Noise map for night period (10pm-6am) with only truck traffic

Figure 42. Noise map for day period (10pm-6am) with only ships and cargo handling

activities

vi

Figure 43. Noise map for night period (10pm-6am) with only ships and cargo handling

activities

Figure 44. Noise map with only train activities

vii

List of Tables

Table 1. Typical Noise Levels in the Environment (US EPA, 1974)

Table 2. Federal (FHWA) Noise Abatement Criteria

Table 3. Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines

Table 4. List of Terminals at the Port of Long Beach

Table 5. Five-year cargo statistics at the Port of Long Beach

Table 6. Number of trucks by time period for each pier

Table 7. Average number of trains per day for each pier

Table 8. Average number of container ships active per hour at each pier

Table 9. Average number of dockside cranes active per hour for each pier

Table 10. Number of cargo handling equipment active per hour by pier and time period

Table 11. Comparison of noise map values with actual field measurements

Table 12. Key findings

viii

Disclosure

Project was funded in entirety under this contract to California Department of

Transportation.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the port authorities of the Port of Long Beach for the

permission to conduct field noise measurements necessary for this project. Special thanks

to Mr. Rick Cameron, Director of Environmental Planning, Port of Long Beach, Mr. Don

Snyder, Director of Trade Relations, Port of Long Beach, and Mr. Mitch Poryazov,

Assistant Terminal Services Manager, Port of Long Beach, for their endorsement and

their invaluable assistance in this research project. Finally, the authors wish to

acknowledge the efforts of Kiran Rajanna, Graduate Research Assistant, and

Undergraduate Research Assistants (Dane Christensen, Eduardo Delgado, Benjamin

Solinsky) for their assistance to this research project.

1

1.0 Background and statement of the problem:

Noise emissions from various transportation modes including seaports have become a

major concern to environmental and governmental agencies in recent years due to the

impact they have on the community. The Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex is the

nation’s largest ocean freight hub and its busiest container port complex. As the container

sector has the highest growth potential, the levels of noise generated by the ships, straddle

carriers, cranes, forklifts, trucks and trains may present a problem. Noise emitted from

container terminals, at high levels and for long periods, may affect the performance of the

different parties involved in the cargo handling activities at the container terminals as

well as the life of the residential neighbors. The European Union leads the rest of the

world in recognizing the negative impact of environmental noise and issuing legislature

to assess and reduce the noise. As a result of EU directive 2002/49/EC, noise mapping

has been done at major European cities such as Paris and Brussels and major seaports

such as Hamburg and Copenhagen. The United States lags behind the European countries

in terms of noise mapping. Currently community noise mapping is not mandated by the

U.S. federal or state governments and noise studies in the U.S. are limited to highway,

railway, and airport noise.

The purpose of this study is to predict and model the noise of container terminals at the

port of Long Beach with the following specific objectives:

To determine, using noise mapping, the level of noise generated by the cargo

handling and transport activities at the container terminals. A noise model of the

port and its surroundings will be created, and validated with field measurements.

To assess whether the noise level in any area exceeds the relevant noise regulation

or guideline, and to identify the key noise source in the area.

To determine, through field measurements, the noise and activity variations

during the period of study.

The developed noise model will be a very valuable tool for the city and port authorities in

making planning decisions as it allows the prediction of the noise impact of future

development projects on the port and the surroundings.

This section will discuss the following: Impact of noise; Noise level standards;

Measurement of noise levels; Noise mapping; Overview of the Port of Long Beach;

Transportation and industrial noise at the Port; and Noise mapping of the port.

1.1 Impact of Noise

Noise is a prevalent pollutant that affects all aspects of life around the globe. Noise can

cause damage to health, interrupt activities, and disrupt normal cognitive process.

Prolonged exposure to noise in excess of 85dBA is known to cause hearing loss. The

stress due to noise can also lead to regulatory diseases. Study has found an increase in

cardiovascular risk with increasing noise levels. The result of a large scale survey also

2

confirms a causal chain between strong noise annoyance and increased morbidity. Adults

who indicated chronically severe annoyance by neighborhood noise were found to have

an increased risk for respiratory disease, as well as depression and migraine. A further

effect of noise is sleep disturbances. Frequent or long awakenings impede the necessary

recovery and rejuvenating effects of sleep, leading to decreased performance capacity,

drowsiness and tiredness during the day. This in the long run can have a detrimental

effect on health.

Noise can also have a negative impact at the workplace. There are numerous reports of

hearing loss produced by exposure to high industrial noise levels. Industrial noise does

more harm than just damaging hearing. Noise in the workplace that is not enough to

damage hearing may still be high enough to interfere with communication and the

hearing of warning signals. In addition, it has been shown that noise causes a greater

frequency of errors in performing everyday tasks and can lead to more workplace

accidents. A study has found that the number of accidents per worker was highest for

young workers in noisy jobs and for those who had the least experience at such jobs.

Noise can also affect the productivity of workers. The effects of noise on performance

efficiency depend on the type of noise and the nature of the task being performed. For

intermittent noise, studies have shown that it impairs the speed of processing new

information and the elucidation of a response. The effect however is only confined to a

short period after the onset of the noise. For loud continuous noise, the effect is most

detrimental for tasks involving monitoring and the use of caution. For moderate intensity

noise, the effect is less serious but it can reinforce the use of a dominant response to

stimuli and make the worker less flexible and adaptive to change.

The problem of noise extends beyond the workplace. During the past few decades,

mobility of people and goods has increased and with it the amount of traffic and the

environment noise levels. City noise levels in all parts of the world are rising, particularly

in the new mega cities. Sound level studies made in cities such as Bangkok and Calcutta

have all shown levels well in excess of what would be considered harmful in the

workplace. Such sound levels interfere with communication and affect the well being of

people exposed to it.

1.2 Standard noise levels

Several organizations have made tremendous efforts to develop noise regulations in

which guidelines about standard noise levels were recommended. Before the noise

regulations are discussed, it would be helpful to provide definitions of basic acoustical

terms and concepts.

1.2.1 Definitions of Acoustical Terms

Decibels (dB): A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to

the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure.

The reference pressure for air is 20 micro Pascals

3

Sound pressure levels: Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed

in micro Pascals (or micro Newtons per square meter), where 1 Pascal is the pressure

resulting from a force of 1 Newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound

pressure level is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio

between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound pressure (e.g., 20 micro

Pascals in air). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound

level meter

Frequency (Hz): The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and

below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 hertz (Hz) and 20,000

Hz. Infrasonic sounds are below 20 Hz, and ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz.

Ambient Noise Level: The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal

or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA): The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a

sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-

emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner

similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective

reactions to noise.

Equivalent Noise Level (Leq): The average A-weighted noise level during the

measurement period. The hourly Leq used for this report is denoted as dBA Leq(h).

Sound Level vs Distance

Sound pressure level decreases at a rate of 6dB per doubling of the distance away from

the point source. The atmosphere will also play a role in the attenuation as the distance

increases.

Adding Sound Levels

Combination of sounds from many sources often contribute to the observed total sound

level which can be calculated as follows: 1 2

10 10 1010 log 10 10 ..... 10ndBdB dB

totaldB

where dBtotal is the combined sound level, dB1 is the sound level from the first source,

dB2 is the sound level of the second source, and so on.

Several methods of characterizing sound exist. The most common is the A-weighted

sound level or dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which

the human ear is most sensitive. Studies have shown that the A-weighted level is closely

correlated with annoyance. Other frequency weighting networks, such as C weighting or

dBC, have been devised to describe noise levels for specific types of noise (e.g.,

explosives). Table 1 shows typical A-weighted noise levels that occur in human

environments.

4

Table 1. Typical Noise Levels in the Environment (US EPA, 1974)

1.2.2 Noise regulations

In this section, several noise regulations are presented including WHO’s Noise

Guidelines, Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Standards, and City of Los

Angeles Municipal Code. Also, human response to noise is discussed.

WHO’s Noise Guidelines: In 1999, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued

suggested community noise guidelines. It considered various environments, noise levels,

and noise impacts. In outdoor living areas (backyards, for example), a noise level of 50-

55 dBA averaged over the daytime is considered moderately to seriously annoying; levels

above 45 dBA averaged over nighttime hours can disturb sleep; and indoor noise levels

above 35 dBA impact communication in a school classroom.

5

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Standards: These traffic noise

standards are provided as guidance in the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol

(Caltrans, 1998). The FHWA traffic noise standards are not directly applicable to this

project because this is not a Type 1 federally funded highway improvement project. The

FHWA regulations identify Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC), according which noise

abatement must be considered for a Type 1 project when the project results in a

substantial noise increase or when the predicted noise levels approach or exceed the noise

abatement criterion for a particular land use. Table 2 presents the noise abatement

criteria, established by FHWA, for various land uses (called activity categories). From

these noise abatement criteria, Caltrans has further defined noise levels “approaching” the

noise abatement criterion to be 1 dBA below the NAC (e.g., 66 dBA is considered to

approach the NAC for Category B activity areas).

Table 2. Federal (FHWA) Noise Abatement Criteria

City of Los Angeles Municipal Code: The City of Los Angeles Municipal Code sets

forth noise regulations as shown in Section 41.40 of the Code. Regarding construction

noise, Section 112.05 of the Code establishes maximum noise levels for powered

equipment or powered hand tools. This section discussed noise limits at a distance of 50

feet: (a) 75 dBA for construction, industrial and agricultural machinery including crawler

tractors, dozers, rotary drills and augers, loaders, power shovels, cranes, derricks, motor

graders, paving machines, off-highway trucks, ditchers, trenchers, compactors, scrapers,

wagons, pavement breakers, depressors, and pneumatic or other powered equipment; (b)

75 dBA for powered equipment of 20 horsepower or less intended for infrequent use in

residential areas including chain saws, log chippers, and powered hand tools; and (c) 65

dBA for powered equipment intended for repetitive use in residential areas including

lawn mowers, backpack mowers, small lawn and garden tools, and riding tractors. Table

3 presents the land use noise compatibility guidelines.

6

Table 3. Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines

Human Response to Noise: The human ear does not judge sound in absolute terms, but

instead senses the intensity of how many times greater one sound is to another. A decibel

is the basic unit of sound level; it denotes a ratio of intensity to a reference sound. Most

sounds that humans are capable of hearing have a decibel (dB) range of 0 to 140. A

whisper is about 30 dB, conversational speech 60 dB, and 130 dB is the threshold of

physical pain. Changes of 3 dBA in the normal environment are widely accepted and are

considered barely noticeable to most people. A change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible,

and an increase of 10 dBA is perceived as being twice as loud.

1.3 Measurements of noise levels

Since noise levels can vary significantly over a short period, they should be described as

their average character or the statistical behavior of their variations. Usually,

environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same

acoustical energy as the average of all the time-varying events. This energy-equivalent

sound/noise descriptor is called Leq.

A common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of

arbitrary duration. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level

meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within

approximately plus or minus 1 dBA.

7

1.4 Noise mapping

Noise mapping is the geographic presentation of data related to outdoor sound levels and

sound exposure with associated information on impact to the affected population. It is a

method of presenting complex noise information in a clear and simple way either on a

physical map or in a database. It takes into account the contribution of all noise sources

as well as the effects of obstacles and terrain. The generated noise map can be used to

study the noise impact, to identify noise hot spots, to develop noise reduction measures,

and to monitor trends in the environmental noise.

The production of noise maps can be broadly divided into the following steps:

Collect data for road and rail traffic; noise data for industry.

Create digital models of the buildings, screens, and topography.

Calculate the noise levels using noise propagation models to create the noise

contours.

Due to the development in noise modeling and the processing power of the latest

computer hardware, it is now possible to calculate noise maps for large urban areas using

the available data on buildings, ground profile, road and rail traffic, and other industrial

sources. At least two European noise modeling packages, CadnaA and SoundPLAN, are

now capable of handling different noise sources including road, rail traffic and industrial

equipment. In addition, they offer significant advantages in their fast processing speed

over a virtually unlimited number of receivers, multiprocessor support, built-in CAD

functionality, 3-D viewing, building façade noise predictions, professional graphics and

GIS/CAD-compatible input and output.

Noise mapping has already been done at major European cities such as Paris and Brussels

and major seaports such as Hamburg and Copenhagen. The United States lags behind the

European countries in terms of noise mapping. In effect, the European Union directive

2002/49/EC makes noise mapping mandatory for cities with at least 250,000 inhabitants,

while noise mapping is currently not mandated by the U.S. federal or state governments.

Noise studies in the U.S. are limited to highway, railway, or airport noise. The noise

prediction models used in these studies are limited in scope and do not include noise from

sources other than the infrastructure under study. For example, the Traffic Noise Model

(TNM) provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) can only model traffic

noise and not rail or industrial noise. It was reported that the TNM presents several

drawbacks to easy, realistic noise mapping.

With the understanding from the above general discussion on noise impact, noise

standards, noise measurements, and noise mapping, we now consider the noise study on

the port.

8

1.5 Overview of the Port of Long Beach

The Port of Long Beach was founded in 1911 and has now become one of the world's

busiest seaports, a leading gateway for trade between the United States and Asia. The

Port comprises 3,200 acres of land, 10 piers, and 80 berths with 71 post-panamax gantry

cranes. The terminals at the Port of Long Beach (see Figure 1) can be classified into the

following categories: container, dry bulk, break bulk, liquid bulk, auto and passenger,

which handle a variety of cargo. Among these terminals, the container terminals are

selected as the target of this study due to the fact that 82% of all cargo handling

equipment operated at the Port is used at container terminals. Table 4 provides the list of

the terminals at the Port by cargo type inventoried:

Figure 1. Port of Long Beach Terminals

The Port of Long Beach is recognized internationally as one of the world’s best seaports

and locally as a partner dedicated to helping the community thrive. It supports millions

of jobs nationally and provides consumers and businesses with billions of dollars in

goods each year.

9

In 2009, the Port of Long Beach handled more than five million containers and more than

70 million metric tons of cargo valued at more than $120 millions. On average, it handled

the equivalent of 13,900 twenty-foot containers (TEUs) each day.

Table 4. List of Terminals at the Port of Long Beach

Terminal Cargo Type/Location Container Terminals California United Terminals

International Transportation Service

Long Beach Container Terminal Pacific Container Terminal

SSA Marine – Pier A

SSA Marine – Pier C

Total Terminals International

Pacific Container Terminals

Break-Bulk Terminals

California United Terminals - Break-bulk

Cooper/T. Smith (included with SSA Marine Bulk)

SSA Marine Bulk – Crescent Terminals

Pacific Coast Recycling

Fremont Forest Group

Weyerhaeuser

Connolly-Pacific

Dry Bulk Terminals:

Koch Carbon

G -P Gypsum

Metropolitan Stevedore

Morton Salt

Cemex

Mitsubishi Cement

National Gypsum

Liquid Terminals

BP/ Arco

Chemoil

Baker Commodities

Petro Diamond

Tesoro

Vopak

Auto Terminal

Toyota

Passenger Terminal

Carnival Cruise Terminal

In a report of the Port of Long Beach, a 5-year comparison has been made into the growth

of container sector, as shown in Table 5. It is noticed that the total number of the

equivalent twenty-foot containers (TEUs) has decreased at about 5.1% in the year of

2009 compared to a peak of 7.3 millions in 2007. This change is due primarily to global

economic conditions that negatively impacted trade volume around the world.

10

Table 5. Five-year cargo statistics at the Port of Long Beach

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Volume in

Metric

Tons

80.7 million 85 million 87 million 80 million 70 million

Value in

U.S Dollars

$105.4 billion $140 billion N/A N/A N/A

Containers

in TEUs

6,709,818 7,290,365 7,312,465 6,487,816 5,067,597

The Port of Long Beach pioneered innovative environment protection programs that were

designed to guide efforts to minimize or eliminate negative environmental impacts.

Examples of such programs are the Green Flag vessel speed reduction air quality

program, Green Leases with environmental covenants and the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean

Air Action Plan. While the Port is dedicated to improving air quality, there have not been

any programs or plans to protect the environment from noise pollution due to the

operational activities at the port.

1.6 Transportation and industrial noise at ports

The areas around ports are usually subject to high traffic numbers due to the port and

nearby industrial activities and as a result, nearby residential locations experience

elevated ambient noise levels. Port noise impacts are expected to be significant and noise

assessment will undoubtedly be required.

Noise levels generated during the container terminal operations at ports vary depending

on the type of equipment and the nature of the work being performed. In general, there

are two major aspects of the noise arising from container terminal operations at ports:

(i) Specific penetrating noise sources: these include warning sirens on cranes and

straddle carriers, ship's horns sounded on departure, and train crossing warning bells. The

noise levels resulting from these sources usually cause the greatest concern to residents,

although they do not have much effect on measured noise levels due to their short

duration and intermittent operation.

(ii) General plant noise sources: the operation of container terminals involves the

following main sources of general plant noise: gantry container cranes, ship generators,

road trucks, trains, forklift, yard tractor. Several selected noise sources are discussed

below.

Gantry Container Cranes: Every container crane is equipped with a large

electric motor located at high level which is used to lift the container up and

down. The electric motor usually generates a high sound power level

(approximately 110 to 115 dBA for typical operation) and is the main noise

11

source involved with the container crane. Penetrating noise sources associated

with the cranes are the movement warning devices and the impact of containers

on other surfaces.

Ship Generators: These are large diesel generators that are used to produce the

power required for onboard activities when ships are at berth. The noise levels

resulting from these ship generators vary significantly from ship to ship and have

been found to be in the range of 100 to 115 dBA (Leq). As a result, the Port of

Long Beach is moving aggressively to outfit its container terminals with shore

power. Shore power allows docked ships to plug into land based electric utility

instead of burning diesel fuel to run their auxiliary engines, a source of pollution.

By 2014, at least one berth at every container terminal will have shore power. By

2020, all container berths will have shore power.

Trucks and Trains: These are the two main methods of moving containers away

and into the container terminal. A number of 'truck exchange areas' are located

around the terminal for trucks to park in and load/unload their containers. The

unloading of trains used to involve shunting onsite.

1.7 Noise mapping of the Port

The general noise mapping approach previously discussed can be used for creating the

noise map for the port. Port noise can be predicted accurately provided the necessary

inputs are known. The three major inputs are (i) source noise levels; (ii) ground

topography; and (iii) operational activities.

(i) Source noise levels: The principal noise sources at the port are ships, cranes,

fork lifts, trucks/trains, and container handling equipment. Each of these

sources can be measured under normal working conditions to establish the

sound power level, or alternatively the sound characteristics can be obtained

from the manufacturers. From this the sound level at different distances can be

calculated.

(ii) Ground topography: The ground topography (ground contours and buildings)

must be accurately provided since sound propagation is strongly affected by

the ground contours and buildings between sources and receivers. Usually

ground contours at 10-meter intervals should be obtained and would be

sufficiently precise.

(iii) Operational activities: The information about operational activities at the port

is needed to calculate the overall noise and to develop the port noise

boundaries. These include the ships, cranes, forklifts, trucks, trains, and

container handling equipment activities. Usually, the operational data must be

predicted for future uses of the port. For example, the number of ships that

might visit is first predicted, then the volume of cargo (e.g. the number of

containers that would be handled) can be estimated, and finally the number of

straddle carriers and forklifts that would be in operation, and the number of

trucks and trains required to move that volume of cargo to and from the port

12

can be determined. Unless a reasonable estimate for the operational activities

is obtained, the overall calculated noise will be inaccurate.

Once all the input data is collected, it is entered into a noise modeling software (e.g.,

CadnaA, SoundPLAN). This then predicts the noise over the area of interest and

calculates the noise contours. Basically, the noise modeling software calculates the

average noise from each source to a grid of receiver points, typically spaced 10 meters

apart, for different periods of the day, taking into account the fact that many of the

sources move over a wide area.

The generated noise map can be used to study the noise impact, to identify noise hot

spots, to develop noise reduction measures, and to monitor trends in the environmental

noise. For example, from the noise map of a port, the port authorities will be able to

identify the noise levels for areas where mitigation is needed, and where new and future

development will have the greatest negative impact.

13

2.0 Research methodology

The research methodology to study the noise impacts resulting from operation of the Port

of Long Beach container terminals includes the following activities: Identifying the

locations for collection of noise levels; Collecting data; Creating a 3D computer model of

the Port of Long Beach; Using a computer software to model noise data (noise mapping);

and Generating a noise map for the port of Long Beach.

2.1 Identifying the locations for collection of noise levels

Representative locations were selected around the Port for the measurement of the noise

levels generated from the container handling activities. Due to restrictions from the

terminal operators of the Port, it was not permitted to take the measurements inside the

container terminals. In effect, eight measurement locations were selected outside the

terminals but close enough to the various key noise sources such as the trucks, cargo

handling equipment, and trains. These eight locations are shown on the map in Figure 2.

They include truck entrances, areas next to the container yards where container handling

activities occur, and also the railroads. The locations are scattered around the Port in

order to give a reasonable sampling of the noise levels. The container terminals where the

measurements were conducted include Piers A, C, E, F, G, and J.

Figure 2 – Noise measurement locations

14

2.2 Collecting data

The data collected for this research project include: noise data; the operational

information of the Port; and the spatial information of the Port.

2.2.1 Noise data

The noise sources in the port areas can be broadly grouped into two major categories:

industrial activities and traffic related activities (NoMEPort, 2008).

The data required for modeling industrial noise sources include:

• Sound power level of every relevant industrial source (cargo and container handling

equipment, forklifts, yard tractors, cranes, etc)

• Location of the sources and their movements

• Working hours of every source for each time period (day, evening, night)

The data required for modeling traffic related noise sources are the following:

• Road traffic data: the type of vehicles (light, medium, heavy, trucks, passenger cars),

their number per hour for each time period (day, evening, night), and their average speed.

• Location of roads and the type of road surface (e.g. asphalt, concrete, etc)

• Location of rail tracks

• Railway traffic data: the type of train (cargo, passenger, etc), their number per hour for

each time period (day, evening, night), their average speed

The noise characteristics for industrial sources can be obtained by direct noise

measurements or by using values from available noise source databases. Direct noise

measurement is the most accurate. It is however time consuming and often technically

complicated as the source needs to be isolated from other background noise. The second

method of using values from a database is easier but less accurate and requires the data to

be validated.

In this study, the noise data was collected from November 2009 to June 2010. This

timeframe covers the peak container activity period around November, as well as the

slower periods thereafter; hence, the noise variations can be studied. There are two sets of

data needed for the noise study – the first is the average noise level (Leq), the second is

the activity that is contributing to the noise.

The noise was measured using an integrating sound meter with data logging capability.

The Extech 407780 meter (see Figure 3) was adopted for noise data collection in this

study. A microphone can be attached directly to the sound meter or through an extension

cord. This allows flexibility in the positioning. For example, the meter can be attached to

a tripod or it can be placed inside the car while the microphone is placed on the car’s roof

using the extension cord. The microphone has a wind screen to reduce the disturbance

from wind during measurements. The sound meter was set to provide the A-weighted Leq

average noise for a measurement period of 20 to 30 minutes. At the end of the

15

measurement time, the displayed Leq value was recorded by the research assistant. The

data logged by the meter can also be downloaded to a computer for further analysis.

The noise data was collected as often as possible, preferably daily during the weekends,

for 4 to 6 hours each day. Some readings were also taken during the weekends. In order

to get a good sampling, the research assistant moves around the different locations and

takes readings of 20-30 minutes each. For a 6-hour session, up to 12 readings were taken.

The measurements were done during daylight hours between 8am to 4pm with a focus on

the peak hours around 8am and 1pm where the activity is the highest. Due to the security

at the Port, no readings were taken at night. A data worksheet (a sample copy can be

found in the Appendix) was developed to facilitate the data collection in the field.

The collected data were compiled to provide the hourly, daily, and monthly averages for

the noise levels and amount of activities for each location, which will be presented in

Section 3 of this report. As the noise maps only show the annual average noise, the

hourly, daily and monthly noise averages will be useful in understanding the noise

variations. In addition, the annual average value will be used in validating the noise map

results.

Figure 3 – Sound meter set up in the field

16

2.2.2 The operational information of the port

The operational information of the port such as the number of each noise source and their

locations need to be provided. This data is required for each activity at the port, including

the truck and rail traffic throughout the day and week. The information can be gathered

by actual monitoring or using data from the port authority. The traffic and cargo volume

will be used to determine the level of activities.

During the collection of noise data using the sound meter, the research assistant was also

recording the operational information that may contribute to the noise levels at the

measurement location. The operational information includes the following:

1) Number of trucks observed (loaded or unloaded), and whether they are incoming

or outgoing relative to the truck entrance.

2) Number of cargo handling equipment in operation and the time they are active.

The equipment includes RTG crane, yard tractors, top handlers, and side-picks.

3) The time the railway is active. The number of containers carried by the trains is

also counted.

A video camera was also used to record the on-site activities for verification of collected

data. In addition, any unexpected activities (e.g., construction work) taking place that

might affect the noise measurements were reported, which then can be used to determine

whether the noise reading is reliable.

Figure 4. Portable weather meter

17

Beside the noise and activity data, the meteorological conditions were also recorded at

the start of each measurement using a portable weather station meter, as shown in Figure

4. The data recorded include the temperature, humidity, wind direction, which are

considered as parameters that may affect the noise propagation.

2.2.3 The spatial and geographical information for the Port

The spatial and geographical information for the Port and its surroundings is required for

the creation of the computer model of the Port. The geographical parameters such as

terrain and buildings affect the sound propagation and need to be quantified. Generally,

the geographical data required for the computer model include the following:

• Elevation and spot heights

• Location of noise sources: industry, roads, and railways.

• Residential and industrial buildings (including heights and dimensions)

• Other obstacles in the study area that will affect the sound propagation

• Identification of the ground surface characteristics

Figure 5. Topographic map of the Port

The specific information needed is: the terrain elevation of port; the locations of all the

geographical and spatial features of interest; and the heights of the buildings and other

structures at the Port. The ground topography was obtained through the US Geological

Survey. The USGS has available the traditional topographical maps or the digital

18

elevation models. For the topographical map (Figure 5), the elevation contour lines had to

be digitized manually which is a time consuming work. The digital elevation models are

more convenient. The 1/3-arc second National Elevation Dataset (NED) is used; it has a

resolution of approximately 10 meters. The current NED, however, still does not include

the elevation of the recent extension to Pier J. So this data still needs to be digitized

manually. The updated elevation model with Pier J extension is shown in Figure 6. Both

the spot height elevation map and the color contour elevation map are shown.

Pier J Extension

Figure 6. Digital elevation model of the Port with Pier J extension added

Next, high resolution 0.6m orthoimagery of the entire port (Figure 7) is obtained from

USGS. Using these images, the features of the port such as roads, rails, buildings etc can

then be digitized manually. The images were captured in 2003, so they are recent enough

for this study. The high resolution is needed so that the features of interest would still be

clear when zoomed in during the digitization process. For example, in Figure 8, the

details of a ship at Pier J berth is still very clear when magnified. Due to the high

resolution, however, the image for the port has to be broken up into smaller tiles to

reduce the computer loading time. This is also the reason why the 0.6m resolution images

were chosen over the other available 0.3m ones, due to the smaller file size.

One major advantage of the USGS orthoimages is that they are geo-referenced, i.e. they

include the coordinate systems, ellipsoids, datums necessary to establish the exact spatial

reference for the images. This way, the images will all line up correctly during the

digitization process, which is very important. Similarly, the elevation data is geo-

referenced. During the digitization process, Google, Bing, and AAA maps are used to

identify the names of the roads so that they can be input into the computer model as well.

19

Figure 7. High resolution orthoimagery of the Port

Figure 8. Details of ship at Pier J from the high resolution orthoimagery

Finally, the heights of the buildings and major structures at the port were entered into the

computer model. These are obtained from Google Earth which incorporates the data from

20

CyberCity, a leading 3D geospatial modeling company. To ensure the accuracy of the

information, the heights of a few of the buildings were checked through field observation.

2.3 Creating a 3D computer model of the Port of Long Beach

The noise mapping approach begins with creating a 3D (three dimension) computer

model of the area under study. The 3D computer model of the Port was created by

starting with the elevation data and then the manually digitizing the features of interest

using the orthoimages and the height information.

The complete digitized spatial model of the Port is shown in Figure 9. It includes the

major buildings and structures, as well as roads and railways that are relevant to this

study. The grey and red lines represent the roads and rails respectively. The buildings and

structures are in green. The upper boundary of model is slightly north of Anaheim St. The

left boundary is the edge between the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles.

The right boundary is the Los Angeles River, although some of the roads and buildings

around the Long Beach Marina are included. Note that the roads and buildings around

downtown Long Beach are not digitized since the container activities do not extend to

that area, although the elevation data is included. The area however is included in the

noise propagation simulation. The digital spatial model with elevation contour can be

displayed in 2D (Figure 10) or 3D (Figure 11).

Figure 9. Digital spatial model of the Port

21

Figure 10. Two-dimension digital spatial model of the Port with elevation contour

Figure 11. Three-dimension digital spatial model for Pier F

22

2.4 Using a computer software to create a noise map

In general, the noise mapping approach begins with the digital three-dimension (3D)

spatial and elevation model of the area under study, which can be created by means of a

computer noise modeling software. Next, the various noise sources at the port, such as

road, rail, industrial equipment etc, are added to create the noise model. The noise level

or acoustical characteristic of each source has to be entered into the computer model. The

source can be modeled as a point, line or an area. A point source could be a crane, the

line source could be a railway track, while the area source could be a berth. Area sources

are usually used for regions where various point sources exist and their noise

contributions are hard to separate. After this, the next step is to designate receivers and

grids on the model, which define the points where the calculation of the noise levels will

take place. The receivers could be placed on a regular grid or at specific points of noise

interest such as limits of the port area or at the boundary of residential areas. The distance

between the grid’s receivers (density) could vary according to the application.

In this study, the noise model is developed using the commercial noise modeling software

SoundPLAN from Braunstein & Berndt. This program has the facility to import the

geographical information and also allows the manual digitizing of the spatial data. The

noise sources and activity information are next added to complete the noise model. The

noise model can then be used to compute the noise distribution and the noise map.

There are various standards for calculating the noise propagation; most of them are

available in SoundPLAN. In this study, the RLS-90, Schall-03, and ISO 9613-2 were

used for calculating the road, rail, and industrial noise respectively. They were selected

because they have been tested thoroughly in SoundPLAN. They are also more optimized

in SoundPLAN compared to the other standards and require less simulation time. For

example, the simulation using RLS-90 is 75% faster than NMPB-96, and Schall-03 is

very much faster than RMR-2002. In this large scale simulation, every effort is made to

reduce the simulation time, keeping it under 8 hours. SoundPLAN also includes a

distributed computing feature which allows the computation to be shared among

available networked computers, which significantly reduces the computation time. Once

the simulation is complete, SoundPLAN has extensive graphics capability to display the

noise map results in a regular color map, or in 3D or animated. The results can also be

displayed in detailed lists.

2.5 Generating a noise map for the Port of Long Beach

To complete the noise model, the various noise sources that are active in and around the

container terminals need to be modeled. These noise sources include container trucks,

trains, ships, and cargo handling equipment (cranes, forklifts/sidepicks/top-handlers, and

yard tractors)

The volume of noise generated by the container activities is determined by the quantity of

each noise source and their noise power and characteristics. The contribution of the noise

23

source to the overall noise distribution then depends on the location of the source and

their movement pattern, if mobile, plus the surroundings. So, the noise characteristics and

the operational information of the sources need to be obtained and input into the noise

model. One useful information available from the Port is the air emission study that is

conducted annually. The 2005 Air Emission Inventory Report, in particular, contains

details of the equipment and vehicles used at the port and their operational information.

The Port uses the operational information of the equipment and vehicles to calculate the

pollutants emitted; this information can be used for our noise study as well. This

information together with the field activity data collected was used in the noise model.

Below are the discussions on modeling the noise emissions from trucks/trains and

ships/cargo handling equipment.

Trucks

For the trucks and trains, the calculation standards have built-in assumption on the noise

emission characteristics of the vehicles, so only the operational information is required.

The RLS-90 standard is used to calculate the noise from the truck traffic. The standard

allows the simulation of road noise by modeling standard vehicle types such as cars and

trucks. In this study, we are focusing on the container activities where only trucks are

involved in the movements of containers on the road. So cars are excluded in the

calculation. The parameters required for the model include the number of trucks per hour

and their speed for each road segment used by the trucks in hauling container in and out

of the each terminal. The Emission Report contains the average truck numbers for each of

the major roads for different period of the day. These are adjusted using the actual truck

data collected at the gates. The resulting number of trucks for each pier for different time

period is shown in Table 6 below.

Table 6. Number of trucks by time period for each pier (derived from field data and Air

Emission Report)

Pier AM (6-9am) MD (9am-3pm) PM (3-7pm) NT (7pm-6am)

A 237 1528 663 717

C 161 873 407 557

E 600 2183 858 884

F 406 1542 672 514

G 374 2321 975 938

J 163 1023 435 451

T 326 1897 744 514

The truck routes are obtained from the field and the data is then compiled for each road

segment and entered into the model.

Trains

The Schall-03 standard is used to calculate the noise from the train activities. The

information needed for the calculations are the number of trains per day, the length of the

24

train, and the speed. The standard also takes into account the different noise level for

different types of trains such as express, freight, commuter trains etc. Freight train is

selected for this calculation. The average number of trains per day carrying containers

and the average length of the trains are obtained from the Air Emission Report. The

number however is for the twin ports. So, the average container volume for each port is

used to divide the train numbers between the two ports, with 14 going to POLB. Next, the

14 trains are then distributed among the different container terminals depending on their

cargo volume. The truck count recorded in the field for each pier, which is a good

estimate of the cargo volume, is used for this purpose. Table 7 shows the data for the

train activities. (Note that Pier C and E do not have rail activities). The information is

entered for each rail segments serving the different terminals. The average speed of the

trains is assumed to be 20mph.

Table 7. Average number of trains per day for each pier

(derived from Air Emission Report and truck data)

Pier Average # of trains

per day

Average length of

train (meters)

A 3 1744

F 3 1760

G 3 2648

J 2 1751

T 3 2165

It is to be noted that the standard requires the number of trains to be an integer value. So

the number is rounded to the nearest integer and the length of the train is adjusted

proportionally so that the noise effect remains the same.

Ships and cargo handling equipment

The ISO 9613-2 standard is used for calculating the noise from the ships and the cargo

handling equipment. Since it is a general standard, the noise power and spectrum of the

source and its operational information need to be provided. In this study, due to

restrictions, it was not possible to measure the noise characteristics of these sources in the

field. So, the noise database, SourceDB, is used instead. SourceDB is an industrial noise

database which contains the noise characteristics of approximately 1,100 sources in over

70 different industries including those needed for our study. The database was developed

for the EU IMAGINE (Improved Methods for the Assessment of the Generic Impact of

Noise in the Environment) project and has been used in the EU NoMEPorts (Noise

Management in European Ports) noise mapping activity which is similar to our project.

The sound characteristics are available for all the sources needed in this study: ships,

dockside cranes, RTG cranes, forklifts/sidepicks/top-handlers, yard tractors. The

spectrum is specified in 1/3 octave band from 25Hz to 10kHz. To reduce the calculation

time, the forklifts/sidepicks/top-handlers are grouped together due to their similarity.

Figure 12 shows the sound power and spectrum of the various noise sources.

25

Sound power and spectrum of ship

Sound power and spectrum of dockside

crane

Sound power and spectrum of forklift

Sound power and spectrum of yard tractor

Sound power and spectrum of RTG crane

Figure 12. Sound power and spectrum of the various noise sources

Due to restrictions, the activities for the ships and cargo handling equipment could only

be recorded for a few of the piers and the data covers only a part of the overall activities.

So, instead the operational information for these sources is derived from the air emission

report and then adjusted using the field data.

For the container ships, the emission report lists the total number at berth in 2005 for the

entire port. This number is scaled to the current year’s level using the cargo volume

statistics and then distributed among the terminals based on the cargo volume of each pier

using the observed truck activities as indicator. The emission report also indicates the

average time at berth. Multiplying this with the number of ships will give the total hours

of operation for the ships. This is then converted to the number of ships active per hour at

26

each pier. The data is shown in Table 8 below. It can be seen that the number of container

ships at berth per hour at each pier is less than 2, which is within the capacity of the piers.

Table 8. Average number of container ships active per hour at each pier

(derived from Emission Report and truck data)

Pier # of ships per hour

A 1.24

C 0.67

E 1.74

F 1.16

G 1.44

J 0.83

T 1.48

On average, 1.4 dockside cranes are needed to load/unload each ship. So the ship data is

multiplied by 1.4 to get the number of dockside cranes active per hour at each pier (Table

9).

Table 9. Average number of dockside cranes active per hour for each pier

(derived from ship data)

Pier # of dockside cranes active

per hour

A 1.74

C 0.94

E 2.44

F 1.63

G 2.03

J 1.16

T 2.08

The air emission report also lists the make and model of each piece of cargo handling

equipment (forklift, RTG crane, side-pick, top handler, yard tractor) in use at each

terminal, and their annual hours of operation. Once again, the values are scaled to the

current year’s level using the cargo volume statistics and then adjusted for each pier using

the observed truck activities as indicator for the cargo volume. The following is the

resulting data. The final values are shown in Table 10 as the number of equipment active

per hour for each pier for different time period. The same time distribution from the truck

data is used here to divide the activities into the different time periods.

Table 10. Number of cargo handling equipment active per hour by pier and time period

(derived from Emission Report and truck data)

RTG Cranes


A 2.1 6.8 4.5 1.9

27

C 0 0 0 0

E 2.7 8.8 5.9 2.4

F 1.3 4.2 2.8 1.1

G 2.0 6.5 4.4 1.8

J 0.7 2.1 1.4 0.6

T 1.9 6.1 4.1 1.7

Forklifts/side-picks/top-handlers


A 3.6 11.7 7.8 3.2

C 1.5 4.7 3.1 1.3

E 1.9 6.1 4.1 1.7

F 1.3 4.3 2.9 1.2

G 3.2 10.3 6.9 2.8

J 3.0 9.8 6.5 2.7

T 1.9 6.0 4.0 1.6

Yard tractors


A 15.9 51.2 34.0 14.0

C 5.0 16.1 10.7 4.4

E 10.0 32.1 21.4 8.8

F 7.6 24.2 16.1 6.6

G 14.8 47.6 31.6 13

J 9.5 30.4 20.2 8.3

T 16.0 51.3 34.1 14.0

To complete the calculation, the locations of the sources need to be specified. Line

sources are used to represent the ships and the cargo handling equipment. The location of

the ships, dockside cranes, and some yard tractors will be next to the berth. The forklifts,

RTG cranes, and yard tractors will be located in the container yard; several line sources

are needed depending on the number of rows of containers in the yard. The line sources

are shown in red in the model of the port (Figure 13). Each line represents just one type

of source. So the activity data in Table 10 needs to be divided by the number of lines

representing the source type in the pier. This value is then entered for that line, together

with the power and spectrum of the source type.

Once all the data are entered in the model, the noise maps for port can be generated. They

are shown in Section 3.

28

Figure 13. Map of ship and cargo handling locations.

29

3.0 Research results

Some selected results of noise mapping studies from this project are highlighted in this

section. These results are: Noise distributions; Noise maps for the Port; and Evaluation of

noise impact using noise maps.

3.1 Noise distributions

The noise and activity information was collected at 8 different locations around the Port

(see Figure 2) for 4 to 6 hours per day, almost every weekday and some weekends from

November 2009 to June 2010, as mentioned in Section 2. Each measurement taken was

around 20 to 30 minutes and then normalized to an hour. The data was then compiled into

hourly, daily, and monthly averages. The noise level is measured in dB(A). The truck

activity is quantified as the number of truck movements per hour. The rail activity is

quantified as the fraction of the hour that the rail is active. The crane, forklift, yard tractor

activities are quantified as the number of equipment that is active per hour. Note that the

forklifts, side-picks, and top-handlers are grouped together as forklifts.

It is to be mentioned that the noise measured at each location is the combination of the

noise from all the sources that are active around the location. The noise from each source

also experienced attenuation with increasing distance from the source. (The basic

concepts of combining noise levels and the noise attenuation due to distance have been

discussed in Section 1). All these factors were taken into account when calculating the

noise map. As such, the annual average value of the measured noise can be used to

validate the noise map. The measurement locations were spread around the port in order

to get a good sampling. In addition to the annual average noise, the calculated hourly,

daily and monthly noise averages are also useful as they provide insights into the noise

variation. They can be used to supplement the noise maps which only show the annual

average noise.

3.1.1 Hourly noise and activity distribution

The average hourly noise measured at each location is shown in Figure 14. Looking at the

average for all the locations (indicated as the blue line), it can be observed that the noise

peaks around 8am (70.3dB), tapers off after that to a minimum of 67.8dB around noon,

and peaks again around 1pm (70.3dB) and 2pm (70.4dB), and tapers off again after that.

This is consistent with the operating characteristics of the container terminals at the port.

Looking at each location, it can be seen that the highest noise is at location 1 around 2pm

(75.8dB) and lowest noise is at location 6 around 3pm (57.6dB). Location 6 experienced

the largest variation throughout the day (11.6dB), while locations 2 and 3 have the

smaller variations, 2.9dB and 2.8dB respectively.

30

57.0

62.0

67.0

72.0

77.0

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Hour of day

Leq

(d

B)

Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

Location 4

Location 5

Location 6

Location 7

Location 8

Average

Figure 14. Hourly noise distribution for each location and the average

The average number of truck movements observed at each location per hour is shown in

Figure 15. Looking at the average for all the locations (indicated as the blue line), it can

be observed that the PM truck activity is higher than the AM truck activity. The lowest

truck activity is around noon time (39 trucks/hr). The peak truck activity is around 1pm

(126 trucks/hr).

Looking at each location, it can be seen that location 7 has the highest truck activity

around 3pm (254 trucks/hr). Location 5 is next with 221 trucks/hr around 1pm. These

occur during the PM hours. During the AM period, locations 5 and 7 again took the top

spots for truck activities.

0

50

100

150

200

250

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Hour of day

Tru

cks p

er

ho

ur

Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

Location 4

Location 5

Location 6

Location 7

Location 8

Average

Figure 15. Hourly truck activity for each location and the average

The train activity per hour is shown in Figure 16. The values shown are the fraction of the

hour that the rail is active. Locations 3, 5, and 7 do not have any rail activity as there are

no railways around their vicinity. The rail is most active around 1pm at Location 1.

Overall, Location 1 also has the most rail activities. This is consistent with the fact that

Location 1 is at the beginning of the rail lines that serve most of the port.

31

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Hour of day

Fra

cti

on

of

ho

ur

rail

is a

cti

ve

Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

Location 4

Location 5

Location 6

Location 7

Location 8

Figure 16. Hourly rail activity for each location

The number of cranes, forklifts, and yard tractors that are active per hour are shown in

Figures 17, 18, and 19, respectively. Note that some values are less than 1 as the

equipment may be active only during part of the hour. Also, it is to be noted that only the

observable activities near the measurement sites are recorded. So the data only represents

part of the overall cargo handling activities at the port.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Hour of day

# o

f cra

nes a

cti

ve p

er

ho

ur Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

Location 4

Location 5

Location 6

Location 7

Location 8

Average

Figure 17. Hourly crane activity for each location

32

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Hour of day

# o

f fo

rkli

fts a

cti

ve p

er

ho

ur

Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

Location 4

Location 5

Location 6

Location 7

Location 8

Average

Figure 18. Hourly forklift activity for each location

Overall, the cargo handling activities are the highest around 9am and lowest around noon.

Once again, this is consistent with the operating characteristics of container terminals.

The AM period has slightly more activities compared to the PM period. The highest

crane and yard tractor activities are at Location 6, around 9am. The highest forklift

activity is at Location 5, also around 9am. Note that Location 2 is not close to any

container yard, so no cargo handling activity is observed.

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Hour of day

# o

f y

ard

tra

cto

rs a

cti

ve

pe

r h

ou

r

Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

Location 4

Location 5

Location 6

Location 7

Location 8

Average

Figure 19. Hourly yard tractor activity for each location

33

3.1.2 Daily noise and activity distribution

From the hourly data, the daily averages are obtained for the noise and activities. For ease

of comparison, the same per hour unit of measure is used for the activities, i.e. number of

trucks per hour, fraction of the hour the rail is active, number of cargo handling

equipment active per hour. More importantly, since the data is only collected during part

of the day, the use of a per day measure, such as number of trucks per day, would not be

appropriate.

The average daily noise at each location is shown in Figure 20. Looking at the blue line

which indicates the average for all the locations, it can be observed that the noise is very

much higher during the weekdays compared to the weekends. The average noise level has

a slight peak on Wednesday (71.8 dB), but varies only by 0.8dB throughout the

weekdays. The lowest noise is on Sunday (64.1 dB). These again are consistent with the

operating characteristics of the container terminals.

Looking at each location, it can be seen that the highest noise is at Location 1 on

Wednesday (75.7 dB) and the lowest noise on a weekday is at location 8 on Monday

(66.2 dB). Location 5 experienced the largest variation throughout the weekdays (2.6

dB), while Location 2 has the smallest variations, 1dB. If we consider the whole week,

then Location 7 experienced the largest variation (12dB) and Location 3 the smallest

variation (5dB).

57.0

62.0

67.0

72.0

77.0

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Day of the week

Avera

ge L

eq

(d

B)

(8am

- 4

pm

) Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

Location 4

Location 5

Location 6

Location 7

Location 8

Avg all locations

Figure 20. Daily noise level for each location and the average

The daily truck activity at each location is shown in Figure 21. Looking at the blue line

which represents the average for all the locations, it can be observed that the truck

activities are much higher during the weekdays compared to the weekends. The highest

truck activity is on Friday (128 trucks/hr) and the lowest is on Thursday (111 trucks/hr),

for weekdays. If we consider the whole week, then the lowest activity is on Sunday (36

trucks/hr). Looking at each location, it can be seen that location 7 on Friday has the

34

highest truck activity (305 trucks/hr). Next is Location 7 on Wednesday with 263

trucks/hr.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350


Day of the week

Avera

ge t

rucks p

er

ho

ur

(8am

-4p

m) Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

Location 4

Location 5

Location 6

Location 7

Location 8

Avg all locations

Figure 21. Daily truck activity for each location and the average

The daily train activity is shown in Figure 22. Locations 3, 5, and 7 do not have any rail

activity as there are no railways around their vicinity. The rail is most active on Thursday

at Location 1. This is followed by Location 2 on Friday.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5


Day of the week

Fra

c.

of

ho

ur

rail

is

ac

tiv

e (

8a

m-4

pm

)

Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

Location 4

Location 5

Location 6

Location 7

Location 8

Figure 22. Daily rail activity for each location

The daily activities for the cranes, forklifts, and yard tractors are shown in Figures 23, 24,

and 25, respectively. Overall, the cargo handling activities seem to peak on Friday for the

cranes and forklifts, and bottom out on Wednesday.

35

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5


Day of the week

Avera

ge #

of

cra

nes a

cti

ve

per

ho

ur

(8am

-4p

m) Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

Location 4

Location 5

Location 6

Location 7

Location 8

Avg of all loc.

Figure 23. Daily crane activity for each location

3.1.3 Monthly noise and activity distribution

The monthly averages are calculated for the noise and activities for the months of

December 2009 through June 2010. The month of November 2009 is omitted as the data

was not collected for the full month. Also note that Location 6 is closed from April

onwards, so no data is recorded for that location during that period.

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14


Day of the week

Av

era

ge #

of

fork

lift

s

acti

ve p

er

ho

ur

(8am

-4p

m)

Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

Location 4

Location 5

Location 6

Location 7

Location 8

Avg of all loc.

Figure 24. Daily forklift activity for each location

36

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


Day of the week

Avera

ge #

of

yard

tracto

rs a

cti

ve p

er

ho

ur

(8am

-4p

m)

Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

Location 4

Location 5

Location 6

Location 7

Location 8

Avg of all loc.

Figure 25. Daily yard tractor activity for each location

The average monthly noise at each location is shown in Figure 26. Looking at the blue

line which indicates the average for all the locations, it can be observed that the noise

peaks in January (72.4dB) and drops off to a minimum in March (66.1dB) before rising

steadily again.

Looking at each location, it can be seen that the highest noise is at Location 1 in January

(76.9dB) and lowest noise is at location 7 in March (60.6dB). Location 5 experienced the

largest variation throughout the months (12.6dB), while Location 3 has the smallest

variation, 4.1dB.

The monthly truck activity at each location is shown in Figure 27. Looking at the blue

line which represents the average for all the locations, it can be observed that the average

truck activity is highest in January (166 trucks/hr) and lowest in March (41 trucks/hr).

Looking at each location, it can be seen that location 7 has the highest truck activity in

January and February (325 trucks/hr). Next is Location 5 in January with 297 trucks/hr.

37

57

59

61

63

65

67

69

71

73

75

77

Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Month

Avera

ge L

eq

(d

B)

(8am

-4p

m)

Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

Location 4

Location 5

Location 6

Location 7

Location 8

Avg of all Loc.

Figure 26. Monthly noise level for each location and the average

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350


Month

Avera

ge

tru

cks p

er

ho

ur

(8am

-4p

m)

Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

Location 4

Location 5

Location 6

Location 7

Location 8

Avg of all Loc.

Figure 27. Monthly truck activity for each location and the average

The monthly train activity is shown in Figure 28. The rail is most active in April for both

Locations 1 and 2.

38

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


Month

Fra

c. O

f h

ou

r ra

il is a

cti

ve

(8am

-4p

m)

Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

Location 4

Location 5

Location 6

Location 7

Location 8

Figure 28. Monthly rail activity for each location

The monthly activities for the cranes, forklifts, and yard tractors are shown in Figures 29,

30, and 31, respectively. Overall, the crane and yard tractor activities appear to peak in

January. The forklift activities peak in January as well as in June.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4


Month

Avera

ge #

of

cra

nes a

cti

ve p

er

ho

ur

(8am

-4p

m)

Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

Location 4

Location 5

Location 6

Location 7

Location 8

Avg of all Loc.

Figure 29. Monthly crane activity for each location

3.1.4 Overall noise and activity distribution

By taking the average of the monthly data, the overall averages are obtained for the noise

and activities. The average noise level for each location is shown in Figure 32. It can be

39

seen that Location 3 has the highest noise (72.8dB), followed by Location 4 (71.8dB) and

then Location 1 (71.6dB). Locations 6 and 8 have the lowest noise, 65.9dB and 65.8dB

respectively.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25


Month

Avera

ge #

of

fork

lift

s a

cti

ve p

er

ho

ur

(8am

-4p

m)

Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

Location 4

Location 5

Location 6

Location 7

Location 8

Avg of all Loc.

Figure 30. Monthly forklift activity for each location

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8


Month

Av

era

ge

# o

f y

ard

tra

cto

rs a

cti

ve

pe

r

ho

ur

(8a

m-4

pm

)

Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

Location 4

Location 5

Location 6

Location 7

Location 8

Avg of all Loc.

Figure 31. Monthly yard tractor activity for each location

The average truck activity for each location is shown in Figure 33. It can be seen that

Location 7 has the highest truck activity (139 trucks/hr), following by Location 5 (113

trucks/hr) and Location 1 (112 trucks/hr). This overall truck activity data is a good

40

indicator of the cargo volume of each container terminal for the current year and is used

to adjust the data for the noise map calculation.

71.6 70.972.8

71.8

68.8

65.9 66.1 65.8

57

62

67

72

77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Location

Av

era

ge L

eq

(d

B)

(8a

m-4

pm

)

Figure 32. Overall average noise level for each location

112

6481 86

113

36

139

25

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Location

Av

era

ge t

ruc

ks

pe

r h

ou

r

(8a

m-4

pm

)

Figure 33. Overall average truck activity for each location

The overall train activity for each location is shown in Figure 34. Location 1 has the

highest train activity followed by Location 2. Note once again that Locations 3, 5, and 7

have no train activity as they are not close to any rail tracks.

The overall average activities for the cranes, forklifts, and yard tractors are shown in

Figures 35, 36, and 37, respectively. Locations 1 and 6 have the highest crane activities.

Location 1 also has the highest forklift activity and Location 6 has the highest yard

tractor activity.

41

0.18

0.12

0.00

0.10

0.00 0.01 0.00

0.03

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Location

Fra

c.

Of

ho

ur

rail

is

ac

tiv

e

(8a

m-4

pm

)

Figure 34. Overall rail activity for each location

1.18

0.00

0.68 0.62 0.61

1.19

0.48

0.22

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Location

Avera

ge #

of

cra

nes

acti

ve p

er

ho

ur

(8am

-4p

m)

Figure 35. Overall average crane activity for each location

0.10

0.00

0.04 0.05

0.06

0.02

0.04

0.01

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Location

Avera

ge #

of

fork

lift

s

acti

ve p

er

ho

ur

(8am

-4p

m)

Figure 36. Overall average forklift activity for each location

42

0.14

0.000.04 0.06

0.03

0.37

0.08

0.02

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Location

Av

era

ge

# o

f y

ard

tra

cto

rs a

cti

ve

pe

r h

ou

r

(8a

m-4

pm

)

Figure 37. Overall average yard tractor activity for each location

3.2 Noise maps for the Port of Long Beach and validation of results

The overall noise maps of the Port are shown in Figure 38 and Figure 39 respectively for

the day period (6am-10pm) and night period (10pm-6am).

Figure 38. Overall noise map for day period (6am-10pm)

43

Figure 39. Overall noise map for night period (10pm-6am)

The result from the day period noise map is validated using the average noise

measurement for each of the location. The comparison is shown in the table below.

Table 11. Comparison of noise map values with actual field measurements

Location Noise map value

(dB)

Average noise

measured (dB)

Difference (dB)

1 67.2 71.6 -4.4

2 67.3 70.9 -3.6

3 62.5 72.8 -10.3

4 72.6 71.8 +0.8

5 67.2 68.8 -1.6

6 62.5 65.9 -3.4

7 64.9 66.1 -1.2

8 66.7 65.8 +0.9

44

The difference is within the acceptable range for locations 4, 5, 7, and 8. These locations

have few non-container related activity sources. So the noise map results are close to the

actual noise in the field. The criteria for judging the accuracy is based on the uncertainty

in the noise model input data following the approach outlined in European Commission

WG-AEN (2006).

For the other locations, the noise sources not included in the simulation contribute to the

higher noise compared to levels predicted by the noise map. For instance, Locations 1

and 2 are close to the Terminal Island Freeway and the 710 Freeway respectively. So the

non-container traffic that travels on the freeway contributes to the higher measured noise

compared to the predicted values.

Location 3 is 100m south of a truck entrance. The trucks come in from the north and

enter the terminal without passing by location 3. So in the noise simulation, the location

is not next to any truck activity. However, the field measurement is picking up the noise

from the non-container traffic traveling on the road next to the observation location. This

explains why the field noise measurement is so much higher than that predicted by the

noise map. This location should not be used for validating the noise map result.

Location 6 is mainly used to record the cargo handling activities. But often the truck

queue extends to this area when the lines are long. This phenomenon is not included in

the noise map simulation. This can explain why the measured noise is higher than the

predicted noise.

The conclusion is that the measurement locations used in the noise map validation need

to be close to the container related activities as much as possible, and away from any

non-container activities that are not included in the noise map simulation.

3.3 Evaluation of noise impact using noise maps

The noise maps can be used to evaluate the noise impact on the residential area east of

the Los Angeles River and the Queen Mary Hotel next to the cruise terminal. It can be

seen that the noise level for the area next to Cesar Chavez park on the eastern edge of the

LA River do not exceed 60dB during the day period. This is within the Community Noise

Exposure guidelines of the LA municipal code. The noise drops steadily further east. For

the Queen Mary Hotel, the noise level is less than 55dB during the day period, which is

well within the guidelines. During the night period, the area on the edge of the LA river

has noise level less than 55dB, while the Queen Mary Hotel is less than 50dB.

To further analyze which source is dominant, the noise maps are generated for each type

of source acting alone, i.e. truck activities only (Figures 40 and 41), ships and cargo

handling activities only (Figures 42 and 43), and train activities only (Figures 44). From

these noise maps, it is obvious that the truck movement activity is the highest source of

noise, while train activity contributes the least to the overall noise.

45

Looking at the noise map for the truck activities only, it can be seen that the noise is

concentrated on the roads and radiates outwards. Using the Caltrans/FHWA Noise

Abatement Criteria for Category C activities, it can be observed that the noise level is

within the 71dB limit for developed land 50 feet away from the major roads (not counting

the Freeway).

The noise from the cargo handling activities is next checked using the LA municipal code

for industrial equipment noise, which stipulates a limit of 75dB 50 feet away. Using the

noise map for the cargo handling activities, it is easy to see that the noise is well within

the limit.

So, overall, the noise level from the container related activities at the port are within the

relevant noise guidelines and no excessive noise is observed.

Figure 40. Noise map for day period (6am-10pm) with only truck traffic

46

Figure 41. Noise map for night period (10pm-6am) with only truck traffic

Figure 42. Noise map for day period (10pm-6am) with only ships and cargo handling

activities

47

Figure 43. Noise map for night period (10pm-6am) with only ships and cargo handling

activities

Figure 44. Noise map with only train activities

48

4.0. Research findings and discussions

This section will highlight some findings from the research project, which are organized

as follows: first, the key findings from the project are pointed out; second, noise data

analysis is discussed; next, several observations obtained from the project are listed;

finally, recommendations for preventing the noise impact at the Port are presented.

4.1 Key findings

The key findings with respect to different subjects were extracted from Figures 14

through 37 presented in the previous section and are summarized in the table below.

Table 12. Key findings

Subject Key findings

Hourly noise On average, the noise peaks around 8am (70.3dB) and tapers off

after that to a minimum of 67.8dB around noon. It then peaks

again around 1pm (70.3dB) and 2pm (70.4dB), and tapers off

again after that. This is consistent with the operating

characteristics of container terminals at the port.

The highest noise is at Location 1 around 2pm (75.8dB) and

lowest noise is at location 6 around 3pm (57.6dB). Location 6

experienced the largest variation throughout the day (11.6dB),

while Locations 2 and 3 have the smaller variations, 2.9dB and

2.8dB respectively.

Hourly truck

activities On average, the PM truck activity is higher than the AM truck

activity. The peak truck activity is around 1pm (126 trucks/hr).

The lowest truck activity is around noon (39 trucks/hr).

Location 7 has the highest truck activity around 3pm (254

trucks/hr). Location 5 is next with 221 trucks/hr around 1pm.

These are truck entrances.

Hourly train

activities The rail is most active around 1pm at Location 1. Overall,

Location 1 also has the most rail activities.

Hourly cargo

handling

activities

Overall, the cargo handling activities are the highest around 9am

and lowest around noon. The AM period has slightly more

activities compared to the PM period.

The highest crane and yard tractor activities are at Location 6,

around 9am. The highest forklift activity is at Location 5, also

around 9am.

Daily noise On average, the noise is very much higher during the weekdays

compared to the weekends. The noise peaks slightly on

Wednesday (71.8dB), but varies only by 0.8dB throughout the

weekdays. The lowest noise is on Sunday (64.1dB).

The highest noise is at Location 1 on Wednesday (75.7dB) and

the lowest noise on a weekday is at location 8 on Monday

(66.2dB). Location 5 experienced the largest variation throughout

the weekdays (2.6dB), while Location 2 has the smallest

variations, 1dB. If we consider the whole week, then Location 7

49

experienced the largest variation (12dB) and Location 3 the

smallest variation (5dB).

Daily truck

activities

On average, the truck activities are much higher during the

weekdays compared to the weekends. The highest truck activity

is on Friday (128 trucks/hr) and the lowest activity is on Sunday

(36 trucks/hr).

Location 7 on Friday has the highest truck activity (305

trucks/hr).

Daily train

activities The rail is most active on Thursday at Location 1. This is

followed by Location 2 on Friday.

Daily cargo

handling

activities

The cargo handling activities peak on Friday for the cranes and

forklifts, and bottom out on Wednesday.

Monthly noise

(December to

June)

On average, the noise peaks in January (72.4dB) and drops off to

a minimum in March (66.1dB) before rising steadily again.

The highest noise is at Location 1 in January (76.9dB) and lowest

noise is at location 7 in March (60.6dB). Location 5 experienced

the largest variation throughout the months (12.6dB), while

Location 3 has the smallest variation, 4.1dB.

Monthly truck

activities

Overall, the truck activity is highest in January (166 trucks/hr)

and lowest in March (41 trucks/hr).

Location 7 has the highest truck activity in January and February

(325 trucks/hr). Next is Location 5 in January with 297 trucks/hr.

Monthly train

activities. The rail is most active in April for both Locations 1 and 2.

Monthly

cargo

handling

activities.

The crane and yard tractor activities peak in January.

The forklift activities peak in January as well as in June.

Overall noise

Location 3 has the highest noise (72.8dB), followed by Location

4 (71.8dB) and then Location 1 (71.6dB). Locations 6 and 8 have

the lowest noise, 65.9dB and 65.8dB respectively.

Overall truck

activities

Location 7 has the highest truck activity (139 trucks/hr),

following by Location 5 (113 trucks/hr) and Location 1 (112

trucks/hr).

Overall train

activities Location 1 has the highest train activity followed by Location 2.

Overall cargo

handling

activities

Locations 1 and 6 have the highest crane activities. Location 1

also has the highest forklift activity. Location 6 has the highest

yard tractor activity.

4.2 Data analysis

The data obtained from the noise map can be analyzed or inferred for an area in question,

from which the necessary decision support tools may be obtained to formulate and justify

50

an appropriate noise action planning. In this study, the analysis will identify two key

issues: (1) the most significant noise sources, and (2) hot spots and problem areas of

interest. Relevant guidelines, methodologies, and examples of good practices will be

discussed relating to these issues.

Significant noise sources: Significant noise sources are those sources that contribute

greatly to the observed noise levels. These sources can be identified through their

significance as a single source or specific activity, or by their importance as a group of

noise sources such as an industry or a group of activities. In this study, there is no special

focus on any single source or location, only a general understand of the noise

contribution and distribution is sought. Using the noise maps, it was determined that the

highest contribution of noise is from the truck activities. This is followed by the cargo

handling activities. The contribution from the railroad noise is not significant. On further

analysis, it was determined that the noise from the container truck traffic on the roads is

within the Caltrans/FHWA limit of 71dB for developed land, 50 feet away from the roads

(not including the freeways). Also, the noise from the cargo handling activities is well

below the acceptable level of 75dB at a distance of 50feet, as stipulated by the LA

municipal code for industrial equipment.

High priority areas: A high priority area can be identified as a sensitive region, or an area

where the noise levels reach their highest values. Since the Port is located in a

predominantly industrial area, there are few sensitive areas in its immediate vicinity. The

closest ones are the non-industrial areas across the river, to the east of the Port, and the

Queen Mary Hotel next to the cruise terminal. Using the noise map, the impact of noise

on these two areas can be evaluated.

The area to the east of the LA River is the closest non industrial area to the port.

Due to its distance from the Port, the noise level is low as attested by the noise

map. During the day period, the noise is below 60dB. During the night period, it

is below 55dB. These are within the normally acceptable levels based on the noise

compatibility guidelines. The noise drops steadily as the distance increases further

east.

The location of the Queen Mary Hotel is particularly interesting because it is

situated on the Port. The noise level at the location is well within acceptable

limits. Its noise level is 55dB during the day period and 50 dB during the night

period.

4.3 Observations

Several observations obtained from this study are highlighted and discussed below.

Validation of results

It is very important when creating the noise model to ensure the reliability and accuracy

of the input data such as the noise characteristics of the sources and their operational

information. Inaccuracies in the data would result in errors in the noise maps which could

have far reaching consequences such as incorrect action plans.

51

There are several methods of validating a computer noise model. One method is to

validate the input data sets. The other method is to assess the results by measuring the

noise in selected locations and comparing the measured noise levels with the predicted

values from the noise map. The second method can only evaluate the accuracy of noise

maps; it cannot pin-point the cause of any error. The first method is time-consuming but

it can identify the cause of the inaccuracies. In this study, because of restriction, it was

not possible to obtain the noise characteristics and operational details of some of the

noise sources. So, the validation is done through selected measurements of the overall

noise. The noise map is compared with actual field measurements at selected location

throughout the Port. It is observed that the differences are within the acceptable range if

the measurement locations are close to the activities of interest, and away from unrelated

sources that are not included in the noise study.

Lessons learned during data collection: (i) Efficient data collection requires good

collaboration among all the parties involved; (ii) As collecting noise data is a time

consuming task, it is necessary to review, as early as possible, the input data that are

needed and their availability; (iii) Among the different noise sources, the significant ones

should be identified in order to correctly focus the collection effort; (iv) For the noise

measurements used for validation of the results, it is very important to select locations

close to the activities of interest.

4.4 Recommendations

Action plans for noise management: The development of an appropriate noise

management plan to handle the impacts of noise on people and the environment would be

a potential research topic. Noise management is designed to prevent any negative noise

impacts to the Port and its surroundings or to minimize such impact. In addition to the

development of the action plans, their implementation is another key component of

effective noise management. Implementing a noise management program in port areas

could result in many benefits such as enhancing environmental quality of the port

surroundings and raising awareness of safety, health and environmental issues.

Cost/Benefit Analysis: When performing noise management, cost/benefit analysis should

be an integrated part of it. The purpose of the cost/benefit analysis is to demonstrate

which solutions should be implemented, from which the best possible environmental

performance can be achieved at the lowest possible costs.

Noise minimizing measures: Since the analysis shows that the noise is below the

prescribed limits, no mitigating measure is required. However, in case of future port

development or expansion which may result in excessive noise, the following

recommendations should be taken into consideration. These recommendations are

classified as source mitigating measures, propagation measures, and receiver measures

(NoMEPort 2008).

Source mitigating measures can reduce or eliminate noise directly at the source.

The main sources of noises at container terminals are the ships, trucks, trains, and

52

cargo handling equipment. Examples of source mitigating measures for these

noise sources are: installing insulation materials to sound intensive components;

using absorbing building materials; using silent equipment (low noise versions

cost little extra); slowing the speed of putting down a container; using electrical

instead of diesel or diesel-electric moving equipment; planting trees as barrier.

Propagation measures reduce or block the transmission of noise in its pathway

from the source to receiver. Usually, this is achieved by using physical barriers

that attenuate or deflect the noise propagation. The transmission of noise can be

reduced by optimizing the terminal layout, reducing the driving distances for the

cargo handling equipment, using container stacks as barriers, changing the work

schedule, etc.

Receiver measures are considered to be passive measures and may be used in

residential areas to shield the inhabitants from noise disturbances. These passive

measures should be the last option if the noise pollution cannot be reduced after

using source and propagation measures. The installation of passive noise control

measures is based on calculated or measured outside noise levels.

53

5.0 Conclusions and Future Research

The Port of Long Beach is one of the major nodes in the logistic chain and important

economic center in the region. Recently, the Port has implemented several innovative

environment protection programs that provide practical guidance to minimize or

eliminate negative environmental impacts. Noise pollution at the Port, however, was not

addressed in these programs. The areas around the Port are subject to high traffic

numbers due to the port and nearby industrial activities and as a result, nearby residential

locations experience elevated ambient noise levels. Port noise impacts are expected to be

significant and noise assessment as well as mitigation strategies will undoubtedly be

required.

As the container sector of the Port of Long Beach has the highest growth potential, the

levels of noise generated by the ships, straddle carriers, cranes, fork lifts, refrigerated

containers, trucks and trains may present a problem. In addition, noise emitted from

container terminals, at high levels and for long periods, has a negative impact on the

performance of the different parties involved in the cargo handling activities at the

container terminals as well as the life of the residential neighbors. In this study, noise

pollution at the container terminals at the Port was modeled by means of noise mapping.

Noise mapping, a geographic presentation of data related to outdoor sound levels, has

proved to be a valuable tool allowing port managers not only to assess the current noise

situation in the port, but also to examine the potential impact of future development plans

of the port itself and its surroundings. In effect, the port authority can use the noise map

that incorporates future developments outside the port area to predict future noise impact

on new residential areas. With this tool, the port authority can quickly obtain crucial

information for port development and planning applications.

Some selected results of noise mapping studies from this project are highlighted. The

noise maps present the noise distribution in and around the port areas and give an insight

into the relative contribution of different groups of sources (e.g. road traffic, rail traffic

and industrial noise). The noise sources in port areas can be broadly grouped into two

major categories: industrial activities and traffic related activities. The industrial noise

sources include cargo handling, container handling, cranes, vehicles, auxiliary equipment,

etc; whereas the traffic related noise sources are roads, vehicles, railways, trains, etc. In

this study, it was determined that the truck movements are the main contributor of

container activities noise in the Port, followed by cargo handling, and then rail. The noise

levels, however, are all within the relevant noise regulations.

Noise sources should be combined as it is useful to predict the effectiveness of noise

mitigating measures for the different noise sources in the reduction of the total noise

level. The study reveals that the noise distributions displayed with different groups of

sources can assist the port authority both in analyzing noise maps and in identifying hot

spots and problem areas. In addition, such noise distributions are helpful in analyzing the

impact of different sources on any problem area, thus guiding the process of noise action

planning. It is recommended to develop and implement appropriate action plans for noise

management in order to reduce the impact of noise pollution in the port and its

54

surroundings. Noise minimizing measures should be an integrated part of the noise

management program. In this study, the noise maps were used to evaluate the impact on

selected non-industrial areas around and next to the Port, and no excessive noise was

found. So no noise mitigating measures are needed.

Future research: The Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex, the gateway to the Pacific

Rim, is the nation’s largest ocean freight hub and its busiest container port complex. The

twin Ports of the San Pedro Bay are comprised of fourteen individually gated terminals.

As reported in Lea & Harvey (2004), the combined Ports have had a constant rate of

growth every year which exceeded that of the national average and they are designated as

an Inter-modal Corridor of Economic Significance. In addition, the container terminals at

the twin ports are located in a predominantly industrial area, with pockets of residential

activity to the north and north-west of the ports. With a residential area located relatively

close to a large industrial site, there is a need for an appropriate noise study and

management plan to ensure the noise levels in both the residential and port areas do not

exceed a reasonable level. The observations made for the case of Port of Long Beach are

easily applicable to the neighboring LA port terminals. So the future research proposal

will focus on the noise impact of the container terminals at the Port of Los Angeles

together with the noise study for the Port of Long Beach, which in turn provides a

complete study on noise pollution and noise management programs for the twin Ports.

Specifically, potential future research topics are provided below:

Noise mapping of container terminals at the Port of Los Angeles

Noise mapping of container terminals at the twin ports of Los Angeles and Long

Beach

Impact of noise: case study on the twin ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach and the

surroundings

Impact of noise on the health of port workers

Development of management plan to handle the impact of port noise on people and

the environment

55

Appendix: Sample data worksheets

Location 1 Average Average activities

Month of Leq noise T R C F/T/S Y

November

December 70.675 1.0785417 0.0111111 0 0.0375 0

January 76.909722 3.5225 0.3162037 1.9930556 0.1148148 0.1634259

February 74.6 2.6211111 0.1194444 2.5305556 0.0611111 0.2472222

March 68.75 1.0583333 0.2388889 0.4972222 0.1083333 0.2333333

April 70.383333 1.0833333 0.4166667 0.6166667 0.1916667 0.1833333

May 69.741667 1.687037 0.112037 1.2125 0.0899691 0.0578704

June 70.357 2.0336 0.0309 1.4104 0.0694 0.1184

Average 71.630903 1.8692072 0.1778935 1.1800595 0.0961199 0.1433697



November 71.6 0 0 0 0 0

December 72.88 1.367333333 0.026666667 0 0 0

January 73.71875 2.061666667 0.247222222 0 0 0

February 74.69166667 1.703333333 0.066666667 0 0 0

March 66.98888889 0.594444444 0.011111111 0 0 0

April 69.91666667 0.633333333 0.516666667 0 0 0

May 68.46944444 1.139333333 0.069444444 0 0 0

June 68.85694436 1.067734 0 0 0 0

Average 70.89029513 1.070897306 0.117222222 0 0 0



November 73.3 1.47 0 0 0 0

December 72.09666667 1.174666667 0 0 0 0

January 74.77 2.380666667 0 0.095833333 0.01 0.016666667

February 74.52777778 0.965 0 0.094444444 0.013333333 0

March 71.425 0.730555556 0 1.833333333 0.047222222 0.197222222

April 70.7 1.7335 0 1 0.033333333 0.066666667

May 72.07222222 0.983407407 0 1.012962963 0.005555556 0.040740741

June 73.21333 1.35446 0 1.4076 0.2098 0.0104

Average 72.76312421 1.349032037 0 0.680521759 0.039905556 0.041462037

56

References

Baaj, M., El-Fadel, M., Shazbak, S., & Saliby, E. (2001). “Modeling noise at elevated

highways in urban areas: a practical application” Journal of Urban Planning and

Development, pp169-180.

Babisch W. (2008). “Road traffic noise and cardiovascular risk” Noise and Health

Journal, 10, pp 27-33.

Borst, H., Miedema, H. (2005). “Comparison of Noise Impact Indicators, Calculated on

the Basis of Noise Maps of DENL” Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 91, pp378-385.

Bourbon, C., Noel, P., Mummenthey, R. (2001) “Brussels Life Project: Noise Mapping

As a Tool for Management and Planning Road Traffic Noise in Urban Area” Proceedings

of the International Congress and Exhibition on Noise Control Engineering

(INTERNOISE 2001).

Broadbent, D. (1979). “Human performance and noise” Handbook of noise control (2nd

ed), McGraw Hill, New York.

Chakrabarty, D., Santra, S., Mukherjee, A., Roy, B., & Das, P. (1997). “Status of road

traffic noise in Calcutta metropolis, India” J. Acoust. Soc., 101, pp943-949.

Cohen, A. (1973). “Industrial noise and medical, absence, and accident record data on

exposed workers” Proc Int Congr on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Environmental

Protection Agency, Washington, pp441-453.

Cohen, A. (1976). “The influence of a company hearing conservation program on extra-

auditory problems in workers” J Safety Res, 8, pp146-162.

European Commission. (2002). “Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and

of the council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of

environmental noise” Official Journal of the European Communities.

European Commission. (2003). “2003/613/EC Commission recommendations of 6

August 2003 concerning the guidelines on the revised interim computation methods for

industrial noise, aircraft noise, road traffic noise and railway noise, and related emission

data” Official Journal of the European Communities.

European Commission Working Group - Assessment of Exposure to Noise (WG-AEN).

(2006). Good practice guide for strategic noise mapping and the production of

associated data on noise exposure.

Federal Highway Administration. (2004). Federal Highway Administration traffic noise

model user’s guide version 2.5. Washington D.C.

57

Kaliski, K., Duncan, E., & James, C. (2007). “Community and regional noise mapping in

the United States”, Sound and Vibration, pp 14-17.

Lea, J. and Harvey, J.T. (2004). “Data Mining of the Caltrans Pavement Management

System (PMS) Database”, Technical Report to California Department of Transportation,

University of California at Berkeley, CA.

Maschke, C., Hecht, K. (2004). “Stress hormones and sleep disturbances -

electrophysiological and hormonal aspects” Noise and Health Journal, 6, pp 49-54.

Niemann H., Maschke C. (2004). “WHO report on noise effects and morbidity” World

Health Organization.

Niemann, H., Bonnefoy, X., Braubach, M., Hecht, K., Maschke, C., Rodrigues, C., &

Robbel, N. (2008). “Noise-induced annoyance and morbidity results from the pan-

European LARES study” Noise and Health Journal, 8, pp 63-79.

Noise Management in European Ports (2008). “Good Practice Guide on Port Area Noise

Mapping and Management”.

Port of Long Beach (2005). “Port of Long Beach Air Emissions Inventory – 2005”



Port of Los Angeles (2006). “Berths 97-109 Container Terminal Project [China Shipping]

Draft EIS/EIR”. http://www.portoflosangeles.org/environment_pn_deir_cs.htm

Port of Los Angeles (2007). “Berths 136-147 [TraPac] Container Terminal Project Draft

EIS/EIR”. http://www.portoflosangeles.org/EIR/TraPac/eir_062907trapac.htm

Smith, A., & Stansfeld, S. (1986). “Aircraft noise exposure, noise sensitivity and

everyday errors” Environ Behav, 18, pp214-226.

Smith A. (1989). “A review of the effects of noise on human Performance” Scand J

Psychol, 30, pp185-206.

Stapelfeldt, H., Jellyman, A. (2001). “Noise Mapping in Large Urban Areas”

Proceedings of the International Congress and Exhibition on Noise Control Engineering

(INTERNOISE 2001).

Sust, C., & Lazarus, H. (2003). “Signal perception during performance of an activity

under the influence of noise” Noise and Health Journal, 6, pp 51-62.

http://www.portoflosangeles.org/environment_pn_deir_cs.htm

http://www.portoflosangeles.org/EIR/TraPac/eir_062907trapac.htm

STUDY OF THE NOISE POLLUTION AT CONTAINER TERMINALS AND THE SURROUNDINGS

Documents

level of noise

noise level

noise distribution

levels of noise

noise pollution

noise mapping

port of long beach

relevant noise regulation