• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Thesis irfan BY Muhammad Fahad Ansari  12IEEM14
 

Thesis irfan BY Muhammad Fahad Ansari 12IEEM14

on

  • 717 views

BY Muhammad Fahad Ansari 12IEEM14

BY Muhammad Fahad Ansari 12IEEM14

Statistics

Views

Total Views
717
Views on SlideShare
717
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
27
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Thesis irfan BY Muhammad Fahad Ansari  12IEEM14 Thesis irfan BY Muhammad Fahad Ansari 12IEEM14 Document Transcript

    • ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE POLLUTION AND ITS REMEDIAL MEASURESIN MULTAN CITYMuhammad IrfanMaster of EngineeringInEnvironmental Engineering and ManagementINSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENTFACULTY OF ENGINEERINGMEHRAN UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGYJAMSHORO - SINDH2012i
    • ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE POLLUTION AND ITS REMEDIAL MEASURESIN MULTAN CITYA thesis submitted byMuhammad IrfanIn partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree ofMaster of EngineeringInEnvironmental Engineering and ManagementINSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENTFACULTY OF ENGINEERINGMEHRAN UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGYJAMSHORO - SINDH2012ii
    • TABLE OF CONTENTSTopics Page No.ABSTRACT viChapter 1: Introduction1.1 General1.2 Introduction to Multan city1.3 Growth rate of vehicles in Multan city1123Chapter 2: Review of Literature 4Chapter 3: Methodology3.1 Research methodology conceptual model3.2 Measurement of sound3.2.1 Sound pressure level3.2.2 Power of sound3.2.3 Sound Intensity3.2.4 Sound level meter3.2.5 Road traffic noise measurement method3.3 Road traffic flow3.4 Public opinion survey3.5 Suggestions of remedial measures1314161617171718212323Chapter 4: Results and Discussions4.1 Traffic flow results4.1.1 Traffic flow at B.C. Chowk4.1.2 Traffic flow at Chowk Shaheeda4.1.3 Traffic flow at Chungi no. 6242424252728iii
    • 4.1.4 Traffic flow at Derra Adda4.1.5 Traffic flow at Dolat Gate4.1.6 Traffic flow at Ghanta Ghar4.1.7 Traffic flow at Haram Gate4.1.8 Traffic flow at Qazafi Chowk4.1.9 Traffic flow at M.D.A. Chowk4.1.10 Traffic flow at Nishtar road4.1.11 Traffic flow at Rasheedabad Chowk4.1.12 Traffic flow at Vehari Chowk4.2 Noise level results4.2.1 Noise level at B.C. Chowk4.2.2 Noise level at Chowk Shaheeda4.2.3 Noise level at Chungi no. 64.2.4 Noise level at Derra Adda4.2.5 Noise level at Dolat Gate4.2.6 Noise level at Ghanta Ghar4.2.7 Noise level at Haram Gate4.2.8 Noise level at Qazafi Chowk4.2.9 Noise level at M.D.A. Chowk4.2.10 Noise level at Nishtar road4.2.11 Noise level at Rasheedabad Chowk4.2.12 Noise level at Vehari Chowk4.2.12 Minimum noise levels4.2.13 Maximum noise levels4.2.14 Noise Climate4.2.15 Equivalent noise level4.2.16 noise pollution level4.2.17 Traffic noise index4.3 Public opinion survey4.3.1 Public opinion survey Results4.3.2 Traffic police opinion survey Results30313334363739404242444749525457596264676972727272737373757576iv
    • 4.4 Discussion 78Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations5.1 Conclusions5.2 Recommendations / Suggestions808081References 83Appendix-IAppendix-II8687v
    • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSInitially, I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. Khan Muhammad Brohi and Co-supervisor Engr. Muhammad Ali Memon for offering great assistance, positive feedback, andsupport during my thesis.I would like to express my honest thanks to Engr. Faisal Jabbar, M.E. student at Instituteof Environmental Engineering and Management of Mehran University of Engineering andTechnology, whose suggestions contributed to the assisting in survey and he is always be there tohelp whenever I faced any problem. Last but not the least I would like to thank to my parents andfriends, for their absolute support during my entire thesis work.Authorvi
    • ABSTRACTNoise is defined as unwanted sound. It is one of the most undesirable and unavoidable by-product of today’s modern society. Road traffic is one of the main causes of community noise inthe urban areas of the Pakistan. The literature shows that no study has carried out till now onroad traffic noise pollution in Multan city. So, a road traffic survey has been carried out. Theobjectives of the study are; (1) Measurement of road traffic noise levels, (2) Measurement trafficflow, (3) Public opinion survey about effects of noise on dwellers and (4) Suggestion of remedialmeasures to control noise pollution. In order to accomplish above objectives, a survey study wascarried out at carefully 12 busy roads and intersections. The data collected for all the sites havebeen analyzed and calculate the statistical noise levels (L10, L50, L90), Equivalent noise level (Leq),Noise pollution level (Lnp), Traffic noise index (TNI) and noise climate (NC)The study reveals that the road traffic noise levels in Multan city are alarming high. The majorcontributors to high noise levels are due to rickshaws, use of pressure horns and impropersilencers. The average equivalent noise level (Leq) and average statistical peak value (L10) inMultan city exceeds 90 dB(A), which is above the permissible limit of 85 dB(A) asrecommended by N.E.Q.S. fro noise control in Pakistan. The study shows that Vehari Chowk isone of the nosiest survey sites among all 12 sites.vii
    • Road traffic flow has been recorded higher at Vehari Chowk followed by Rasheedabad Chowk.The main contributor to road traffic flow were found 2-wheelers (motorcycles) followed byrickshaws and cars.Public opinion survey about noise annoyance indicated that 65 % dwellers were annoyed due tohigh noise levels out of 240 respondents, while 70.83 % traffic police wardens were annoyed dueto high noise levels out of 48 respondents.The study concludes that existing national standards for control of vehicular noise emissions arenot sufficient in controlling road traffic noise. So the comprehensive legislation and standardsshould be developed for the implementation of vehicular noise emissions standards. The studyrecommends that use of pressure horns and improper silencers should be banned andcontinuously monitored, hospitals and education institutes should be declared as silent zones.Heavy penalties should be provided for strictly implementation of regulations and laws aboutnoise emissions.viii
    • CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION1.1 GeneralThe human being ear has been well-known with the constrained levels of noise since ages. Butthe widespread urbanization and present living have made value of life so much depressed thathuman beings are now exposed to the threat of noise pollution from the instant of developingphase till the moment he tasted the certainty of fatality. The tragedy is that all the places whichone comes across in daily-life starting from the offices to home, production centers, school,colleges, hospitals, etc are lacking the softness and calmness. Every nook and corner seems to becharged with injurious sounds all through day and night. The civilization is facing the problem ofsound agitation.Noise in the environment is produced by vibrations in the air that contact human being ears androuse a feeling of hearing. When the sound becomes loud or disagreeable effects on our bodyhealth, it can be termed as an environmental pollutant. Noise can, therefore, also be defined asthat unwanted and pollutant, which produces undesirable physiological and psychosomaticeffects in an human being, by interfering with one’s public activities like occupation, relax,hobby, sleep, etc. The noise, as an air pollutant, in fact, differs from other pollutants in a mannerthat it is momentary in nature, and is not a enduring or persisting event, once the noise pollutionstops emitting, the environment becomes free of this contaminant. Dissimilar other pollutantslike gases and dust matter, which carry on remaining on, after once inflowing into the airenvironment?1
    • Traffic typically generates a lot of noise, mostly in big cities, and is liable for causing a lot ofannoyance to the social order. The quantity and kind of noise created by traffic is largely reliantupon the type of traffic. Say for example, a diesel jeep or a truck generates more noise than apetrol car; poorly maintained vehicles produces more noise than new or good conditionedvehicles. Exposure of mankind to the day by day increasing noise nuisance must be reduced andabated, if its adverse effects on human health are to be controlled. The society must therefore beprotected from the injurious effects of noise by devising and implementing customs and ways forthe abatement of noise.1.2 Introduction to Multan cityThe city of Multan is situated in the southern region of the Punjab province. It was built just eastof the River Chenab, Roughly in the geographic centre of the Pakistan and about 562 km (349miles) from Islamabad, 356 km (221 miles) from Lahore and 966 km (600 miles) from Karachi.Multan is the 5th biggest city in Pakistan after Karachi, Lahore, Faisalabad and Rawalpindi, witha population of almost 1.2 million with 2.64 % yearly growth rates according to 1998 census(Federal Bureau of Statistics, 2004). At present its population is predictable as more than 1.9million. Multan is a business and an industrial center and is linked with the rest of the countryfor example Lahore, Karachi, Quetta and Faisalabad. The industries in Multan include fertilizerindustry, cosmetics, glass manufacturing industry, cotton processing industry, large textile mills,flour mills, sugar mills and edible oil mills and major power generation units. It is famous for itshandicrafts, such as carpets, ceramic goods and home based textile industries.The general disabilities of the current transport services include incapability to accommodatediversify and huge volume of traffic flow, encroachments, mixed traffic, poor conditions of road2
    • surfaces, inadequately designed intersections, incorrect positions of value services along roads,messy commercialization and an unintended location of the transportation related infrastructure;such as bus stops, truck stands, grain, fruit and the vegetable markets.1.3 Vehicle growth rate in MultanThe total number of vehicles in Multan stood at 320,519 in 2005. Motor cycles / scootersconstituted 68% of the total numbers. The second highest share is that of motor cars, jeeps andstation wagons at around 14%. Growth rate for others has been recorded at 12% per annum. Thegrowth of registered vehicles over the past 25 years has been recorded at around 13% per annum.The growth of others and the delivery vans was recorded at almost 24% and 17% respectively.The motor cycles / scooters, and motor cars, jeeps and station wagons share 13.5% and 12%respectively (Punjab Development Statistics, 2006). For details, see Figure 1.Figure 1: Model Growth Rate (Source: Punjab Development Statistics – 2006)3
    • CHAPTER 2REVIEW OF LITERATUREAkhtar, N.H.et al (1998), conducted a study on road traffic noise in Peshawar. The study isassumed that the saturated market in Peshawar creates a noise above the permissible level,compared with that increases gradually in the quiet zones, was a continuation of part of the study1995 noise reduction devices are traffic measured at 18 sites occupied in 1995, 1996, 1997 and1998 with a sound level meter. We found that the increased stress caused by traffic in Peshawaron a larger scale and the production of noise in the national environmental standard for exhaustemissions and engine noise, i.e. above 85 dB (A).Khan, M. W. et al (2010), carried out a cross sectional study at vigilantly chosen busiest sites indifferent regions of Karachi city. Six different locations were chosen from busy sites in differentregions of Karachi city for research study. Road traffic noise is one of the main contributors tonoise pollution in all large urban cities of the globe as well as in Pakistan. Karachi city being thebiggest city in Pakistan is practicing a remarkable increase in the road traffic noise levels due tomillions of road vehicles running on its roads without appropriate maintenance of body as wellas vehicles engines, lack of interest of the residents towards noise pollution and lack of concernof the concerned establishment. Average road traffic noise levels found in this research studywas 95 dB (A), which is much above the worldwide recommended guidelines and standards. Ahuge number of inhabitants are at risk of rising noise induced hearing loss as well as othergeneral symptoms of harmful effects of extreme noise emissions.4
    • Zubair, A. and Siddiqui, S. N. (2011), this research study was carried out to examine the noiselevels due to road traffic in Gulshan-e-Iqbal town Karachi city. To determine the amount of noisepollution of Karachi city two intersections the Gulshan-e-Iqbal crossing and NIPA crossing ofGulshan-e-Iqbal town were main point of this research study as these two intersection point ofRashid Minhas are road main links to other part of the Karachi city. For noise pollution strengthdB(A) meter at E.P.A recommended distance, standard 7.5 m were used. Noise pollutionintensity was calculated between 15.00 to 17.00 by dB (A) meters at Environmental ProtectionAgency recommended distance standard 7.5 m. Road traffic Noise pollution up to 105 decibelshas been measured in the Area of study as compare to the allowable limits of noise 70 dB(A)required to guard health and safety.Parida, M. et al (2001), conducted a study on urban Road Traffic Noise pollution investigate inDelhi city, state that many citizens in Delhi city are being exposed at residence to elevated noiselevels, road traffic noise above the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in India. This is dueto the reasons including lack of habitable earth, massive demand for shelter, fare and cargotransportation. The government has also taken a variety of steps including execution ofabatement plans to tackle road traffic noise pollution. To make sure entity vehicles do notgenerate unnecessary noise, all automobiles including buses are necessary to obey with strictnoise emission guidelines and regulations. While the events planned to execute could not cure allthe noise related problems caused by the big convoy of automobiles on roads. One feasible wayto do so is to construct barriers on noisy roads to subside the noise pollution. A set of easy5
    • assessment measures is suggested for the use as a running tool to permit for an evaluator toexecute a desktop study without going throughout extensive calculations to establish theprobability of mitigation assess. Ground studies were carried out to calculate the noise pollutionproduced by road traffic. At Ashram place, the noise levels on overhead bridge was 81.12 dB (A)which is higher than the noise level 80.93 dB (A) due to adjoining road. At Moolchand place, thenoise level 80.71 dB (A) which is higher than the noise level 79.18 dB (A) due to adjoining road.Stelian, T. et al (2007), they carried out a research study to calculate the road traffic noisepollution in city areas of Brasov city. The amount of the road traffic noise levels which expressthrough the connection was done concurrently with the measurements of the road traffic flowvalues. The time interval of the calculations was of one hour. For this crossroads it was chosenthe 03.00-04.00 pm time space, this subsequent to the sundown rush periods. The points of thecalculations were selected in purpose of the intersection’s geometry and of the structures positionfrom this region. The maximum noise level values were amount in the locality of the lanes forthe ordinary transport vehicles. The majority considerable noise level values are the onesequivalent to the medium level (Leq). The road traffic flow volume which get across throughcity’s chronological center area amplified in the previous years. In a number of the studied trafficcircles, the medium levels of noise pollution (Leq) is commonly over 70 dB(A). In conclusion,the dilemma of the road traffic noise pollution from the metropolitan areas greater than before inthe previous years. The development of the road traffic flow volume values in Brasov isconstantly rising, and for the year 2020 it is forecasted a repetition of this value. In thesecircumstances it will be required to investigate about noise pollution levels of the automobilesfrom road traffic.6
    • Yusoff, S. and Ishak, A. (2005), conducted a research study on estimation of metropolitanfreeway environmental noise pollution at three different places along the L.D.P. road was chosenas location study. They were Bandar Sunway, Kelana Jaya and Taman Megah., Petaling Jaya.The results of the research study designated that almost 72 percent of the road vehicles observedcomprises of cars, followed by (2-wheelers) motorcycles (15%), wagons and mini-buses (12%)while the lasting 1% comprised of trucks and buses of more than 3 axles. From this, it can beassumed that cars are the key contributor to road traffic noise pollution. The noise levelcalculations completed during this study calculated the different levels i.e. Leq, L10, L50 andL90 during the week. The daily noise level against time of daylight hours. Inhabited areaconfirms that the most of the lasting noise for all data taken is above 60 dB(A). Only at nightdoes the remaining noise (L90) fall between 56 to 60 dB(A). On holyday sunrise the measuringdevice examine 55 dB(A). This is the lowest noise level (L90) recorded. This means that theleast rate of noise level in Sunway Residential area still go beyond the acceptable level by theDOE.Serkan, O. et al (2009), this study was carried out to find out highway noise levels in Tokat citycentre, situated at the northern part of Turkey. Noise calculations were taken in the sunset to findout noise pollution all over the city as highway transport noise. The equivalent noise levels (Leq)were calculated at 65 locations, between 05:00 and 07:00 pm in the city. Elevated noise levels onthese roads were measured all over the city. At 50 of 65 measurement locations (76.9%), traffic7
    • noise values go beyond 65 dB(A), maximum value recommended by Turkish noise controlregulation, while at 50 locations (23.1%) this values were under permissible limit.Bhatti, N. K. (2011), carried out a research study to investigate effects of traffic noise pollutionin Nawabshah City. This research study shows that the maximum value, the minimum value andbackground noise level of traffic noise at various locations are ranging from 104 to 111 dB (A),70 to 76 dB (A) and 78.3 to 81.9 dB (A) respectively. The minimum value of the rail vehiclesnoise level exceeded 85 dB (A) and the maximum value of the rail vehicles was measured as 118dB (A). These noise level values are above the highest permitted noise level criteria forcommunity noise suggested by NEQS, ISO and other guidelines and standards. The average L50,L10, Leq for measurement period at these locations ranged as 85.4 to 90 dB (A), 94 to 103 dB (A)and 89.4 to 97.42 dB (A) respectively. The dwellers were interviewed personally to identify theiropinion about noise annoyance, this study shows that 64 percent dwellers were not at ease due tohigh noise levels, 16 percent citizens had no worry about noise annoyance while 20 percent wereadopted in that situation.Memon, Z. D. (1999), in this study noise investigation was carried out at 9 places on the busyroads in the housing and business areas of Hyderabad City. This study includes road traffic noisestudy, road traffic flow density and opinion of society annoyance to noise pollution. The resultsof study reveals that the road traffic noise levels in Hyderabad city are frighteningly high. Thepeak values are due to 2-wheelers (rickshaws) and pressure horns. The average maximum noise8
    • level values in Hyderabad city go beyond 90 dB (A). These values are higher than 85 dB aspermitted by the NEQS, for noise emission control in Pakistan.Memon, M. A. (2006), carried out a research study to find out Road Traffic Noise and torecommend Remedial Measures in Urban areas of Hyderabad. The results of this research studyreveals that the road traffic noise levels in Hyderabad city are terrifyingly high. The averageminimum value varies from 68 to 71 dB (A) and average maximum a value in Hyderabad cityranges from 88 to 96 dB (A). the noise levels recorded in this study are much above theallowable limit of 85 dB(A) as recommended by NEQS for noise emission control.Aftab, T. (2007), conducted a survey of the road traffic noise levels in urban areas of Lahore cityfrom November 2003 to February 2004. The road traffic noise levels were calculated at 18 busylocations, which shows that the mean noise level at these locations was ranging between 84 to 99dB(A). The lowest noise level recorded ranges from 72 to 80 dB(A) while peak noise levelrecorded ranging from 94 to 104 dB(A). At all these locations the average noise level wasrecorded above the allowed limit of 85 dB(A) by NEQS Pakistan. The main noise contributorsare mini buses, buses and vans that cover the route of Lahore to Kasur and Lahore to Kahana andvice versa respectively.Alam et al (2001), carried out a research study in Dhaka City for Road Traffic Noise Pollution.For this purpose noise levels was recorded at 37 main sites of the Dhaka city from 7.00 AM to9
    • 11.00 PM during the work days. The measured data was analyzed to find out different noiseparameters such as Leqt (equivalent noise level), L10, L50, L90 (Statistical noise levels), NC(Noise Climate), Lnp (level of Noise Pollution) and TNI (Traffic Noise Index). This studyrevealed that noise levels at all the sites, far above the permissible limit as recommended byregulation authorities. The study suggests that education and health care institutions like schoolsand hospitals should be at least 60 meter away from the main roads. A model has also beenconstructed for the forecast of noise levels on the basis of road traffic flow volume, averagespeed and distance from the road.Sisman E. E. and Unver E. (2011), conducted a research study on assessment and investigationof noise pollution levels in order to find out the noise annoyance level in Corlu city. The chosenareas for this study are business centers, road intersections/ round abouts, bus stops and publicparking areas. The road intersections had the maximum noise pollution levels, go after businesscenters. Eighteen survey locations were observed in center of county Corlu concerning to roadtraffic. Measurements of noise were conceded out in the morning when the road traffic was high,in the noon and in the late afternoon. The results of this study reveals that the noise levels inCorlu was higher than 65 dB(A), allowable limit value as recommended by Turkish NoiseControl Regulation allowed values at 17 of 18 survey locations.Murthy et al (2007), carried out a research study for the evaluation Of Road Traffic Noiseemissions In Banepa city. The study results show that elevated noise levels, exceeds on manyevents to the approved levels. Generally minimum and maximum noise levels for the majorRoads are 60.1dB (A) and 110.2 dB (A). Bus stops and parks had minimum noise levels andmaximum noise levels were 63.9 dB (A) and 110.2dB (A). The values near housing areas also10
    • had significant levels of noise emissions of 59.11dB (A). The noise levels emitted by variousmotor vehicles ranged from 121 to 91.2 dB(A), which was significant high values. The studyindicates motor vehicles as major cause of noise emissions in the city. The observation surveyshows that high occurrence of headaches, lack of attention, sleeplessness. Since noise levels aremuch above the approved limits there is about to happen health related risks to the exposedresidents and the study recommends for controlling vehicular noise emissions.Chauhan A. and Pande K. K. (2010), carried out a study to evaluate traffic Noise Pollution atdifferent regions of Dehradun City. This study reveals that introduction to high level of noiseemissions may cause harsh tension / stress on the acoustic and mental health. Transport andpressure horns used in motor vehicles are the main causes of noise emissions in Dehradun City.For this reason this research study was conducted at 20 different sites with noise Level Meter tomeasure the day and night noise levels in Dehradun City. It was observed that all the chosensurvey sites, the noise levels was recorded to be above agreed noise standard level as allowed byCPCB, India.Sen, T. et al (2011), carried out a study to assess the noise exposure from 3-wheelers(rickshaws) in Kolkata city. Statistical degeneration analysis is made among the variousparameters like Leq, L90, and calculated parameters like Traffic Noise Index (TNI) and Noisepollution level (Lnp). This study recommends that noise exposure and NIHL (noise inducedhearing loss) can impede with the protection of driver’s day to day life, as working in such11
    • conditions, noise dose go beyond 89 dBA is more hazardous causing hearing loss due to intenseenvironmental noise pollution levels.Agarwal S. and Swami B. L. (2011), conducted a research study to examine the impacts ofnoise pollution on dwellers living near busy roads. The quantity of irritation was evaluated bymeans of a questionnaire survey. It was establish that among all noise causing sources, trafficwas the major cause of noise emission followed by industrial units or machinery. A healthinesssurvey revealed that about 52 percent of inhabitants were suffering by frequent annoyance. 46percent dwellers were suffering from stress / tension, and 48.6 percent were suffering fromsleeplessness due to high levels of noise pollution. The noise parameters were also measured atall the carefully chosen locations. It was calculated that the Leq values were ranging from 73-86dB(A) as compared to the allowable limit value of 65 dB(A) approved by the Central PollutionControl Board, New Delhi, India.12
    • CHAPTER 3METHODOLOGYIn order to have a measurement of existing road traffic noise in urban areas of Multan City,following study survey was conducted at carefully selected busy road intersections in differentregions of Multan City; different sites are selected for this study i.e.i. Vehari Chowkii. B.C. Chowkiii. Qazafi Chowk (Kumharawala)iv. Chowk Rasheedabadv. Chungi No. 6vi. MDA Chowkvii. Nishtar Roadviii. Ghanta Gharix. Haram Gatex. Derra Addaxi. Chowk Shaheedaxii. Dolat Gate13
    • The map of the Multan city is shown in Appendix-I. All above mentioned location points aremarked in this map. The traffic noise data was collected from November 2011 to Feb 2012during working days.3.1 Research Methodology Conceptual ModelIn order to achieve the aims and objects of this research study, a conceptual model wasconstructed. This conceptual model has four main components, which are as follows;1. Noise Level Measurements & Analysis of Measured Noise Data2. Measurement of Traffic Flow3. Public opinion survey4. Suggestion of Remedial Measures to Control vehicular noise emissions.
    • The conceptual model for research methodology is shown in figure.Noise LevelMeasurements& Analysis ofMeasured NoiseData
    • Fig. 3.1: Research Methodology Conceptual ModelSuggestion ofRemedialMeasuresPublic OpinionSurveyMeasurement ofTraffic FlowNoise LevelMeasurements& Analysis ofMeasured NoiseDataRoad TrafficNoise & ItsRemedialMeasures inMultan City
    • 3.2 Measurement of Sound3.2.1 Sound Pressure LevelFor auditory measurements, sound pressure levels are calculated in decibels (dB) andmathematically sound pressure level in decibel may be defined as in equation 3.1.SPL = 20 log10 P/Po = dB (3.1)Where P is the sound pressure level and Po is the reference sound pressure level taken as 20×10-6Pascal which is threshold of hearingHuman being ear reacts to the sound ranging from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. The individual reactionof sound to human being ear varies with rate of recurrence and the ear is mainly aware in thefrequency range of 1 to 4 KHz. Above and below this range the understanding of ear cascadequickly. Thus in orders to conquer this difficulty, electrical filters are used in sound levelrecording. A variety of filters weightings A, B, C and D are available. The A-weighting curvehas been generally approved for environmental noise level measurements, and is ordinary inmany noise level meters. The A-weighting method is used in any measurement of environmentalnoise levels (examples of which comprise road traffic noise, rail traffic noise, and aircraft noiselevel measurements). A-weighting is the typically used of a family of curves defined in theInternational standard IEC 61672:2003 and different national standards concerning to themeasurement of noise pressure levels. The weighting is engaged by arithmetically addition of atable of values, programmed by octave or third octave bands, to the recorded noise pressure
    • levels in dB. The resultant octave band recordings are generally added (logarithmic process) tooffer a single A-weighted value recitation the sound, so the units are written as dB(A).3.2.2 Power of SoundThe power of sound is defined as the rate of performing work by a travelling sound wave in thepath of the transmission of the wave. The energy generated by a sound wave in the path of itstransmission is thus, defined as its power, and its unit is watts in S.I. units system.3.2.3 Sound IntensityThe sound intensity is an additional significant term which is used to calculate sound. It isdefined as the sound power weighted average over the time, per unit area typical to the path oftransmission of the sound wave. Mathematically it is defined as formula as written in equation3.2.I = (Sound Power in watts / 4πr2) = W/m2(3.2)If the sound is created at ground level, assuming that the ground is completely reflecting, thenthe energy is only emitted into hemisphere despite of a absolute sphere. In this case the formulafor intensity is shown in equation 3.3.I W/ 2π r2= W/m2(3.3)3.2.4 Sound Level MeterThe sound level meter is used for the measurement of sound pressure level, it consists of amicrophone, amplifier and a gauge. The microphone alters the sound pressure waves into
    • electrical current variations, which are improved and drive the gauge meter. Unluckily no metercould measured precisely over such a large as may be desirable from 30 dB to 120 dB or more.To conquer this, the intensification is altered as required is steps of 10 dB and the meter only hasto examine the variation between the amplifier situation and the sound pressure level. themajority of meters will have relations to which filters can be supplementary to choose particularfrequencies of the sound. Various classifications are used in the explanation of sound levelmeters.Class 1: For PrecisionClass 2: For General Survey PurposeClass 3: For SurveyClass 4: For Special Purpose3.2.5 Road Traffic Noise Measurement MethodThe measurement instrument used in this study was sound level meter of Class 2, Model ST-815,manufactured by Smart Sensor. Sound level meter ST-815 is shown in figure. All readings weremade by ST-815 sound level meter with calibrated condenser microphone. The microphone ofthe sound level meter was guarded by polyurethane windscreen, in order to eliminate windeffects on measurements as recommended by ISO-1996/1:2003 standard.
    • Fig. ST-815 Sound Level MeterAll measurements were made at slow response mode. A weighted filter curve sound level meterwas used in this study as recommended by ISO-1996/1:2003 standard. Measurements were madebetween 08:00 am to 08:00 pm at each site. Sound level meter was placed at a uniform height of1.2 meter from the ground as recommended by ISO-1996/1:2003 standard. ISO-1996/1:2003standard suggests that the monitoring time should be at least 15 minutes and the instrumentshould be placed at least 1 meter away from the flow of traffic flow line. Three readings weretaken at each site in each measurement mode, so that a mean value can be obtained.The dB(A) scale was selected for all the measurement of environmental noise as ISO-1996/1:2003 standard. In each measurement mode, readings were taken during a period of 15
    • minutes. During this period Maximum noise level (Lmax), Minimum noise level (Lmin) andaverage noise levels were recorded at each site in each measurement mode. The data collectedfor all the sites have been analyzed by the standard procedure method as follows;i. Diurnal difference in road traffic noise showing Maximum noise level (Lmax), Minimumnoise level (Lmin) and average noise level values in each measurement mode.ii. Statistical distribution (L90, L50, L10) of road traffic noise in each measurement mode.iii. Cumulative division of road traffic noise are;L10: A specified dB(A) level which is go beyond 10 % of the time during entire periodof measurement, which represents as Average maximum (Peak) Value.L50: A specified dB(A) level which is go beyond 50 % of the time during entire periodof measurement, which represents as Average Value.L90: A specified dB(A) level which is go beyond 10 % of the time during entire periodof measurement, which represents as Average Background noise Value.iv. NC (Noise Climate) offers the range over which the sound level oscillates in an intervalof time and can be calculated by the following equation 3.4.NC = ( L10 – L90 ) (3.4)v. Leq is that statistical equivalent value of noise level that can be equated to any irregularnoise level. It is also defined as the constant noise level, which, over a given time,spreads out the same quantity of energy as is expanded by the irregular levels over the
    • same time. It is also called as equivalent continuous noise level and it can be calculate byusing following equation 3.5.Leq = L50 + ( L10 – L90 )2/ 60 (3.5)vi. Noise Pollution Level (Lnp), is also used to express varying level of noise (Rao and Rao1991). It can be calculated from the time unreliable noise level using following equation3.6.Lnp = L50 + [( L10 – L90 )2/ 60] + ( L10 – L90 ) (3.6)vii. Traffic Noise index (TNI) is another factor which indicates the level of difference in atraffic flow. This is also expressed in dB(A) and can be calculated by using the followingequation 3.7.TNI = L90 + 4( L10 – L90 ) – 30 (3.7)3.3 Road Traffic FlowFlow Density of road traffic was found by calculating the number of vehicles passed by duringthe measurement period at each site and reading. Vehicles were counted with respect to the typeof the vehicle in each measuring mode, i.e. HTV, LTV, Cars (LMV), 2-Wheelers (Motorcyclesand Scooters), 3-wheelers (2 and 4 stroke Rickshaws) and tractor trolley. HTV (Heavy TransportVehicles) includes Buses, Truck, trailers and other heavy vehicles. While LTV (Light TransportVehicles) includes Wagons, mini buses, mini truck, coasters and other small luggage carriagevehicles as shown in Figure. The average percentage flow of respective vehicles type and hourlyroad traffic flow were calculated.
    • HTVLTVCarsRickshaws(3-Wheelers)Motorcycles(2-Wheelers)TractorTrolleyFig: Types of Vehicles
    • 3.4 Public Opinion survey:In order to know the opinion of the citizens from the area about how the noise levels have beenaffecting their daily life, interview was carried out at each site. Minimum 20 persons wereinterviewed at each site. In order to interview, a questionnaire was prepared which is given inAppendix II.3.5 Suggestion remedial measuresThe remedial measures for the control of road traffic noise pollution is suggested in chapter 5.
    • CHAPTER 4RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS4.1 Traffic Flow Results4.1.1 Traffic Flow at B.C. ChowkTraffic flow recorded at B.C. Chowk is given in Table 4.1. The average traffic flow at B.C.Chowk was found 2535.9 vehicles/ hour between 8.00 am to 8.00 am. Average flow of HTV,LTV, cars, rickshaws, motorcycles and tractor trolley was found 32, 151.33, 365.83, 877.83,1083.66 and 25.25 vehicles/ hour respectively. The major contribution to traffic flow was frommotorcycles and rickshaws. Highest traffic flow at B.C. Chowk was found 2610 vehicles/ hourbetween 1 pm to 2 pm. Where as the lowest traffic flow was found 2015 vehicles/ hour between7 pm to 8 pm. Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at B.C. Chowk is given in figure4.1.Table 4.1: Traffic flow at B.C. ChowkType of Vehicles8AMto9AM9AMto10AM10AMto11AM11AMto12AM12AMto1PM1PMto2PM2PMto3PM3PMto4PM4PMto5PM5PMto6PM6PMto7PM7PMto8PMAverageTrafficFlow(Vehicles/hr)HTV 50 44 30 32 26 38 35 28 26 23 27 25 32LTV 184 152 140 120 128 180 136 148 180 172 144 132 151.33Cars 400 348 340 320 360 380 390 340 348 392 404 368 365.83Rickshaws 680 608 540 528 595 790 785 732 740 724 752 660 877.83Motorcycles 1144 1120 1010 1008 1120 1190 1170 1180 1080 1060 1112 810 1083.66Tractor Trolley 30 24 20 18 16 32 30 28 25 28 32 20 25.25Total 2488 2296 2080 2026 2245 2610 2546 2456 2399 2399 2471 2015 2535.9
    • Figure 4.1: Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at B.C. Chowk4.1.2 Traffic Flow at Chowk ShaheedaTraffic flow recorded at Chowk Shaheeda is given in Table 4.2. The average traffic flow wasfound 1934.31 vehicles/ hour between 8.00 am to 8.00 am. Average flow of HTV, LTV, cars,rickshaws, motorcycles and tractor trolley was found 4.83, 35.66, 143.83, 527.33, 1219.33 and3.33 vehicles/ hour respectively. The major contribution to traffic flow was from motorcycles.Highest traffic flow at Chowk Shaheeda was found 2230 vehicles/ hour between 9 am to 10 am.Where as the lowest traffic flow was found 1610 vehicles/ hour between 7 pm to 8 pm. Graphicalrepresentation of hourly traffic flow at Chowk Shaheeda is given in figure 4.2.
    • Table 4.2: Traffic Flow at Chow ShaheedaType ofVehicles 8AMto9AM9AMto10AM10AMto11AM11AMto12AM12AMto1PM1PMto2PM2PMto3PM3PMto4PM4PMto5PM5PMto6PM6PMto7PM7PMto8PMAverageTrafficFlow(Vehicles/hr)HTV 18 12 0 4 8 4 0 4 4 0 0 4 4.83LTV 44 50 30 32 36 40 42 38 36 28 34 18 35.66Cars 144 160 110 136 156 140 156 134 154 140 160 136 143.83Rickshaws 580 600 500 466 480 560 584 490 540 580 504 444 527.33Motorcycles 1120 1400 1210 1088 1160 1440 1300 1188 1404 1198 1124 1000 1219.33TractorTrolley8 8 0 0 0 4 4 8 0 0 0 83.33Total 1914 2230 1850 1726 1840 2188 2086 1862 2138 1946 1822 1610 1934.31Fig 4.2: Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Chowk Shaheeda
    • 4.1.3 Traffic Flow at Chungi No. 6Traffic flow recorded at Chungi No. 6 is given in Table 4.3. The average traffic flow was found2771.83 vehicles/ hour between 8.00 am to 8.00 am. Average flow of HTV, LTV, cars,rickshaws, motorcycles and tractor trolley was found 34.58, 75.67, 815.67, 539.33, 1298.58 and8 vehicles/ hour respectively. The major contribution to traffic flow was from motorcycles andcars. Highest traffic flow at Chungi No. 6 was found 3087 vehicles/ hour between 2 pm to 3 pm.Where as the lowest traffic flow was found 2474 vehicles/ hour between 11 am to 12 am.Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Chungi No. 6 is given in figure 4.3.Table 4.3: Traffic flow at Chungi No. 6Type ofVehicles8AMto9AM9AMto10AM10AMto11AM11AMto12AM12AMto1PM1PMto2PM2PMto3PM3PMto4PM4PMto5PM5PMto6PM6PMto7PM7PMto8PMAverageTrafficFlow(Vehicles/hr)HTV 54 30 24 20 32 36 38 50 28 45 30 28 34.58LTV 12 90 76 70 85 88 104 95 78 68 70 72 75.67Cars 810 835 680 610 880 830 845 904 888 780 846 880 815.67Rickshaws 526 586 496 570 585 600 610 500 480 545 570 404 539.33Motorcycles 1410 1436 1222 1200 1408 1440 1478 1328 1095 1066 1190 1310 1298.58TractorTrolley12 12 8 4 8 8 12 4 16 8 4 0 8Total 2824 2989 2506 2474 2998 3002 3087 2881 2585 2512 2710 2694 2771.83
    • Fig 4.3: Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Chungi No. 64.1.4 Traffic Flow at Derra AddaTraffic flow recorded at Derra Adda is given in Table 4.4. The average traffic flow was found2716.33 vehicles/ hour between 8.00 am to 8.00 am. Average flow of HTV, LTV, cars,rickshaws, motorcycles and tractor trolley was found 27.5, 226.08, 563.5, 578.08, 1310.34 and10.83 vehicles/ hour respectively. The major contribution to traffic flow was from motorcyclesand cars. Highest traffic flow at Derra Adda was found 3024 vehicles/ hour between 1 pm to 2pm. Where as the lowest traffic flow was found 2428 vehicles/ hour between 10 am to 11 am.Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Derra Adda is given in figure 4.4.
    • Table 4.4: Traffic Flow at Derra AddaType ofVehicles 8AMto9AM9AMto10AM10AMto11AM11AMto12AM12AMto1PM1PMto2PM2PMto3PM3PMto4PM4PMto5PM5PMto6PM6PMto7PM7PMto8PMAverageTrafficFlow(Vehicles/hr)HTV 38 32 24 28 36 28 20 18 22 28 32 24 27.5LTV 262 224 230 190 226 240 236 199 236 244 218 208 226.08Cars 600 582 498 486 580 606 560 500 538 624 612 576 563.5Rickshaws 608 566 504 546 600 654 640 609 594 532 566 518 578.08Motorcycles 1480 1398 1168 1094 1294 1480 1520 1255 1235 1286 1308 1206 1310.34TractorTrolley8 16 4 20 8 16 4 8 8 12 22 410.83Total 2996 2818 2428 2364 2744 3024 2980 2589 2633 2726 2758 2536 2716.33Fig 4.4: Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Derra Adda
    • 4.1.5 Traffic Flow at Dolat GateTraffic flow recorded at Dolat Gate is given in Table 4.5. The average traffic flow was found2449.83 vehicles/ hour between 8.00 am to 8.00 am. Average flow of HTV, LTV, cars,rickshaws, motorcycles and tractor trolley was found 11.66, 134, 438, 606.17, 1250.33 and 9.67vehicles/ hour respectively. The major contribution to traffic flow was from motorcycles.Highest traffic flow at Dolat Gate was found 2798 vehicles/ hour between 1 pm to 2 pm. Whereas the lowest traffic flow was found 2182 vehicles/ hour between 7 pm to 8 pm. Graphicalrepresentation of hourly traffic flow at Dolat Gate is given in figure 4.5.Table 4.5: Traffic Flow at Dolat GateType ofVehicles8AMto9AM9AMto10AM10AMto11AM11AMto12AM12AMto1PM1PMto2PM2PMto3PM3PMto4PM4PMto5PM5PMto6PM6PMto7PM7PMto8PMAverageTrafficFlow(Vehicles/hr)HTV 20 12 16 8 8 12 8 8 20 16 8 4 11.66LTV 180 120 156 120 136 152 140 128 112 132 120 112 134Cars 400 440 390 320 460 488 410 400 544 500 476 428 438Rickshaws 680 600 580 620 600 662 600 680 572 590 566 524 606.17Motorcycles 1300122010601200136414761412111011641300129211061250.33TractorTrolley8 12 12 16 4 8 4 12 12 16 4 89.67Total 2588240422142284257227982574233824242554246621822449.83
    • Fig 4.5: Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Dolat Gate4.1.6 Traffic Flow at Ghanta GharTraffic flow recorded at Ghanta Ghar is given in Table 4.6. The average traffic flow was found2671.5 vehicles/ hour between 8.00 am to 8.00 am. Average flow of HTV, LTV, cars, rickshaws,motorcycles and tractor trolley was found 11, 120, 523.67, 721, 1285.5 and 10.33 vehicles/ hourrespectively. The major contribution to traffic flow was from motorcycles. Highest traffic flow atGhanta Ghar was found 2960 vehicles/ hour between 1 pm to 2 pm. Where as the lowest trafficflow was found 2240 vehicles/ hour between 7 pm to 8 pm. Graphical representation of hourlytraffic flow at Ghanta Ghar is given in figure 4.6.
    • Table 4.6: Traffic Flow at Ghanta GharType ofVehicles 8AMto9AM9AMto10AM10AMto11AM11AMto12AM12AMto1PM1PMto2PM2PMto3PM3PMto4PM4PMto5PM5PMto6PM6PMto7PM7PMto8PMAverageTrafficFlow(Vehicles/hr)HTV 20 12 8 8 16 20 4 4 4 8 16 12 11LTV 140 120 128 104 160 148 116 88 100 132 116 88 120Cars 520 512 540 520 560 580 500 480 546 534 520 472 523.67Rickshaws 740 780 640 580 880 740 720 840 764 720 680 568 721Motorcycles 1440 1408 1260 1128 1240 1460 1370 1280 1298 1266 1176 1100 1285.5Tractor Trolley 20 12 16 8 4 12 8 8 12 16 8 0 10.33Total 2880 2844 2592 2348 2860 2960 2718 2700 2724 2676 2516 2240 2671.5Fig 4.6: Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Ghanta Ghar
    • 4.1.7 Traffic Flow at Haram GateTraffic flow recorded at Haram Gate is given in Table 4.7. The average traffic flow was found2275.58 vehicles/ hour between 8.00 am to 8.00 am. Average flow of HTV, LTV, cars,rickshaws, motorcycles and tractor trolley was found 3.75, 21.92, 194.08, 792.83, 1260.33 and2.67 vehicles/ hour respectively. The major contribution to traffic flow was from motorcycles.Highest traffic flow at Haram Gate was found 2544 vehicles/ hour between 1 pm to 2 pm. Whereas the lowest traffic flow was found 1928 vehicles/ hour between 7 pm to 8 pm. Graphicalrepresentation of hourly traffic flow at Haram Gate is given in figure 4.7.Table 4.7: Traffic Flow at Haram GateType ofVehicles8AMto9AM9AMto10AM10AMto11AM11AMto12AM12AMto1PM1PMto2PM2PMto3PM3PMto4PM4PMto5PM5PMto6PM6PMto7PM7PMto8PMAverageTrafficFlow(Vehicles/hr)HTV 9 12 0 0 4 8 4 0 4 0 0 4 3.75LTV 24 30 16 12 28 32 24 16 25 22 18 16 21.92Cars 220 280 190 150 190 200 184 160 200 210 185 160 194.08Rickshaws 800 810 780 710 820 900 840 720 844 880 790 620 792.83Motorcycles 1200 1240 1280 1200 1340 1400 1320 1240 1204 1360 1220 1120 1260.33TractorTrolley8 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 8 0 0 82.67Total 2261 2376 2266 2072 2382 2544 2372 2136 2285 2472 2213 1928 2275.58
    • Fig 4.7: Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Haram Gate4.1.8 Traffic Flow at Qazafi Chowk (Kumharawala)Traffic flow recorded at Qazafi Chowk is given in Table 4.8. The average traffic flow was found2526.33 vehicles/ hour between 8.00 am to 8.00 am. Average flow of HTV, LTV, cars,rickshaws, motorcycles and tractor trolley was found 47.17, 200.75, 518.25, 632.66, 1154.91 and21.83 vehicles/ hour respectively. The major contribution to traffic flow was from motorcycles.Highest traffic flow at Qazafi Chowk was found 2708 vehicles/ hour between 9 am to 10 am.Where as the lowest traffic flow was found 2403 vehicles/ hour between 7 pm to 8 pm. Graphicalrepresentation of hourly traffic flow at Qazafi Chowk is given in figure 4.8.Table 4.8: Traffic Flow at Qazafi Chowk
    • Type ofVehicles8AMto9AM9AMto10AM10AMto11AM11AMto12AM12AMto1PM1PMto2PM2PMto3PM3PMto4PM4PMto5PM5PMto6PM6PMto7PM7PMto8PMAverageTrafficFlow(Vehicles/hr)HTV 60 52 46 44 44 54 48 40 48 50 38 42 47.17LTV 200 210 176 180 190 218 220 200 220 240 175 180 200.75Cars 500 506 588 510 496 524 510 475 600 540 490 480 518.25Rickshaws 650 668 598 605 623 660 654 604 716 580 630 604 632.66Motorcycles 1240 1252 1120 1090 1105 1230 1165 1124 1064 1200 1184 1085 1154.91Tractor Trolley 12 20 32 28 22 20 16 26 18 40 16 12 21.83Total 2662 2708 2560 2457 2480 2706 2613 2469 2666 2650 2533 2403 2526.33Fig 4.8: Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Qazafi Chowk4.1.9 Traffic Flow at M.D.A Chowk
    • Traffic flow recorded at M.D.A Chowk is given in Table 4.9. The average traffic flow was found2674.92 vehicles/ hour between 8.00 am to 8.00 am. Average flow of HTV, LTV, cars,rickshaws, motorcycles and tractor trolley was found 6.5, 121.25, 764, 503.67, 1264.83 and14.67 vehicles/ hour respectively. The major contribution to traffic flow was from motorcycles.Highest traffic flow at M.D.A Chowk was found 2982 vehicles/ hour between 2 pm to 3 pm.Where as the lowest traffic flow was found 2362 vehicles/ hour between 7 pm to 8 pm. Graphicalrepresentation of hourly traffic flow at M.D.A Chowk is given in figure 4.9.Table 4.9: Traffic Flow at M.D.A ChowkType ofVehicles8AMto9AM9AMto10AM10AMto11AM11AMto12AM12AMto1PM1PMto2PM2PMto3PM3PMto4PM4PMto5PM5PMto6PM6PMto7PM7PMto8PMAverageTrafficFlow(Vehicles/hr)HTV 12 16 6 4 8 4 12 4 8 0 4 0 6.5LTV 180 120 150 160 84 80 96 75 160 140 120 90 121.25Cars 810 840 780 766 780 820 866 790 650 710 690 666 764Rickshaws 468 480 436 408 460 600 620 500 610 510 486 466 503.67Motorcycles 1320 1410 1110 1086 1560 1420 1380 1180 1266 1180 1130 1136 1264.83TractorTrolley12 36 8 40 16 12 8 4 12 8 16 414.67Total 2802 2908 2490 2464 2908 2936 2982 2553 2706 2548 2446 2362 2674.92
    • Fig 4.9: Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at M.D.A. Chowk4.1.10 Traffic Flow at Nishtar RoadTraffic flow recorded at Nishtar Road is given in Table 4.10. The average traffic flow was found2288.56 vehicles/ hour between 8.00 am to 8.00 am. Average flow of HTV, LTV, cars,rickshaws, motorcycles and tractor trolley was found 6.33, 83.57, 593.16, 571.91, 1030.58 and2.83 vehicles / hour respectively. The major contribution to traffic flow was from motorcycles.Highest traffic flow at Nishtar Road was found 2608 vehicles / hour between 6 pm to 7 pm.Where as the lowest traffic flow was found 1895 vehicles / hour between 11 am to 12 am.Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Nishtar Road is given in figure 4.10.
    • Table 4.10: Traffic Flow at Nishtar RoadType ofVehicles 8AMto9AM9AMto10AM10AMto11AM11AMto12AM12AMto1PM1PMto2PM2PMto3PM3PMto4PM4PMto5PM5PMto6PM6PMto7PM7PMto8PMAverageTrafficFlow(Vehicles/hr)HTV 24 8 4 4 0 8 12 4 12 0 0 0 6.33LTV 80 100 70 66 92 86 84 72 75 88 104 88 83.75Cars 480 600 560 440 580 620 660 586 542 670 700 680 593.16Rickshaws 400 610 550 485 500 604 640 622 620 602 650 580 571.91Motorcycles 1000 1050 980 900 985 1020 1080 998 1028 1000 1146 1180 1030.58TractorTrolley8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 102.83Total 1992 2372 2164 1895 2157 2338 2476 2282 2277 2357 2608 2538 2288.56Fig 4.10: Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Nishtar Road
    • 4.1.11 Traffic Flow at Rasheedabad ChowkTraffic flow recorded at Rasheedabad Chowk is given in Table 4.11. The average traffic flowwas found 2970.07 vehicles/ hour between 8.00 am to 8.00 am. Average flow of HTV, LTV,cars, rickshaws, motorcycles and tractor trolley was found 36.58, 143.33, 967.5, 538.16, 1273.5and 11 vehicles / hour respectively. The major contribution to traffic flow was from motorcycles.Highest traffic flow at Rasheedabad Chowk was found 3334 vehicles / hour between 1 pm to 2pm. Where as the lowest traffic flow was found 2688 vehicles / hour between 10 am to 11 am.Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Rasheedabad Chowk is given in figure 4.11.Table 4.11: Traffic Flow at Rasheedabad ChowkType ofVehicles8AMto9AM9AMto10AM10AMto11AM11AMto12AM12AMto1PM1PMto2PM2PMto3PM3PMto4PM4PMto5PM5PMto6PM6PMto7PM7PMto8PMAverageTrafficFlow(Vehicles/hr)HTV 40 60 30 28 45 38 48 32 26 38 30 24 36.58LTV 140 210 150 136 140 170 168 144 120 138 100 104 143.33Cars 900 988 880 896 976 1008 998 998 1010 1026 1010 920 967.5Rickshaws 426 448 480 510 576 590 556 468 548 598 686 572 538.16Motorcycles 1420 1432 1132 1100 1486 1524 1460 1090 1006 1132 1256 1244 1273.5TractorTrolley8 24 16 20 8 4 12 4 8 16 8 411Total 2934 3162 2688 2690 3231 3334 3242 2736 2718 2948 3090 2868 2970.07
    • Fig 4.11: Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Rasheedabad Chowk4.1.12 Traffic Flow at Vehari ChowkTraffic flow recorded at Vehari Chowk is given in Table 4.12. The average traffic flow wasfound 2977.75 vehicles / hour between 8.00 am to 8.00 am. Average flow of HTV, LTV, cars,rickshaws, motorcycles and tractor trolley was found 177.08, 260.67, 780.5, 551.17, 1187 and21.33 vehicles / hour respectively. The major contribution to traffic flow was from motorcycles.Highest traffic flow at Vehari Chowk was found 3320 vehicles/ hour between 1 pm to 2 pm.Where as the lowest traffic flow was found 2748 vehicles / hour between 7 pm to 8 pm.Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Vehari Chowk is given in figure 4.12.
    • Table 4.12: Traffic Flow at Vehari ChowkType ofVehicles 8AMto9AM9AMto10AM10AMto11AM11AMto12AM12AMto1PM1PMto2PM2PMto3PM3PMto4PM4PMto5PM5PMto6PM6PMto7PM7PMto8PMAverageTrafficFlow(Vehicles/hr)HTV 160 164 176 204 208 224 192 220 188 122 155 112 177.08LTV 228 296 296 240 290 288 264 262 244 236 260 224 260.67Cars 816 860 764 680 888 860 800 644 678 828 798 750 780.5Rickshaws 480 510 460 520 580 544 688 589 590 510 575 568 551.17Motorcycles 1090 1166 1100 1178 1228 1386 1336 1164 1188 1240 1090 1078 1187TractorTrolley24 30 28 20 32 18 12 16 18 28 14 1621.33Total 2798 3026 2824 2842 3226 3320 3292 2895 2906 2964 2892 2748 2977.75Fig 4.12: Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Vehari Chowk
    • 4.2 Noise Level Results4.2.1 Noise Level at B.C. ChowkThe statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at B.C. Chowk aresummarized in tabular form in table 4.13. The graphically representation of statistical andcumulative distribution of noise levels at B.C. Chowk is given below in figure 4.13 and 4.14respectively. The results shows that the noise levels at B.C. Chowk vary from 71 dB(A) to 102dB(A). Where as L90, L50 and L10 at B.C. Chowk were found 77.3, 89.4 and 96.2 respectively.Table 4.13: Statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at B.C. ChowkSr.No. Noise Frequency No. Statistical DistributionCumulativeDistribution1 71 1 0.65 1002 72 2 1.32 99.353 73 1 0.65 98.034 74 5 3.32 97.385 75 3 2 94.066 76 2 1.32 92.067 77 4 2.6 90.748 78 1 0.65 88.149 79 4 2.64 87.4910 80 4 2.64 84.8511 81 2 1.32 82.2112 82 3 2 80.8913 83 5 3.32 78.8914 84 7 4.63 75.5715 85 8 5.33 70.9416 86 5 3.32 65.6117 87 4 2.6 62.2918 88 10 6.6 59.6919 89 11 7.32 53.0920 90 9 6 45.7721 91 13 8.6 39.7722 92 15 10 31.1723 93 8 5.3 21.17
    • 24 94 5 3.32 15.8725 95 3 2 12.5526 96 4 2.64 10.5527 97 2 1.32 7.9128 98 5 3.32 7.2829 99 2 1.32 3.2730 100 1 0.65 1.9531 101 1 0.65 1.332 102 1 0.65 0.65Fig. 4.13: Statistical distribution of road traffic noise levels at B.C. Chowk
    • Fig. 4.14: Cumulative distribution of road traffic noise levels at B.C. Chowk4.2.2 Noise Level at Chowk ShaheedaThe statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Chowk Shaheeda aresummarized in tabular form in table 4.14. The graphically representation of statistical andcumulative distribution of noise levels at Chowk Shaheeda is given below in figure 4.15 and 4.16respectively. The results shows that the noise levels at Chowk Shaheeda vary from 71 dB(A) to102 dB(A). Where as L90, L50 and L10 at Chowk Shaheeda were found 77.5, 89.4 and 96.3respectively.
    • Table 4.14: Statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Chowk ShaheedaSr.No. Noise Frequency No. Statistical DistributionCumulativeDistribution1 71 1 0.66 1002 72 2 1.33 99.343 73 2 1.33 98.014 74 1 0.66 96.685 75 1 0.66 96.026 76 5 3.33 95.367 77 4 2.67 92.038 78 2 1.33 89.369 79 5 3.33 88.0310 80 4 2.67 84.711 81 8 5.34 82.0312 82 4 2.67 76.6913 83 3 2 74.0214 84 1 0.66 72.0215 85 2 1.33 71.3616 86 7 4.67 70.0317 87 14 9.33 65.3618 88 6 4 56.0319 89 10 6.7 52.0320 90 16 10.67 45.3321 91 12 8 34.6622 92 7 4.67 26.6623 93 9 6 21.9924 94 4 2.67 15.9925 95 4 2.67 13.3226 96 3 2 10.6527 97 1 0.66 8.6528 98 1 0.66 7.9929 99 4 2.67 7.3330 100 2 1.33 4.6631 101 2 1.33 3.3332 102 3 2 2
    • Fig. 4.15: Statistical distribution of road traffic noise levels at Chowk ShaheedaFig. 4.16: Cumulative distribution of road traffic noise levels at Chowk Shaheeda
    • 4.2.3 Noise Level at Chungi No. 6The statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Chungi No. 6 aresummarized in tabular form in table 4.15. The graphically representation of statistical andcumulative distribution of noise levels at Chungi No. 6 is given below in figure 4.17 and 4.18respectively. The results shows that the noise levels at Chungi No. 6 vary from 71 dB(A) to 100dB(A). Where as L90, L50 and L10 at Chungi No. 6 were found 78.1, 88.2 and 95.9 respectively.Table 4.15: Statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Chungi No. 6Sr.No.NoisedB(A)Frequency No. Statistical Distribution(%)Cumulative Distribution(%)1 71 3 2 1002 72 1 0.66 983 73 1 0.66 97.344 74 2 1.33 96.685 75 3 2 95.356 76 2 1.33 93.357 77 3 2 92.028 78 5 3.33 90.029 79 9 6 86.6910 80 5 3.34 80.6911 81 3 2 77.3512 82 6 4 75.3513 83 1 0.66 71.3514 84 6 4 70.6915 85 2 1.33 66.6916 86 10 6.7 65.3617 87 12 8 58.6618 88 15 10 50.6619 89 7 4.67 40.6620 90 5 3.33 35.9921 91 14 9.33 32.6622 92 4 2.67 23.3323 93 2 1.33 20.6624 94 11 7.33 19.3325 95 3 2 1226 96 3 2 10
    • 27 97 5 3.34 828 98 1 0.66 4.6629 99 4 2.67 430 100 2 1.33 1.33Fig. 4.17: Statistical distribution of road traffic noise levels at Chungi No. 6
    • Fig. 4.18: Cumulative distribution of road traffic noise levels at Chungi No. 64.2.4 Noise Level at Derra AddaThe statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Derra Adda aresummarized in tabular form in table 4.16. The graphically representation of statistical andcumulative distribution of noise levels at Derra Adda is given below in figure 4.19 and 4.20respectively. The results shows that the noise levels at Derra Adda from 73 dB(A) to 108 dB(A).Where as L90, L50 and L10 at Derra Adda were found 80, 92.4 and 99.5 respectively.Table 4.16: Statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Derra Adda
    • Sr.No.NoisedB(A)Frequency No. Statistical Distribution(%)Cumulative Distribution(%)1 72 0 0 1002 73 1 0.66 1003 74 1 0.66 99.344 75 2 1.33 98.685 76 6 4 97.356 77 1 0.66 93.357 78 2 1.33 92.698 79 2 1.33 91.369 80 4 2.67 90.0310 81 3 2 87.3611 82 1 0.66 85.3612 83 1 0.66 84.713 84 5 3.33 84.0414 85 5 3.33 80.7115 86 8 5.33 77.3816 87 4 2.67 72.0517 88 5 3.33 69.3818 89 9 6 66.0519 90 7 4.67 60.0520 91 5 3.33 55.3821 92 10 6.7 52.0522 93 8 5.33 45.3523 94 13 8.7 40.0224 95 10 6.7 31.3225 96 5 3.33 24.6226 97 7 4.67 21.2927 98 5 3.33 16.6228 99 6 4 13.2929 100 3 2 9.2930 101 1 0.66 7.2931 102 3 2 6.6332 103 2 1.33 4.6333 104 1 0.66 3.334 105 1 0.66 2.6435 106 1 0.66 1.9836 107 1 0.66 1.3237 108 1 0.66 0.65
    • Fig. 4.19: Statistical distribution of road traffic noise levels at Derra AddaFig 4.20: Cumulative distribution of road traffic noise levels at Derra Adda4.2.5 Noise Level at Dolat Gate
    • The statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Derra Adda aresummarized in tabular form in table 4.17. The graphically representation of statistical andcumulative distribution of noise levels at Derra Adda is given below in figure 4.21 and 4.22respectively. The results shows that the noise levels at Derra Adda from 71 dB(A) to 103 dB(A).Where as L90, L50 and L10 at Derra Adda were found 78.8, 91.6 and 98.4 respectively.Table 4.17: Statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Dolat GateSr.No.NoisedB(A)Frequency No. Statistical Distribution(%)Cumulative Distribution(%)1 71 2 1.33 1002 72 1 0.66 98.673 73 1 0.66 98.014 74 2 1.33 97.355 75 1 0.66 96.026 76 2 1.33 95.367 77 4 2.67 94.038 78 3 2 91.369 79 1 0.66 89.3610 80 7 4.67 88.711 81 5 3.33 84.0312 82 2 1.33 80.713 83 1 0.66 79.3714 84 3 2 78.7115 85 5 3.33 76.7116 86 2 1.33 73.3817 87 5 3.33 72.0518 88 7 4.67 68.7219 89 6 4 64.0520 90 9 6 60.0521 91 10 6.7 54.0522 92 7 4.67 47.3523 93 15 10 42.6824 94 13 8.7 32.6825 95 9 6 23.9826 96 6 4 17.9827 97 5 3.33 13.9828 98 3 2 10.6529 99 5 3.33 8.65
    • 30 100 4 2.67 5.3231 101 2 1.33 2.6532 102 1 0.66 1.3233 103 1 0.66 0.66Fig. 4.21: Statistical distribution of road traffic noise levels at Dolat Gate
    • Fig. 4.22: Cumulative distribution of road traffic noise levels at Dolat Gate4.2.6 Noise Level at Ghanta GharThe statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Ghanta Ghar aresummarized in tabular form in table 4.18. The graphically representation of statistical andcumulative distribution of noise levels at Ghanta Ghar is given below in figure 4.23 and 4.24respectively. The results shows that the noise levels at Ghanta Ghar from 71 dB(A) to 107dB(A). Where as L90, L50 and L10 at Ghanta Ghar were found 78.1, 90 and 97 dB(A) respectively.Table 4.18: Statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Ghanta Ghar
    • Sr.No.NoisedB(A)Frequency No. Statistical Distribution(%)Cumulative Distribution(%)1 71 1 0.67 1002 72 1 0.67 99.333 73 1 0.67 98.664 74 1 0.67 97.995 75 3 2 97.326 76 2 1.33 95.327 77 5 3.33 93.998 78 4 2.66 90.669 79 3 2 8810 80 2 1.33 8611 81 1 0.67 84.6712 82 4 2.67 8413 83 6 4 81.3314 84 7 4.67 77.3315 85 5 3.33 72.6616 86 9 6 69.3317 87 3 2 63.3318 88 7 4.67 61.3319 89 9 6 56.6620 90 16 10.66 50.6621 91 9 6 4022 92 8 5.33 3423 93 12 8 28.6724 94 5 3.33 20.6725 95 2 1.33 17.3426 96 6 4 16.0127 97 3 2 12.0128 98 3 2 10.0129 99 2 1.33 8.0130 100 1 0.67 6.6831 101 1 0.67 6.0132 102 1 0.67 5.3433 103 2 1.33 4.6734 104 1 0.67 3.3435 105 1 0.67 2.6736 106 2 1.33 237 107 1 0.67 0.66
    • Fig. 4.23: statistical distribution of road traffic noise levels at Ghanta GharFig. 4.24: Cumulative distribution of road traffic noise levels at Ghanta Ghar
    • 4.2.7 Noise Level at Haram GateThe statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Haram Gate aresummarized in tabular form in table 4.19. The graphically representation of statistical andcumulative distribution of noise levels at Haram Gate is given below in figure 4.25 and 4.26respectively. The results shows that the noise levels at Haram Gate from 73 dB(A) to 104 dB(A).Where as L90, L50 and L10 at Haram Gate were found 78.2, 89.6 and 97.4 dB(A) respectively.Table 4.19: Statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Haram GateSr.No.NoisedB(A)Frequency No. Statistical Distribution(%)Cumulative Distribution(%)1 73 2 1.33 1002 74 2 1.33 98.673 75 1 0.66 97.344 76 5 3.33 96.685 77 4 2.67 93.356 78 8 5.34 90.687 79 6 4 85.348 80 7 4.67 81.349 81 3 2 76.6710 82 2 1.33 74.6711 83 2 1.33 73.3412 84 1 0.66 72.0113 85 8 5.34 71.3514 86 8 5.34 66.0115 87 4 2.67 60.6716 88 4 2.67 5817 89 12 8 55.3318 90 16 10.7 47.3319 91 9 6 36.6320 92 11 7.33 30.6321 93 2 1.33 23.322 94 4 2.67 21.9723 95 5 3.33 19.324 96 7 4.67 15.9725 97 5 3.33 11.326 98 4 2.67 7.97
    • 27 99 2 1.33 5.328 100 1 0.66 3.9729 101 1 0.66 3.3130 102 1 0.66 2.6531 103 2 1.33 1.9932 104 1 0.66 0.66Fig. 4.25: statistical distribution of road traffic noise levels at Haram Gate
    • Fig. 4.26: Cumulative distribution of road traffic noise levels at Haram Gate4.2.8 Noise Level at Qazafi Chowk (Kumharawala)The statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Qazafi Chowk aresummarized in tabular form in table 4.20. The graphically representation of statistical andcumulative distribution of noise levels at Qazafi Chowk is given below in figure 4.27 and 4.28respectively. The results shows that the noise levels at Qazafi Chowk from 73 dB(A) to 104dB(A). Where as L90, L50 and L10 at Qazafi Chowk were found 77.6, 90.3 and 96.2 dB(A)respectively.
    • Table 4.20: Statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Qazafi ChowkSr.No.NoisedB(A)Frequency No. Statistical Distribution(%)Cumulative Distribution(%)1 71 0 0 1002 72 0 0 1003 73 1 0.65 1004 74 2 1.32 99.355 75 5 3.33 98.036 76 5 3.33 94.77 77 3 2 91.378 78 2 1.32 89.379 79 1 0.66 88.0510 80 5 3.33 87.3911 81 4 2.64 84.0612 82 2 1.32 81.4213 83 4 2.64 80.114 84 3 2 77.4615 85 7 4.33 75.4616 86 6 4 71.1317 87 10 6.65 67.1318 88 8 5.32 60.4819 89 5 3.33 55.1620 90 11 7.3 51.8321 91 15 10 44.5322 92 9 6 34.5323 93 5 3.32 28.5324 94 9 6 25.2125 95 13 8.65 19.2126 96 1 0.65 10.5627 97 3 2 9.9128 98 1 0.65 7.2829 99 2 1.32 7.2630 100 2 1.32 5.9431 101 1 2 4.6232 102 1 0.65 2.6233 103 1 0.65 1.9734 104 2 1.32 1.32
    • Fig. 4.27: statistical distribution of road traffic noise levels at Qazafi ChowkFig. 4.28: Cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Qazafi Chowk
    • 4.2.9 Noise Level at M.D.A. ChowkThe statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at M.D.A. Chowk aresummarized in tabular form in table 4.21. The graphically representation of statistical andcumulative distribution of noise levels at M.D.A. Chowk is given below in figure 4.29 and 4.30respectively. The results shows that the noise levels at M.D.A. Chowk from 74 dB(A) to 104dB(A). Where as L90, L50 and L10 at M.D.A. Chowk were found 80.9, 91.4 and 98.5 dB(A)respectively.Table 4.21: Statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at M.D.A. ChowkSr.No.NoisedB(A)Frequency No. Statistical Distribution(%)Cumulative Distribution(%)1 74 1 0.66 1002 75 2 1.33 99.343 76 1 0.66 98.014 77 1 0.66 97.355 78 5 3.33 96.696 79 3 2 93.367 80 2 1.33 91.368 81 3 2 90.039 82 1 0.66 88.0310 83 6 4 87.3711 84 4 2.67 83.3712 85 2 1.32 80.713 86 7 4.67 79.3814 87 4 2.67 74.7115 88 10 6.7 72.0416 89 9 6 65.3417 90 8 5.33 59.3418 91 15 10 54.0119 92 9 6 44.0120 93 6 4 38.0121 94 9 6 34.0122 95 13 8.7 28.0123 96 5 3.33 19.3124 97 7 4.67 15.98
    • 25 98 4 2.67 11.3126 99 5 3.33 8.6427 100 2 1.33 5.3128 101 3 2 3.9829 102 1 0.66 1.9830 103 1 0.66 1.3231 104 1 0.66 0.66Fig. 4.29: statistical distribution of road traffic noise levels at M.D.A. Chowk
    • Fig. 4.30: Cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at M.D.A. Chowk4.2.10 Noise Level at Nishtar RoadThe statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Nishtar Road aresummarized in tabular form in table 4.22. The graphically representation of statistical andcumulative distribution of noise levels at Nishtar Road is given below in figure 4.31 and 4.32respectively. The results shows that the noise levels at Nishtar Road from 71 dB(A) to 101dB(A). Where as L90, L50 and L10 at Nishtar Road were found 77.4, 88.5 and 96.6 dB(A)respectively.
    • Table 4.22: Statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Nishtar RoadSr.No.NoisedB(A)Frequency No. Statistical Distribution(%)Cumulative Distribution(%)1 71 1 0.66 1002 72 1 0.66 99.343 73 1 0.66 98.684 74 2 1.33 98.025 75 2 1.33 96.696 76 6 4 95.367 77 2 1.33 91.368 78 1 0.66 90.039 79 1 0.66 89.3710 80 1 0.66 88.7111 81 5 3.33 88.0512 82 2 1.33 84.7213 83 11 7.33 83.3914 84 6 4 76.0615 85 9 6 72.0616 86 13 8.7 66.0617 87 8 5.33 57.3618 88 7 4.67 52.0319 89 10 6.7 47.3620 90 14 9.34 40.6621 91 6 4 31.3222 92 4 2.67 27.3223 93 12 8 24.6524 94 2 1.33 16.6525 95 5 3.33 15.3226 96 6 4 11.9927 97 3 2 7.9928 98 2 1.33 5.9929 99 3 2 4.6630 100 2 1.33 2.6631 101 2 1.33 1.33
    • Fig. 4.31: Statistical distribution of road traffic noise levels at Nishtar RoadFig. 4.32: Cumulative distribution of road traffic noise levels at Nishtar Road
    • 4.2.11 Noise Level at Rasheedabad ChowkThe statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Rasheedabad Chowkare summarized in tabular form in table 4.23. The graphically representation of statistical andcumulative distribution of noise levels at Rasheedabad Chowk is given below in figure 4.33 and4.34 respectively. The results shows that the noise levels at Rasheedabad Chowk from 73 dB(A)to 105 dB(A). Where as L90, L50 and L10 at Rasheedabad Chowk were found 78.7, 88.6 and 97.7dB(A) respectively.Table 4.23: Statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at RasheedabadChowkSr.No.NoisedB(A)Frequency No. Statistical Distribution(%)Cumulative Distribution(%)1 73 1 0.66 1002 74 1 0.66 99.343 75 2 1.33 98.684 76 3 2 97.355 77 5 3.34 95.356 78 4 2.67 92.017 79 5 3.34 89.348 80 3 2 869 81 1 0.66 8410 82 4 2.67 83.3411 83 2 1.33 80.6712 84 4 2.67 79.3413 85 7 4.67 76.6714 86 3 2 7215 87 10 6.7 7016 88 9 6 63.317 89 6 4 57.318 90 8 5.33 53.319 91 8 5.33 47.9720 92 13 8.66 42.6421 93 7 4.67 33.9822 94 5 3.34 29.31
    • 23 95 4 2.67 25.9724 96 9 6 23.325 97 12 8 17.326 98 2 1.33 9.327 99 5 3.34 7.9728 100 1 0.66 4.6329 101 1 0.66 3.9730 102 2 1.33 3.3131 103 1 0.66 1.9832 104 1 0.66 1.3233 105 1 0.66 0.66Fig. 4.33: Statistical distribution of road traffic noise levels at Rasheedabad Chowk
    • Fig. 4.34: Cumulative distribution of road traffic noise levels at Rasheedabad Chowk4.2.12 Noise Level at Vehari ChowkThe statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Vehari Chowk aresummarized in tabular form in table 4.24. The graphically representation of statistical andcumulative distribution of noise levels at Vehari Chowk is given below in figure 4.35 and 4.36respectively. The results shows that the noise levels at Vehari Chowk from 71 dB(A) to 110dB(A). Where as L90, L50 and L10 at Vehari Chowk were found 79.5, 90.9 and 102 dB(A)respectively.Table 4.24: Statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Vehari ChowkSr. No. Noise Frequency No. Statistical Distribution Cumulative Distribution
    • dB(A) (%) (%)1 71 1 0.67 1002 72 1 0.67 99.333 73 2 1.33 98.664 74 1 0.67 97.335 75 3 2 96.666 76 3 2 94.667 77 1 0.67 92.668 78 1 0.67 91.999 79 6 4 91.3210 80 3 2 87.3211 81 2 1.33 85.3212 82 4 2.66 83.9913 83 5 3.33 81.3314 84 2 1.33 7815 85 2 1.33 76.6716 86 5 3.33 75.3417 87 9 6 72.0118 88 5 3.33 62.6819 89 13 8.7 53.9820 90 7 4.66 49.3221 91 9 6 43.3222 92 11 7.33 35.9923 93 8 5.33 30.6624 94 10 6.66 2425 95 9 6 1826 96 2 1.33 16.6727 97 4 2.66 14.0128 98 2 1.33 12.6829 99 1 0.67 12.0130 100 2 1.33 10.6831 101 1 0.67 10.6832 102 3 2 10.0133 103 1 0.67 8.0134 104 1 0.67 7.3435 105 3 2 6.6736 106 2 1.33 4.6737 107 2 1.33 3.3438 108 1 0.67 2.0139 109 1 0.67 1.3440 110 1 0.67 0.66
    • Fig. 4.35: Statistical distribution of road traffic noise levels at Vehari ChowkFig. 4.36: Cumulative distribution of road traffic noise levels at Vehari Chowk
    • 4.2.13 Minimum Noise Levels (Lmin)After analysis of all noise measurements, the minimum noise level along with other parametersare shown in table 4.25 and their graphically representation is shown in figure 4.37. Theminimum noise levels at all 12 sites are ranging from 70.6 to 74.1 dB(A).4.2.14 Maximum Noise Levels (Lmax)Tables 4..25 shows that the maximum noise levels at all 12 sites were recorded and ranging from100.3 to 109.9 dB(A). Highest maximum noise level was recorded at Vehari Chowk. Maximumnoise levels at all sites are graphically represented in figure 4.37.4.2.15 Noise Climate (NC)Tables 4.25 shows that the noise climate (NC) at all 12 sites were recorded and ranging from17.6 to 22.5 dB(A). Peak value of Noise climate (NC) was calculated at Vehari Chowk (i.e. 22.5dB(A)). Noise climate (NC) at all sites are graphically represented in figure 4.37.4.2.16 Equivalent Noise Level (Leq)The equivalent noise level (Leq) at all sites were calculated, ranging from 93.48 to 99.33 dB(A).The highest Leq was found at Vehari Chowk. Equivalent noise levels (Leq) at all sites are shownin tabular form in table 4.25 and it is graphically represented in figure 4.37.
    • 4.2.17 Noise Pollution Level (Lnp)The Noise Pollution Level (Lnp) at all sites were calculated, ranging from 111.28 to 121.83dB(A). The highest Leq was found at Vehari Chowk. Noise Pollution Level (Lnp) at all sites isshown in tabular form in table 4.25 and it is graphically represented in figure 4.37.4.2.18 Traffic Noise Index (TNI)The Traffic Noise Index (TNI) at all sites were calculated, ranging from 119.3 to 139.5 dB(A).The highest Leq was found at Vehari Chowk. Traffic Noise Index (TNI) at all sites is shown intabular form in table 4.25 and it is graphically represented in figure 4.37.Table 4.25: Noise level parameters calculated at all 12 locations of Multan CityLocationLmindB(A)LmaxdB(A)L90dB(A)L50dB(A)L10dB(A)N.CdB(A)LeqdB(A)LnpdB(A)TNIdB(A)B.C. Chowk 70.6 102.4 77.3 89.4 96.2 18.9 95.35 114.25 122.9Chowk Shaheeda 71 102.1 77.5 89.4 96.3 18.8 95.29 114.09 122.7Chungi No. 6 70.8 100.3 78.1 88.2 95.9 17.8 93.48 111.28 119.3Derra Adda 73 108 80 92.4 99.5 19.5 98.73 118.23 128Dolat Gate 71.2 103.4 78.8 91.6 98.4 19.6 98 117.6 127.2Ghanta Ghar 71 106.9 78.1 90 97 18.9 95.95 114.85 123.7Haram Gate 72.8 104 78.2 88.6 96.2 18 94 112 120.2Qazafi Chowk 73.4 104.4 77.6 90.3 96.2 18.6 96.06 114.66 122MDA Chowk 74.1 103.9 80.9 91.4 98.5 17.6 95.56 114.16 121.3Nishtar Road 71.2 101 77.4 88.5 96.6 19.2 94.64 113.84 124.2Rasheedabad Chowk 73 105 78.7 88.6 97.7 19 94.61 113.61 124.7Vehari Chowk 71 109.9 79.5 90.9 102 22.5 99.33 121.83 139.5
    • Fig. 4.37: Graphically representation of Lmin, Lmax, NC, Leq, Lnp and TNI
    • 4.3 Public Opinion Survey4.3.1 Public Opinion Survey ResultsA survey was conducted to find out the public opinion about the noise annoyance and effects ofnoise at all 12 sites. Two hundred and forty respondents were interviewed personally in thissurvey. The results of the survey indicates that 25% are suffering from headache, 32.5% fromstress/ tension, 14.16 % from high or low blood pressure, 7.5 % from cardiac diseases, 35 %from hearing problem, 57.5 % from irritation, 27.5 % less temper and 65 % reported theannoyance. The survey results are shown in table 4.26, where as graphically it is given in figure4.38.Table 4.26: Public opinion survey results at all 12 locationsQuestionnaires Yes No PercentageHeadache 60 180 25Stress / Tension 78 162 32.5Blood Pressure 34 206 14.16Cardiac Disease 18 222 7.5Hearing Problem 84 156 35Irritation 138 102 57.5Less Temper 66 174 27.5Annoyance 156 84 65
    • Fig. 4.38: Graphical representation of public opinion survey at all 12 locations4.3.2 Traffic Police Opinion Survey ResultsA survey was conducted to find out the opinion about the noise annoyance and effects of noise atall 12 sites from traffic police. Forty eight traffic police respondents were interviewed personallyin this survey. The results of the survey indicates that 37.5 % are suffering from headache, 33.33% from stress/ tension, 20.83 % from high or low blood pressure, 8.33 % from cardiac diseases,37.5 % from hearing problem, 62.5 % from irritation, 54.16 % less temper and 70.83 % reportedthe annoyance. The survey results are shown in table 4.26, where as graphically it is given infigure 4.38.
    • Table 4.27: Traffic police opinion survey results at all 12 locationsQuestionnaires Yes No Percentage (%)Headache 18 30 37.5Stress / Tension 16 32 33.33Blood Pressure 10 38 20.83Cardiac Disease 4 44 8.33Hearing Problem 18 30 37.5Irritation 30 18 62.5Less Temper 26 22 54.16Annoyance 34 14 70.83Fig. 4.39: Graphical representation of traffic police opinion survey at all 12 locations
    • 4.4 DiscussionThe rapid growth of the population, urbanization and the support of leasing companies aresignificant factor which highly contribute to road traffic volume in Multan city, as well as othermajor cities of Pakistan. That is why road traffic flow volume increases day by day which causesmany environmental as well as health related problems including road traffic noise pollution.Noise pollution affects and disturbs more people than from occupational noise pollution. Asevery person is contact with road traffic noise pollution on daily basis. The un-availability ofregulatory laws about vehicular noise emission in Multan City as well as other major cities ofPakistan makes this situation worst. Results of this study reveals that noise levels recorded at all12 location, was above the permissible limit as recommended National Environmental QualityStandards (NEQS) for motor vehicle noise.The study shows that all 12 locations have high traffic flow. Vehari chowk was found heavytraffic flow. Because this intersection of roads have high amount of heavy vehicles and also thischowk is near to the City Bus Terminal of the Multan City. The average hourly traffic flow at all12 locations from 8 am to 8 pm was found ranging 1934.31 to 2977.75 vehicles / hour whileaverage hourly traffic flow is 2977.75 vehicles / hour at Vehari Chowk busiest location amongall 12 locations, where as Chowk Shaheeda was recorded least (i.e- 1934.31 vehicles / hour)average hourly traffic. The average hourly traffic flow at B.C, Chungi No. 6, Derra Adda, DolatGate, Ghanta Ghar, Haram Gate, Qazafi Chowk, MDA Chowk, Nishter Road and RasheedabadChowk was recorded as 2535.9, 2771.83, 2716.33, 2449.83, 2671.5, 2275.58, 2526.33, 2674.92,2288.56 and 2970.07 vehicles / hour respectively.
    • This study reveals that minimum and maximum levels at all 12 locations was recorded, rangingfrom 70.6 to 74.1 dB(A) and 100.3 to 109.9 dB(A) respectively. Maximum nnoise level of 109.9dB(A) was recorded at Vehari Chowk. The statical noise levels i.e. L90, L50 and L10 was observedat all locations ranging from 77.3-80.9 dB(A), 88.2-92.4 dB(A) and 95.9-102 dB(A)respectively. Noise Climate (NC) ranging from 17.6-22.5 dB(A) was found at all 12 locations ofthe Multan City. The equivalent noise level (Leq) at Vehari Chowkwas found higher than all otherlocations ranging from 93.48 to 99.33 dB(A). The noise pollution level (Lnp) and Traffic NoiseIndex (TNI) was also found higher at Vehari Chowk among all locations (i.e 121.83 and 139.5dB(A) respectively). The Noise Pollution Level (Lnp) and TNI was found ranging from 111.28-121.83 dB(A) and 119.3-139.5 dB(A) respectively.No regulations have been observed in blowing of pressure horns & use of defective andrecommended silencers. Rickshaws were found the nosiest vehicle among all other types ofvehicles. Because most of the rickshaws are equipped with 2-stroke engines and also improper orno use of silencers. There is improper legislative, administrative and judicial support to tacklewith noise pollution. Existing NEQS and motor vehicles rules are not sufficient in minimizing ormitigating the motor vehicles noise emissions.
    • CHAPTER 5CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS5.1 ConclusionsThe conclusions of this study are given as;1. The traffic flow was recorded higher at Vehari Chowk (2977.75 vehicles / hour),Rasheedabad Chowk (2970.07 vehicles / hour) and (2771.83 vehicles / hour) among otherlocations. The major contributions to traffic flow were from 2-wheelers (motorcycles /scooters) and followed by 3-wheels (Rickshaws) and Cars.2. This steady reveals that noise levels at all 12 locations are above allowable limit of 85dB(A) as recommended by National Environmental Quality Standards (NEQS) forvehicular noise emissions. The maximum noise levels at all 12 sites were recorded andranging from 100.3 to 109.9 dB(A). The noise climate (NC) at all 12 sites were recordedand ranging from 17.6 to 22.5 dB(A). Peak value of Noise climate (NC) was calculated atVehari Chowk (i.e. 22.5 dB(A)). The equivalent noise level (Leq) at all sites werecalculated, ranging from 93.48 to 99.33 dB(A). The highest Leq was found at VehariChowk. The Noise Pollution Level (Lnp) at all sites were calculated, ranging from 111.28to 121.83 dB(A). The highest Leq was found at Vehari Chowk. The Traffic Noise Index(TNI) at all sites were calculated, ranging from 119.3 to 139.5 dB(A). The highest Leqwas found at Vehari Chowk.
    • 3. A survey was conducted to find out the public opinion about the noise annoyance andeffects of noise at all 12 sites. Two hundred and forty respondents were interviewedpersonally in this survey. The results of the survey indicates that 25% are suffering fromheadache, 32.5% from stress/ tension, 14.16 % from high or low blood pressure, 7.5 %from cardiac diseases, 35 % from hearing problem, 57.5 % from irritation, 27.5 % lesstemper and 65 % reported the annoyance. Where as forty eight traffic police respondentswere interviewed personally in this survey. The results of the survey indicates that 37.5 %are suffering from headache, 33.33 % from stress/ tension, 20.83 % from high or lowblood pressure, 8.33 % from cardiac diseases, 37.5 % from hearing problem, 62.5 % fromirritation, 54.16 % less temper and 70.83 % reported the annoyance.5.2 Recommendations / SuggestionsAll developed and any developing nations of the world have implemented various noise controllegislations, laws, guidelines and regulation for laying down maximum allowable noise level fordifferent areas. While in Pakistan there is no appropriate and specific regulation at present tocontrol the noise pollution except NEQS for motor vehicle noise which allows 85 dB(A). alsothere are no guide lines or standards for noise limits for commercial, residential and industrialzones. Two-stroke engine vehicles (i.e. Rickshaws) are responsible for high level of noise andthese vehicles should be replaced by 4-stroke engine vehicles. There should be legislation for themaintenance of vehicle and also use of proper silencers should be mandatory.The recommendations are as follows;• Answered should be created among the public towards this issue.
    • • Uneven and narrow roads should be widened and properly maintained.• Signals and speed breakers free roads should be introduced for the smooth flow of traffic.• Use of pressure horns and improper silencers should be banned and continuouslymonitored.• There is a need to create awareness among students through curriculum and extracurriculum about noise and other environmental issues.• The vehicles should be inspected for excessive noise of vehicle before the annual token isissued.• Monitoring terms should be continuously checked the pressure horns and silencers.• Noise control laws should be reviewed and strictly implemented.• There is need to develop standards for the manufacturing of silencers.• Hospitals and education institutes should be declared as silent zones.• Heavy penalties should be provided for strictly implementation of regulations and lawsabout noise emissions.
    • REFERENCES1. Braj BS, Jain VK. A comparative study of noise levels in some residential, industrial andcommercial areas in Delhi. Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.2005,Vol. 35, No. 1, pp 1-11.2. Leong ST, Laortanakul P. (2003), “Monitoring and assessment of daily exposure ofroadside workers to traffic noise levels in an Asian city: a case study of Bangkok streets”,Environ Monit Assess., Vol. 85, No. 1, pp. 69-85.3. Population Census Organization. Government of Pakistan; 19984. Anonymous (2003), “ISO: 1996-1: 2003, Acoustics: Description, measurement andassessment of environmental noise. (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=28633)5. Rao, P.R. and Rao, M.G. (1991), “ Urban Traffic Intensity and Prediction of Leq NoiseLevel”, Indian Journal of Environmental Health, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 324-3296. Aftab Tayyab, Bashir Farzana and Tahira Shafiq (2007), “Road Traffic Noise Pollution aHazard” , Bangladesh journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp.435-440.7. M. Jobair Bin Alam, A.F.M.A. Rauf and M.F. Ahmed (2001), "Traffic Induced NoisePollution In Dhaka City", Journal of Civil Engineering, The Institute of Engineers,Bangladesh, Vol. CE 29, No. 1, pp 55-63.
    • 8. Elif Ebru Sisman and Emin Unver (2011), “Evaluation of traffic noise pollution in Corlu,Turkey”, Scientific Research and Essays, Vol. 6(14), pp. 3027-3033.9. V. Krishna Murthy, Ahmad Kamruzzaman Majumder, Sanjay Nath Khanal, DeepakPrasad Subedi (2007), “Assessment Of Traffic Noise Pollution In Banepa, A Semi UrbanTown Of Nepal”, Kathmandu University Journal of Science, Engineering andTechnology Vol.3, No.2, August 2007, pp 12-20.10. Avnish Chauhan and Krishna Kumar Pande (2010), “Study of noise level in differentzones of Dehradun City, Uttarakhand”, Report and Opinion, Vol. 2(7), pp 65-68.11. Tirtharaj Sen, Pijush Kanti Bhattacharjee, Debamalya Banerjee, and Bijan Sarkar (2011),“Noise Exposure Parameters of Auto Rickshaws Compare by Statistical RegressionTechnique”, International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, Vol. 2,No. 5, pp. 355-361.12. Sheetal Agarwal, Bajrang Lal Swami (2011), “Road traffic noise, annoyance andcommunity health survey - A case study for an Indian city”, Noise & Health, Vol. 13(53),pp. 272-276.13. Memon, M.A, "Road Traffic Noise and its Remedial Measures in Urban Areas ofHyderabad City", M.E. Thesis, Institute of Environmental Engineering & Management,Mehran University of Engineering & Technology, Jamshoro, Pakistan, 2006.14. Memon, Z. D. , "Road Traffic Noise and its control in Hyderabad City", M.E. Thesis,Institute of Environmental Engineering & Management, Mehran University ofEngineering & Technology, Jamshoro, Pakistan, 1999.
    • 15. Akhtar N.H., Shah M.Z. and Qamar I., “Road Traffic Noise Peshawar-An increasingProblem”, Dept. of Community Medicine, Khaber Medical College, 1998.16. Serkan Ozer , Hasan Yilmaz, Murat Yesil and Pervin Yesil (2009), “Evaluation of noisepollution caused by vehicles in the city of Tokat, Turkey”, Scientific Research and EssayVol.4 (11), pp. 1205-1212.17. Sumiani Yusoff and Asila Ishak (2005), “Evaluation of Urban Highway EnvironmentalNoise Pollution”, Sains Malaysiana, Vol. 34(2), pp. 32-37.18. Khan M.W., Memon M.A., Khan M.N. and Khan M.M. (2010), “Traffic Noise Pollutionin Karachi, Pakistan”, JLUMHS, Vol. 09, No. 03.19. Zubair, A. and Siddiqui, S.N. (2011), “Status of Noise Pollution - A Case Study ofGulshan-E-Iqbal Town, Karachi”, Indus Journal of Management & Social Sciences, Vol.5(2), pp.100-105.20. Stelian T., Adrian O.S. and Radu T., Measurement Of Traffic Noise Pollution In UrbanAreas, Fascicle of Management and Technological Engineering, Volume VI (XVI), 200721. Parida M., S.S. Jain, D.S.N.V. Amar K. & Namita M., Metropolitan Traffic Noise andAbatement Measures, Centre of Transportation Engineering (COTE), Indian Institute ofTechnology Roorkee, India, 2001.
    • Appendix-I
    • Appendix-IIPublic Opnion Survey Questionaire FormLocation: _________________________________Name: ___________________________________Age: ___________________________________Time: ___________________________________Sex:□ Male□ FemaleOpinion:___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Max Noise Level: ________Min Noise Level: ________Average Noise Level: ________□ Headache□ Stress / Tension□ Blood Pressure□ Cardiac Disease□ Hearing Problem / Deafness□ Irritation□ Less Temper