TheWaN oual’TMThe International Journal of Transportation-Related Environmental Noise Issues

The WaD Journal is publishedten timesa year. Issues are distributed monthly,with combined issues for July/Augustand December/January.

The Wall journal is a publication ofAcoustiCom Publishing Corporation.Editorial, subscription and advertisingofficesare located at3Ol 1 VoyageDrive,Stafford, Virginia 22554. Telephone(703) 720-0282,FAX (703) 720-0598,CompuServe 75020,301 5. Publicationoffices are located at 617 FrederickStreet S.W., Vienna, Virginia 22180.Telephone (703)938-6745, FAX (703)938-5621 , CompuServe 761 74,2751

EditorEl Angove

Director of PublicationsJohn G. Piper

Submissions of papers, articles, let-ters, and photographs for publication,as well as requests for our advertisingrate schedule should be addressed toThe Wall Journal, 301 1 Voyage Drive,Stafford, Virginia, 22554.

All materials become the property ofthe Wall Journal, and may be edited forlength, clarity, and accuracy. Materialswill not be returned without special ar-rangements prior to submission. TheWall Journal cannot be responsible forlost or damaged materials.

Committee Members at Work inThe Rockies

Following in the ten~yeartradition of alternative mid-yearmeetings, the 1 992 summer session of the TransportationResearch Board’s Al F04 Committee on Transportation-Re-lated Noise and Vibration is being hosted by the ColoradoDepartment ofTransportation at Colorado Springson July 12-1 5 . The meeting will be held at the Colorado Springs MarriottHotel, located on a hilltop overlooking the city of ColoradoSprings to the eastand Pikes Peak to the west. Personal hostswill be Kenneth Gambrill (Manager) and Randy Flodine(Senior Transportation Specialist) ofthe Office of Environmen-tal Review and Analysis.

Attendees will find relief from theexhaustive sessions in theawesome natural splendor of the surrounding Rocky Moun-tains and the wide range of cultural activities and historicalattractions. Working and off-hours sight-seeing tours includevisits to North American Aerospace Command, StapletonInternational Airport, U.S. DOT High Speed Test Center,Flying W Ranch, Pikes Peak and Iron Springs Chateau.

Abstracts of the Papers and general comments on thepresentations will be printed in the next issue of The WallJournal.

Technical Presentations:Strategic Three-Dimensional Aviation Noise PlanningDr. Cliff Bragdon, Georgia Institute of TechnologyDevelopment Infill Potential, “All Stage 3” Air FleetsNeal Phillips, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority

Noise Analysis for AFB Disposal and Refuse ProgramRay Nugent, ACENTECH, Inc.

Stapleton Airport Noise Compliance ProgramBryan Rykes, Stapleton International AirportStapleton Noise Insulation ProjectDana Hougland, David L. Adams Associates, Inc.

Acoustic Characteristics of Porous Road SurfacesJean-Francois Hamet, Institute National do Recherchesur les Transports et leur Securite (France)Texas DOT Noise Program Research ProposalCindy Wilson, Texas Department of TransportationTransportation Vibration on High-Tech FacilitiesRay Nugent, ACENTECH, Inc.Control of Bus Noise and Vibration in Mixed-UseUrban ConstructionBrian Chapnik, Vibron, Ltd. (Canada)MBTA (Blue Line) Noise AnalysisDavid Coate, ACENTECH, Inc.

Pueblo Test Track Research ProgramDon Waldo, U.S. Department of TransportationNoise Barrier Construction in High Water TableEnvironmentWin Lindeman, Florida Department of TransportationReference Energy Mean Emission Levels: the FloridaExperienceDr. Roger L. Wayson, University of Central FloridaActive Noise and Vibration Technologies R&DProgramDr. Allen Curtis, Active Noise and Vibration Technologies, Inc.

In Situ Evaluation of Parallel Barrier EffectivenessGregg G. Fleming, U.S. Department of Transportation

mitigating the traffic noise rested entirely with thedeveloper.As the Ministry continued to refine the noise barrier

standards for its own contracts, the private developers wereleft on their own to construct such noise barriers as theythought would shield their developments from highwaynoise.

In many cases, this proved to be quite an acceptableapproach, with some of these barriers being the most well-constructed and attractive in the province. However, othercases proved to be disastrous for the new home owners.

Many new residents watched the developer’s noise barri-ers begin to deteriorate in their own back yards. To makematters worse, the residents are required by local by-laws torepair or replace the noise barriers at their own expense. Asthese situations became more frequent, MTO was called on

continued, page 4

Volume One, No.1 • July/August, 1 992

In dliii kiuc Colorado DOT Hosts Al F04 Summer MeetingSummer Meeting of Al F04

Committee I

Canadian Standards 1

FHWA Update 2

Editor’s Corner 2

TAB Committee 3

“VDOT Abatement Project” 3

“Challenge for the Future” 4

September

• Harvey Knauer reports onPennOOT’s innovative “1-95Intermodal Mobility Project.”

• Cary Adkins’ report on VDOT’s1-66 HOV lanes and noisebarrier projects.

October

• A pictorial review of PennOOTnoise barriers near Philadelphiaand Allentown —by HarveyKnauer

Canada Develops National Noise Barrier StandardBy Soren Pedersen

In 1972 and 1974, the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario(MTO) constructed its first two noise barriers along Highway401 in Toronto. Within a shorttime, it became evident that thebarrier materials were beginning to degrade and it was appar-ent the barriers would not have the useful life and aestheticvalueexpected by the Ministry. Consequently, the MTO staffproposed to develop a new Ministry standard for the design,materials, installation and maintenance of noise barriers to beused along highways in Ontario.

The first version of this standard was ready by 1977 whenthe Ministryofficiallyannounced theProvincial Government’snoise barrier program. This program not only includedguidelines for the construction of noise barriers on new andwidened highways, but also for retrofitting of existing high-wayswheretraffic noise impactedadjacentexisting residentialcommunities. For protectionof new residential developmentsapproved and constructed after 1977, the responsibility for

IHWA Uipdade by Bob Armstrong

Adwerdisinq..The Wall Journal offers a number of classi-

fied and display-advertising alternatives. If youwould Iiketo advertise your products orservicesin the Wall Journal, we are offering specialintroductory rates for the up-comingSeptemberissue.

For details, please call El Angove at(703)720-0282,

or fax your request to El at(703)720-0598.

Editor’s (orner by El AngoveWhen I retired from The Rein-forced Earth Company early thisyear, I like to think that I was theworld’s oldest living, steadily-em-ployed noise barrier salesman.That may not seem to be much tocrow about, but it certainly pro-vides me with a unique, long-

term perspective of this country’s highway trafficnoise abatement programs.

Bill Pickett and I founded The Fanwal I Corporationin 1973, about the time he got his first patent on theFanwall noise barrier. I was a salesman in thebuilding construction industry and Bill worked forBolt, Beranek and Newman. In his spare time, Billsucceeded in getting FHWA approval for an experi-mental Fanwall project on Interstate-95 in Newbury-port, Massachusetts, five walls of which were in-stalled in 1974-75. The glow of this first successinspired us to seek funding from a group of Con necti-cut investors, and we quit our jobs and formed TheFanwall Corporation in April, 1976 in Framingham,Massachusetts. It took us the rest of 1976 to puttogether a brochure and a technical manual. OnJanuary 5, 1977 I loaded my car with Fanwall litera-ture and left my home in a heavy snowstorm for afour-week, eighteen-state presentation tour to introduceFanwal Ito state highway noiseofficials. (In those fourweeks, it snowed every day but five; check yourweather reports). For the nexttwo years, wewere ableto put together a handful of jobs to keep us alive.

We were beginning to despair of being able tocontinue, until we received an invitation from HarterRupert to attend a noise barrier conference in LosAngeles on December 1 1-15,1978. That conferenceexpanded our horizons and confirmed our belief inour chosen endeavors. That historic conference hasbeen published as the” Proceedings ofConference onHighway Traffic Noise Mitigation, Los Angeles, Cal i-fornia, December 11-15, 1978’, 265 pages. Lou

I’d like to welcome all of you tothis inaugural edition of The WallJournal.Thisregularcolumn in theJournal will alert readers to thegoings-onwithin theFederal High-way Administration (FHWA), in-asmuch as they relate to the issueof highway traffic noise. I will also

try to pass along thoughts, ideas, and experienceswhich occur in daily contacts within the “noise com-mu nity”.

Regulations Reference:The current FHWA noise regulations have essen-tially been in place since 1976. Previously, theregulations were referenced as Federal-aid HighwayProgram Manual, Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3(FHPM 7-7-3), “Procedures for Abatement of High-way Traffic Noise and Construction Noise.” How-ever, the FHWA Federal-aid Highway ProgramManual was abolished in December, 1991, and thecorrect reference for FHWA’s noise regulations isnow 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part772, “Procedures for Abatement of Highway TrafficNoise and Construction Noise.” No wording in theregulations has changed — only the reference. The

Cohn (thenwith NYSDOT, now Chairman ofthe CivilEngineering Department, Universityof Louisville) wrotein the Introduction: “This conference represents thefirst major activity of TRB Committee Al F04, Trans-portation-Related Noise, since the highly successful1975 Workshop on Highway Traffic Noise PredictionMethods. That workshop, held in Washington, D.C.,brought together by invitation a small group of expertsforthetaskofdefiningthestateoftheartintrafficnoiseprediction”. Hallelujah! Just look at the names of thepresenters and committee members at that greatCon-ference: Lou Cohn, Joe Pulaski, Win Lindeman, GeneMiller, Charlie Adams, Bill McColl, Oscar Janeway,Fred Hall, Jim Lawther, Walter Whitnack, Tim Barry,Myles Simpson, GrantAnderson, Chris Menge, RandyBlum, Ahmet Anday, Daryl May, Mas Hatano, EarlShirley, Harter Rupert, Bill Bowlby, Len Kurtzwell,John Wesler, Bob Armstrong, Harvey Knauer, andRudy Hendricks, just to name a few. Fortunately, mostof these names are still with us and very active inAlF04 activities.

There have been many other greatAl F04 meetingsin the 14 years since that “first major activity”. But theLos Angeles affair really established theesprit de corpsofAl F04. The after-hours social gatherings and groupforays into the wilds of L.A. provided a bondingexperience which has endured and flourished. Wenow have a homogenous assemblage of engineers,scientists, planners, programmers, vendors and“friends” who share that good fellowship. The onlything wedo nothave is a more frequentforum to shareour intellects,our achievements, our experiences, ourresearch and our ambitions. I hope that The WallJournalwill fill that void. This isyourforum. With yourhelp, and only with your help, we can create adynamic compendium ofthe works of transportation-related noiseabatement. We need you as our report-ers and contributing editors.

Keep those cards and letters coming.El Angove

new reference should be used in all future highwaytraffic noise analysis documentation.

Traffic Noise Prediction Procedures:State highway agencies (SHAs) use FHWA trafficnoise procedures, STAMINA 2.0/OPTIMA, to bothassess traffic noise impacts and design noise abate-ment. Existing procedures have not been changedfor more than nine years. The FHWA has begun aneffort to incorporate innovations and improvementswhich have occurred over the last nine years instate-of-the-art methodology and technology fortraffic noise prediction and barrier design. This ef-fort will eventually result in the development ofnew computer software.

Transparent Barriers:There is strong interest in the use of transparenthighway traffic noise barriers in the area around SanDiego, California. A number of private transparentbarriers have already been constructed, and theCalifornia Department of Transportation is consider-ing development of a standard specification fortransparent barriers.

New Vendors:New vendors for highway traffic noise barriers arethe following

Concrete (Formliners for Aesthetics)Custom Rock International1156 Homer StreetSt. Paul, MN 55116(612) 699-1345

ConcreteFaddis Concrete Products, Inc.3515 Kings HighwayDownington, PA 193351-800-777-7973 or(215) 269-4685

Polymer (Composite Glass/Fiber Reinforced)Channel Filledwith Recycled Tire RubberCarsonite International1301 Hot Springs RoadCarson City, NV 89706(702) 883-5104

Structural Sandwich Panels(Prefabricated slabs of ground used tire rubberbonded to metal deck, Kanwall)Kanan Associates, Inc.9564 Basket Ring RoadColumbia, MD 21045(410) 997-7526

NOTE: Listing of products and vendors is forinformational purposes only and does not con-stitute either endorsement or approval byFHWA.

To obtain a complete listing of known vendors,or for qestions and comments concerning thiscolumn should, contact Bob Armstrong at (202)366-2073 or Steve Ronning at (202) 366-2078.

2 - June, 1992

$15 Million VOOTAbatement Project

by Gary B~Adkins

The Virginia Department ofTransportation (VDO I)is scheduled to advertise in August the largest soundbarrier project in its history. Since beginning a noiseabatement program in mid 1970, VDOT has con-

structed almost 36 miles o~sound barrers along itshighways at a cost of $46 million. The largest abate-ment project to date, in terms of cost and square feetof barrier, is currently under construction along 1-66 innorthern Virginia near Washington, D.C. That project,whichwill be the subjectof a future article, consists of13 barriers totaling 6.3 miles and 550,000 square feetat a cost of $9 million.

The barriers to be advertised in August will beconstructed in conjunction with the addition of HOVlanes to 1-64 in the cities of Norfolk and VirginiaBeach. Thirteen barriers ranging inheightfrom 7 to 32feet and totaling 9.6 miles and 922,000 square feet ata cost of $15 million will provide 5 to 16 decibels ofnoise reduction to 907 impacted receptors. Of thetotal receptors impacted within the project corridor,91% will be protected by the barriers. The cost toprovide adequate abatement to the remaining 9% isnotconsidered reasonable in accordance withVDOT’snoise abatement policy.

The construction of the HOV lanes will result inonly a 1 to 3 decibel increase in noise levels along thecorridor. However, levels are already high and willreach 77 dBA by the design year 2010. Residentsalong 1-64 have complained about high noise levelsfor years. Since VDOT does not have a retrofitprogram, the addition ofthe HOV lanes represents thefirst opportunity for consideration of noise abatementin the project area.

Barrier segments on bridgeswill be metal; all othersegments will be precastconcrete. All but one of thebarriers will require an absorptive finish on the road-way side, and the residential side of the precastconcrete segments will have a “fuzzy” raked finish.

TWJ

Note: All cost figures used in this article are estimatesand includeonly thecost ofmaterialsand installation.

TRB Al F04 CommitteeBy Domenick Billera

“The time has come, the walrus said, to talk ofmany things,ofshoes and ships andsealing wax, of cabbagesand kings

—Lewis Carroll

And indeed The Wall Journal is something whosetimehas come. Al F04 welcomes this inaugural issueand wishes the Journal a long and successful exist-ence. Hats off to El Angovefor the vision to create thisforum for those of us involved in the ever-evolvingfield of transportation noise abatement,and a heartythank you for providingmethis space to report on theactivities of TRB Committee Al F04, Transportation-Related Noise and Vibration.

For those of you unfamiliar with A1FO4, a fewwords of introduction. Our committee, as part of theTransportation Research Board, within the NationalResearch Council, serves as a forum and informationclearinghouse for anyone involved in transportationnoise issues. Our main activities are: identifyingresearch needs, promoting the exchange of technicalinformation through paper presentations and confer-ence sessions attheTRB Annual Meeting each JanuaryinWashington, D.C., our Summer Meetings (reportedelsewhere in this issue) andour newsletter to commit-teemembers and friends (academic researchers, con-sultants, state transportation agency staff, suppliersand constructors of noise-related equipment & mate-rials, and other interested parties.)

The Committee is comprised of three subcommit-tees which are dedicated to aircraft, highway and rail/mass transit noise issues.

Currently, the big news in the Committee is achange in theHighway SubcommitteeChairmanship.Dr. Bill Bowlby ofVanderbilt University, after a longand meritorious service, is being succeeded by KenPolcak of the Office of Environmental Design of theMaryland State Highway Department.

If you would like to learn more about the Commit-tee and receive oneof our newsletters, please give mea call and we’ll talk of many things!

Committee MembersAl F04 ChairmanDomenick BilleraNew jersey Department of Transportation1035 Parkway Avenue/CN 600Trenton, New jersey 08635Tel. 609 530-2834Fax 609 530-3893

Al F04 SecretaryWin LindemanFlorida Department of Transportation605 Suwannee Street/M.S. 37Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450Tel. 904 488-2914Fax 904 922-7292

Subcommittee Chairman (Aircraft)Dr. Eric StusnickWyle Laboratories2001 jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 701Arlington, Virginia 22202-3124Tel. 703 415-4550Fax 703 415-4556

Subcommittee Chairman (Highway)Ken PolcakMaryland State Highway AdministrationOffice of Environmental Design707 North CalvertStreetBaltimore, Maryland 21202Tel. 301 333-8072Fax 301 333-3139

Subcommittee Chairman (Rail/MassTransit)James NelsonWilson, lhrig & Associates, Inc.5776 BroadwayOakland, California 94618Tel. 415 658-6719Fax 415 652-4441

The VDOT specifications call for sound-absorptivebarriers to minimize the effects of reflected noise onlnterstate-66 project near Washington DC.

• The Standard by Which Sound-Absorptive NoiseBarriers are Measured, World-Wide

DU RISOL is a proprietarymaterial that ismolded and compressed to provide ahard, porous and very durable sound-absorptive wall panel.

DURISOL is a tried and tested materialwith a 50-year history of proven perfor-mance. It will not rot or decay, it isvermin and insect proof, and will notsupport fungus growth.

DURISOL can be manufactured with avariety of aesthetic surface textures onboth sides of the panel, and will stillprovide optimal sound-absorption.

DU RISOL’s stacked-panel design per-mits alternating colors and textures tocreate distinctive, beautiful walls.

DURISOL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION95 Frid Street, Hamilton, Ontario L8P 4M3, Canada Tel. 41 6-521 -0999

Don’t sacrifice aesthetics for accoustical performanceand durability.

For more information, write of call:

June, 1 992 - 3

I would liketo issueachallengeto all of us that we must haveFOCUS as we look ahead in ourfield: Funding, Opportunities,Capabilities, Understanding,andStandards.

Funding is an obvious keyfor research and development,design, construction and mainte-

nance related to noise abatement. The new IntermodalSurface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)is a six-year, $150 billion comprehensive piece oflegislation that will chart our country’s transportationprograms into the next century. Funding has beenincreased in many categories and the new SurfaceTransportation Program (STP) gives states more flexibil-ity in spending, which could benefit noise abatement.

However, we appear to have missed out on whatcould have been a natural mechanism for fundingType II (retrofit) noise barrier projects. The Act estab-I ished a new category called Transportation Enhance-ment Activities, with 10% set aside of the STP funds.Ten, and onlyten, types of enhancements are listed intheAct, and noise abatement is not in that list. As thisissue goes to press, the technical corrections bill forISTEA will probably be completed. If your congress-man or senator is on oneofthe transportation commit-tees, contact him or her and see if anything can bedone.

Opportunities exist, however, forother types ofsupport. Congressman Richard J. Durbin (D - IL)submitted a bill last fall to review funding for theEnvironmental Vrotection Agency noise program. Asyou probably know, the Office of Noise Abatementand Control (ONAC) lost its budget and its peopleearly in the Reagan administration: “Noise control isa local issue, besthandled by locals.” Sure,butfederalassistance to those locals turned out to be critical.Joseph Soporowski of Rutgers University reported in1990 that of the 220 state and local programs receiv-ing EPA funding in 1980, less than 80 are still operat-ing. ONAC had its problems and made its enemies,but its low-cost technical assistance program served avaluable role.

Durbin held a workshop in December, 1991 thatgenerated a report called “Combatting Noise in the‘90’s: A National Strategy for the United States.”

Heand his colleagues, including Patricia Schroeder(D-CO) feel environmental noisecontrol is important.Write to Durbin’s office for a copy of the report, andthen send a letter to your congressman asking for hisor her support.

Also, FHWA articulated a new Environmental Policya couple of years agowhich included noiseabatementas a goal. Since then, the environmental researchprogram has grown, aided by a TRB research needsconference last fall. Noise must compete for researchdollars against all other environmental areas, andagainst some perceptions that most of our problemshave been solved, orat leastthatwe’ve had our shareof the pie already. We must continue to educatewithin our organizations and professions that we donot have all the answers and that much remains to bedone.

Capabilities are indeed critical. We need state-of-the-art analysis tools, cost-efficient and effectivenoise abatement systems, and well-trained people. Itis crazyfor noise analysts to not takeadvantage ofthecapabilities of computer-aided roadway design sys-tems, or to work with limited, out-of-date noise mea-

surement equipment. New tools are available nowand more will be in the future. Investigate, plan andbudget now. New materials and barrier systems arealso important.

We need cost-efficiency and we need to think in

terms of life-cycle costs. We now have a 20-year“history” to our noise program, which is showing usthe problems with early wood and metal systems orcertain too-porousconcrete products (which are cur-rently noton the market). Durability and low mainte-nance are critical. Turnover of personnel has alsobeen a problem in our field. It is hard to build aninstitutional memory to prevent the mistakes of thepast from being repeated.

Understanding is essential, whether it be fornewcomers to the field or forexperienced profession-als. Questions abound when we talk of understand-ing. What are thegoals ofour analysis ordesign? Whatis the appropriate level of analysis? What are theassumptions behind our prediction models? What aretheir limitations? What are the limits of our own bodyof knowledge on the subjects of traffic noise genera-tion, propagation and attenuation?

And importantly, what have others done, eitherelsewhere in our countryor abroad,on problems thatwethoughttobe limitations in thebodyof knowledge?Good research and development is important, butgood technology transfer is what helps us get the jobdone. Certainly this newsletter is oneofthosetechnol-ogy transfer mechanisms. Active participation inorganizations like the Transportation Research Board,the American Society of Civil Engineers and theinstitute of Noise Cur itrul Er gineerir ig is tir lie We1 I—spent. Find the time to write about and share whatyouhave learned or need to know. We need to work tobuild and maintain that institutional memory.

Standards. As we learn, one of the bestmechanisms is to translate that knowledge into stan-dards — and then use those standards in our work.Standards take many forms. ANSI, ASTM and SAEhave numerous procedures for measuring, calculatingor specifying sound level descriptors and for specify-ing measurement equipment. These standards aretheresult of long hours of work by volunteer experts todevelop a consensus approach. Not knowing ofthesedocuments or not using them may deprive us of therepeatable, accurate, defendableanswerstoourques-tions or problems.

Standards also play a vital role in noise barriersystems, whether itbe during acoustical design, struc-tural design, material selection, construction or main-tenance. The information in Soren Pedersen’s articleelsewhere in this issue reflects so much experiencethat it is a shame forthese standards (and others) nottobe used or at least evaluated carefully and adapted toyour own situation.

Obviously there is much more that can be said onthetopic of noise abatement. I’m sure you couldcomeup with your own list of subjects. Regardless, we doneed to FOCUS on the tasks at hand, which includeconvincing skeptics, competing for funds and educat-ing administrators, while seeking out innovation andtrying to satisfy the demand for abatement. And, weneed to FOCUS with persistence on the fact that noiseabatement is an important quality of life issue. Ifwe,the professionals, cannot make that case, who elsewill?

William Bowlby, Ph.D., P. F., is president of Bow/by andAssociates, Inc., Nashville, TN

Canadian StandardContinued from page 1

to mediate and advise in several disputes betweenmunicipalities, home owners and developers.

This prompted MTO to take the initiative to ap-proach the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) tosanction the development of a national noise barrierstandard which could be adopted by all. CSA agreedto this proposal and authorized the creation of aWorkingGroup under the direction of the CSA Tech-nicalCommitteeonAcousticsand NoiseControl. TheWorking Group was then established in 1988 withmembers coming from numerous government andprivate organizations from across the country.

In the beginning, the members were concernedthat this proposed standard, when developed, wouldnot be able to gain enough recognition to justifycontinuing support from the CSA. This created someuncertaintieswithin thegroup and, as a result, work onthe standard was suspended. However, as more andmore people became aware of the existence of thisdraft standard, requests for copies started to pour infrom across North America and Europe. This over-whelming show ofsupportspurred theWorking Grouptoward completing its work.

Rather than develop the standard from scratch, theWorking Group decided to use the well-seasonedstandards developed by MTO as a framework andbuild from there. The group agreed on two importantbasic principles for the new standard. One was thatthe standard would incorporate a complete certifica-tion or pre-qualification program and a quality assur-ance program for each noise barrier installed. Thesecond was that it would only deal with the overallphysical design of the barrier system, the materialsused and the construction methods. It would notinclude requirements for the acoustical design, suchas location, wall height and length.

During its four years of work, the Working Groupcontributed hundreds of man-hours, produced fourdraft versions, and reviewed over 200 comments fromvarious organizations before it submitted the last draftto CSA for final review on March 30, 1992. It isanticipated that this new standard will be publishedbefore the end of this year.

AsChair and on behalf ofthe 16-member teamthatworked so hard onthis standard, I would like to extendour warmest thanks to those who supported our effortsand provided invaluable comments. We could nothave done it without you.

If you are interested in receiving the latest versionof this draft standard, please write to:

Soren PedersenMinistry of Transportation,Surveys and Design OfficeWest Building, 2nd Floor1201 Wilson AvenueDownsview, OntarioCanada M3M 1J8

T ie Challenge for The FutureBy William Bowlby

4-June, 1992