Thesis irfan BY Muhammad Fahad Ansari 12IEEM14

ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE POLLUTION AND ITS REMEDIAL MEASURES
IN MULTAN CITY
Muhammad Irfan
Master of Engineering
In
Environmental Engineering and Management
INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
MEHRAN UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
JAMSHORO - SINDH
2012
i

ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE POLLUTION AND ITS REMEDIAL MEASURES
IN MULTAN CITY
A thesis submitted by
Muhammad Irfan
In partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree of
Master of Engineering
In
Environmental Engineering and Management
INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
MEHRAN UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
JAMSHORO - SINDH
2012
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Topics Page No.
ABSTRACT vi
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 General
1.2 Introduction to Multan city
1.3 Growth rate of vehicles in Multan city
1
1
2
3
Chapter 2: Review of Literature 4
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Research methodology conceptual model
3.2 Measurement of sound
3.2.1 Sound pressure level
3.2.2 Power of sound
3.2.3 Sound Intensity
3.2.4 Sound level meter
3.2.5 Road traffic noise measurement method
3.3 Road traffic flow
3.4 Public opinion survey
3.5 Suggestions of remedial measures
13
14
16
16
17
17
17
18
21
23
23
Chapter 4: Results and Discussions
4.1 Traffic flow results
4.1.1 Traffic flow at B.C. Chowk
4.1.2 Traffic flow at Chowk Shaheeda
4.1.3 Traffic flow at Chungi no. 6
24
24
24
25
27
28
iii

4.1.4 Traffic flow at Derra Adda
4.1.5 Traffic flow at Dolat Gate
4.1.6 Traffic flow at Ghanta Ghar
4.1.7 Traffic flow at Haram Gate
4.1.8 Traffic flow at Qazafi Chowk
4.1.9 Traffic flow at M.D.A. Chowk
4.1.10 Traffic flow at Nishtar road
4.1.11 Traffic flow at Rasheedabad Chowk
4.1.12 Traffic flow at Vehari Chowk
4.2 Noise level results
4.2.1 Noise level at B.C. Chowk
4.2.2 Noise level at Chowk Shaheeda
4.2.3 Noise level at Chungi no. 6
4.2.4 Noise level at Derra Adda
4.2.5 Noise level at Dolat Gate
4.2.6 Noise level at Ghanta Ghar
4.2.7 Noise level at Haram Gate
4.2.8 Noise level at Qazafi Chowk
4.2.9 Noise level at M.D.A. Chowk
4.2.10 Noise level at Nishtar road
4.2.11 Noise level at Rasheedabad Chowk
4.2.12 Noise level at Vehari Chowk
4.2.12 Minimum noise levels
4.2.13 Maximum noise levels
4.2.14 Noise Climate
4.2.15 Equivalent noise level
4.2.16 noise pollution level
4.2.17 Traffic noise index
4.3 Public opinion survey
4.3.1 Public opinion survey Results
4.3.2 Traffic police opinion survey Results
30
31
33
34
36
37
39
40
42
42
44
47
49
52
54
57
59
62
64
67
69
72
72
72
72
73
73
73
75
75
76
iv

4.4 Discussion 78
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Conclusions
5.2 Recommendations / Suggestions
80
80
81
References 83
Appendix-I
Appendix-II
86
87
v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Initially, 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, and
support during my thesis.
I would like to express my honest thanks to Engr. Faisal Jabbar, M.E. student at Institute
of Environmental Engineering and Management of Mehran University of Engineering and
Technology, whose suggestions contributed to the assisting in survey and he is always be there to
help whenever I faced any problem. Last but not the least I would like to thank to my parents and
friends, for their absolute support during my entire thesis work.
Author
vi

ABSTRACT
Noise 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 in
the urban areas of the Pakistan. The literature shows that no study has carried out till now on
road traffic noise pollution in Multan city. So, a road traffic survey has been carried out. The
objectives of the study are; (1) Measurement of road traffic noise levels, (2) Measurement traffic
flow, (3) Public opinion survey about effects of noise on dwellers and (4) Suggestion of remedial
measures to control noise pollution. In order to accomplish above objectives, a survey study was
carried out at carefully 12 busy roads and intersections. The data collected for all the sites have
been 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 major
contributors to high noise levels are due to rickshaws, use of pressure horns and improper
silencers. The average equivalent noise level (Leq) and average statistical peak value (L10) in
Multan city exceeds 90 dB(A), which is above the permissible limit of 85 dB(A) as
recommended by N.E.Q.S. fro noise control in Pakistan. The study shows that Vehari Chowk is
one 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 by
rickshaws and cars.
Public opinion survey about noise annoyance indicated that 65 % dwellers were annoyed due to
high noise levels out of 240 respondents, while 70.83 % traffic police wardens were annoyed due
to high noise levels out of 48 respondents.
The study concludes that existing national standards for control of vehicular noise emissions are
not sufficient in controlling road traffic noise. So the comprehensive legislation and standards
should be developed for the implementation of vehicular noise emissions standards. The study
recommends that use of pressure horns and improper silencers should be banned and
continuously monitored, hospitals and education institutes should be declared as silent zones.
Heavy penalties should be provided for strictly implementation of regulations and laws about
noise emissions.
viii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
The human being ear has been well-known with the constrained levels of noise since ages. But
the widespread urbanization and present living have made value of life so much depressed that
human beings are now exposed to the threat of noise pollution from the instant of developing
phase till the moment he tasted the certainty of fatality. The tragedy is that all the places which
one 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 be
charged with injurious sounds all through day and night. The civilization is facing the problem of
sound agitation.
Noise in the environment is produced by vibrations in the air that contact human being ears and
rouse a feeling of hearing. When the sound becomes loud or disagreeable effects on our body
health, it can be termed as an environmental pollutant. Noise can, therefore, also be defined as
that unwanted and pollutant, which produces undesirable physiological and psychosomatic
effects 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 manner
that it is momentary in nature, and is not a enduring or persisting event, once the noise pollution
stops emitting, the environment becomes free of this contaminant. Dissimilar other pollutants
like gases and dust matter, which carry on remaining on, after once inflowing into the air
environment?
1

Traffic typically generates a lot of noise, mostly in big cities, and is liable for causing a lot of
annoyance to the social order. The quantity and kind of noise created by traffic is largely reliant
upon the type of traffic. Say for example, a diesel jeep or a truck generates more noise than a
petrol car; poorly maintained vehicles produces more noise than new or good conditioned
vehicles. Exposure of mankind to the day by day increasing noise nuisance must be reduced and
abated, if its adverse effects on human health are to be controlled. The society must therefore be
protected from the injurious effects of noise by devising and implementing customs and ways for
the abatement of noise.
1.2 Introduction to Multan city
The city of Multan is situated in the southern region of the Punjab province. It was built just east
of the River Chenab, Roughly in the geographic centre of the Pakistan and about 562 km (349
miles) 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, with
a 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 1.9
million. Multan is a business and an industrial center and is linked with the rest of the country
for example Lahore, Karachi, Quetta and Faisalabad. The industries in Multan include fertilizer
industry, 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 its
handicrafts, such as carpets, ceramic goods and home based textile industries.
The general disabilities of the current transport services include incapability to accommodate
diversify and huge volume of traffic flow, encroachments, mixed traffic, poor conditions of road
2

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 Multan
The total number of vehicles in Multan stood at 320,519 in 2005. Motor cycles / scooters
constituted 68% of the total numbers. The second highest share is that of motor cars, jeeps and
station wagons at around 14%. Growth rate for others has been recorded at 12% per annum. The
growth 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 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Akhtar, N.H.et al (1998), conducted a study on road traffic noise in Peshawar. The study is
assumed 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 study
1995 noise reduction devices are traffic measured at 18 sites occupied in 1995, 1996, 1997 and
1998 with a sound level meter. We found that the increased stress caused by traffic in Peshawar
on a larger scale and the production of noise in the national environmental standard for exhaust
emissions 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 in
different regions of Karachi city. Six different locations were chosen from busy sites in different
regions of Karachi city for research study. Road traffic noise is one of the main contributors to
noise pollution in all large urban cities of the globe as well as in Pakistan. Karachi city being the
biggest city in Pakistan is practicing a remarkable increase in the road traffic noise levels due to
millions of road vehicles running on its roads without appropriate maintenance of body as well
as vehicles engines, lack of interest of the residents towards noise pollution and lack of concern
of the concerned establishment. Average road traffic noise levels found in this research study
was 95 dB (A), which is much above the worldwide recommended guidelines and standards. A
huge number of inhabitants are at risk of rising noise induced hearing loss as well as other
general 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 noise
levels due to road traffic in Gulshan-e-Iqbal town Karachi city. To determine the amount of noise
pollution of Karachi city two intersections the Gulshan-e-Iqbal crossing and NIPA crossing of
Gulshan-e-Iqbal town were main point of this research study as these two intersection point of
Rashid Minhas are road main links to other part of the Karachi city. For noise pollution strength
dB(A) meter at E.P.A recommended distance, standard 7.5 m were used. Noise pollution
intensity was calculated between 15.00 to 17.00 by dB (A) meters at Environmental Protection
Agency recommended distance standard 7.5 m. Road traffic Noise pollution up to 105 decibels
has 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 in
Delhi city, state that many citizens in Delhi city are being exposed at residence to elevated noise
levels, road traffic noise above the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in India. This is due
to the reasons including lack of habitable earth, massive demand for shelter, fare and cargo
transportation. The government has also taken a variety of steps including execution of
abatement plans to tackle road traffic noise pollution. To make sure entity vehicles do not
generate unnecessary noise, all automobiles including buses are necessary to obey with strict
noise emission guidelines and regulations. While the events planned to execute could not cure all
the noise related problems caused by the big convoy of automobiles on roads. One feasible way
to do so is to construct barriers on noisy roads to subside the noise pollution. A set of easy
5

assessment measures is suggested for the use as a running tool to permit for an evaluator to
execute a desktop study without going throughout extensive calculations to establish the
probability of mitigation assess. Ground studies were carried out to calculate the noise pollution
produced 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, the
noise 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 noise
pollution in city areas of Brasov city. The amount of the road traffic noise levels which express
through the connection was done concurrently with the measurements of the road traffic flow
values. The time interval of the calculations was of one hour. For this crossroads it was chosen
the 03.00-04.00 pm time space, this subsequent to the sundown rush periods. The points of the
calculations were selected in purpose of the intersection’s geometry and of the structures position
from this region. The maximum noise level values were amount in the locality of the lanes for
the ordinary transport vehicles. The majority considerable noise level values are the ones
equivalent to the medium level (Leq). The road traffic flow volume which get across through
city’s chronological center area amplified in the previous years. In a number of the studied traffic
circles, 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 in
the previous years. The development of the road traffic flow volume values in Brasov is
constantly rising, and for the year 2020 it is forecasted a repetition of this value. In these
circumstances it will be required to investigate about noise pollution levels of the automobiles
from road traffic.
6

Yusoff, S. and Ishak, A. (2005), conducted a research study on estimation of metropolitan
freeway environmental noise pollution at three different places along the L.D.P. road was chosen
as 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 observed
comprises 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 be
assumed that cars are the key contributor to road traffic noise pollution. The noise level
calculations completed during this study calculated the different levels i.e. Leq, L10, L50 and
L90 during the week. The daily noise level against time of daylight hours. Inhabited area
confirms that the most of the lasting noise for all data taken is above 60 dB(A). Only at night
does the remaining noise (L90) fall between 56 to 60 dB(A). On holyday sunrise the measuring
device examine 55 dB(A). This is the lowest noise level (L90) recorded. This means that the
least rate of noise level in Sunway Residential area still go beyond the acceptable level by the
DOE.
Serkan, O. et al (2009), this study was carried out to find out highway noise levels in Tokat city
centre, situated at the northern part of Turkey. Noise calculations were taken in the sunset to find
out 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 on
these roads were measured all over the city. At 50 of 65 measurement locations (76.9%), traffic
7

noise values go beyond 65 dB(A), maximum value recommended by Turkish noise control
regulation, 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 pollution
in Nawabshah City. This research study shows that the maximum value, the minimum value and
background 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 vehicles
noise level exceeded 85 dB (A) and the maximum value of the rail vehicles was measured as 118
dB (A). These noise level values are above the highest permitted noise level criteria for
community 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 their
opinion about noise annoyance, this study shows that 64 percent dwellers were not at ease due to
high noise levels, 16 percent citizens had no worry about noise annoyance while 20 percent were
adopted in that situation.
Memon, Z. D. (1999), in this study noise investigation was carried out at 9 places on the busy
roads in the housing and business areas of Hyderabad City. This study includes road traffic noise
study, road traffic flow density and opinion of society annoyance to noise pollution. The results
of study reveals that the road traffic noise levels in Hyderabad city are frighteningly high. The
peak values are due to 2-wheelers (rickshaws) and pressure horns. The average maximum noise
8

level values in Hyderabad city go beyond 90 dB (A). These values are higher than 85 dB as
permitted 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 to
recommend Remedial Measures in Urban areas of Hyderabad. The results of this research study
reveals that the road traffic noise levels in Hyderabad city are terrifyingly high. The average
minimum value varies from 68 to 71 dB (A) and average maximum a value in Hyderabad city
ranges from 88 to 96 dB (A). the noise levels recorded in this study are much above the
allowable 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 city
from November 2003 to February 2004. The road traffic noise levels were calculated at 18 busy
locations, which shows that the mean noise level at these locations was ranging between 84 to 99
dB(A). The lowest noise level recorded ranges from 72 to 80 dB(A) while peak noise level
recorded ranging from 94 to 104 dB(A). At all these locations the average noise level was
recorded above the allowed limit of 85 dB(A) by NEQS Pakistan. The main noise contributors
are mini buses, buses and vans that cover the route of Lahore to Kasur and Lahore to Kahana and
vice 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 to
9

11.00 PM during the work days. The measured data was analyzed to find out different noise
parameters 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 study
revealed that noise levels at all the sites, far above the permissible limit as recommended by
regulation authorities. The study suggests that education and health care institutions like schools
and hospitals should be at least 60 meter away from the main roads. A model has also been
constructed for the forecast of noise levels on the basis of road traffic flow volume, average
speed and distance from the road.
Sisman E. E. and Unver E. (2011), conducted a research study on assessment and investigation
of noise pollution levels in order to find out the noise annoyance level in Corlu city. The chosen
areas for this study are business centers, road intersections/ round abouts, bus stops and public
parking areas. The road intersections had the maximum noise pollution levels, go after business
centers. Eighteen survey locations were observed in center of county Corlu concerning to road
traffic. 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 in
Corlu was higher than 65 dB(A), allowable limit value as recommended by Turkish Noise
Control Regulation allowed values at 17 of 18 survey locations.
Murthy et al (2007), carried out a research study for the evaluation Of Road Traffic Noise
emissions In Banepa city. The study results show that elevated noise levels, exceeds on many
events to the approved levels. Generally minimum and maximum noise levels for the major
Roads are 60.1dB (A) and 110.2 dB (A). Bus stops and parks had minimum noise levels and
maximum noise levels were 63.9 dB (A) and 110.2dB (A). The values near housing areas also
10

had significant levels of noise emissions of 59.11dB (A). The noise levels emitted by various
motor vehicles ranged from 121 to 91.2 dB(A), which was significant high values. The study
indicates motor vehicles as major cause of noise emissions in the city. The observation survey
shows that high occurrence of headaches, lack of attention, sleeplessness. Since noise levels are
much above the approved limits there is about to happen health related risks to the exposed
residents 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 at
different regions of Dehradun City. This study reveals that introduction to high level of noise
emissions may cause harsh tension / stress on the acoustic and mental health. Transport and
pressure 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 to
measure the day and night noise levels in Dehradun City. It was observed that all the chosen
survey sites, the noise levels was recorded to be above agreed noise standard level as allowed by
CPCB, 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 various
parameters like Leq, L90, and calculated parameters like Traffic Noise Index (TNI) and Noise
pollution level (Lnp). This study recommends that noise exposure and NIHL (noise induced
hearing loss) can impede with the protection of driver’s day to day life, as working in such
11

conditions, noise dose go beyond 89 dBA is more hazardous causing hearing loss due to intense
environmental noise pollution levels.
Agarwal S. and Swami B. L. (2011), conducted a research study to examine the impacts of
noise pollution on dwellers living near busy roads. The quantity of irritation was evaluated by
means of a questionnaire survey. It was establish that among all noise causing sources, traffic
was the major cause of noise emission followed by industrial units or machinery. A healthiness
survey revealed that about 52 percent of inhabitants were suffering by frequent annoyance. 46
percent dwellers were suffering from stress / tension, and 48.6 percent were suffering from
sleeplessness due to high levels of noise pollution. The noise parameters were also measured at
all the carefully chosen locations. It was calculated that the Leq values were ranging from 73-86
dB(A) as compared to the allowable limit value of 65 dB(A) approved by the Central Pollution
Control Board, New Delhi, India.
12

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
In 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 different
regions of Multan City; different sites are selected for this study i.e.
i. Vehari Chowk
ii. B.C. Chowk
iii. Qazafi Chowk (Kumharawala)
iv. Chowk Rasheedabad
v. Chungi No. 6
vi. MDA Chowk
vii. Nishtar Road
viii. Ghanta Ghar
ix. Haram Gate
x. Derra Adda
xi. Chowk Shaheeda
xii. Dolat Gate
13

The map of the Multan city is shown in Appendix-I. All above mentioned location points are
marked in this map. The traffic noise data was collected from November 2011 to Feb 2012
during working days.
3.1 Research Methodology Conceptual Model
In order to achieve the aims and objects of this research study, a conceptual model was
constructed. This conceptual model has four main components, which are as follows;
1. Noise Level Measurements & Analysis of Measured Noise Data
2. Measurement of Traffic Flow
3. Public opinion survey
4. Suggestion of Remedial Measures to Control vehicular noise emissions.

The conceptual model for research methodology is shown in figure.
Noise Level
Measurements
& Analysis of
Measured Noise
Data

Fig. 3.1: Research Methodology Conceptual Model
Suggestion of
Remedial
Measures
Public Opinion
Survey
Measurement of
Traffic Flow
Noise Level
Measurements
& Analysis of
Measured Noise
Data
Road Traffic
Noise & Its
Remedial
Measures in
Multan City

3.2 Measurement of Sound
3.2.1 Sound Pressure Level
For auditory measurements, sound pressure levels are calculated in decibels (dB) and
mathematically 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 20×10-6
Pascal which is threshold of hearing
Human being ear reacts to the sound ranging from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. The individual reaction
of sound to human being ear varies with rate of recurrence and the ear is mainly aware in the
frequency range of 1 to 4 KHz. Above and below this range the understanding of ear cascade
quickly. Thus in orders to conquer this difficulty, electrical filters are used in sound level
recording. A variety of filters weightings A, B, C and D are available. The A-weighting curve
has been generally approved for environmental noise level measurements, and is ordinary in
many noise level meters. The A-weighting method is used in any measurement of environmental
noise levels (examples of which comprise road traffic noise, rail traffic noise, and aircraft noise
level measurements). A-weighting is the typically used of a family of curves defined in the
International standard IEC 61672:2003 and different national standards concerning to the
measurement of noise pressure levels. The weighting is engaged by arithmetically addition of a
table 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) to
offer a single A-weighted value recitation the sound, so the units are written as dB(A).
3.2.2 Power of Sound
The power of sound is defined as the rate of performing work by a travelling sound wave in the
path of the transmission of the wave. The energy generated by a sound wave in the path of its
transmission is thus, defined as its power, and its unit is watts in S.I. units system.
3.2.3 Sound Intensity
The sound intensity is an additional significant term which is used to calculate sound. It is
defined as the sound power weighted average over the time, per unit area typical to the path of
transmission of the sound wave. Mathematically it is defined as formula as written in equation
3.2.
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, then
the energy is only emitted into hemisphere despite of a absolute sphere. In this case the formula
for intensity is shown in equation 3.3.
I W/ 2π r2
= W/m2
(3.3)
3.2.4 Sound Level Meter
The sound level meter is used for the measurement of sound pressure level, it consists of a
microphone, 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 meter
could 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 has
to examine the variation between the amplifier situation and the sound pressure level. the
majority of meters will have relations to which filters can be supplementary to choose particular
frequencies of the sound. Various classifications are used in the explanation of sound level
meters.
Class 1: For Precision
Class 2: For General Survey Purpose
Class 3: For Survey
Class 4: For Special Purpose
3.2.5 Road Traffic Noise Measurement Method
The 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 were
made by ST-815 sound level meter with calibrated condenser microphone. The microphone of
the sound level meter was guarded by polyurethane windscreen, in order to eliminate wind
effects on measurements as recommended by ISO-1996/1:2003 standard.

Fig. ST-815 Sound Level Meter
All measurements were made at slow response mode. A weighted filter curve sound level meter
was used in this study as recommended by ISO-1996/1:2003 standard. Measurements were made
between 08:00 am to 08:00 pm at each site. Sound level meter was placed at a uniform height of
1.2 meter from the ground as recommended by ISO-1996/1:2003 standard. ISO-1996/1:2003
standard suggests that the monitoring time should be at least 15 minutes and the instrument
should be placed at least 1 meter away from the flow of traffic flow line. Three readings were
taken 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) and
average noise levels were recorded at each site in each measurement mode. The data collected
for 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), Minimum
noise 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 period
of measurement, which represents as Average maximum (Peak) Value.
of measurement, which represents as Average Value.
of measurement, which represents as Average Background noise Value.
iv. NC (Noise Climate) offers the range over which the sound level oscillates in an interval
of 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 irregular
noise 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 by
using 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 Rao
1991). It can be calculated from the time unreliable noise level using following equation
3.6.
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 a
traffic flow. This is also expressed in dB(A) and can be calculated by using the following
equation 3.7.
TNI = L90 + 4( L10 – L90 ) – 30 (3.7)
3.3 Road Traffic Flow
Flow Density of road traffic was found by calculating the number of vehicles passed by during
the measurement period at each site and reading. Vehicles were counted with respect to the type
of the vehicle in each measuring mode, i.e. HTV, LTV, Cars (LMV), 2-Wheelers (Motorcycles
and Scooters), 3-wheelers (2 and 4 stroke Rickshaws) and tractor trolley. HTV (Heavy Transport
Vehicles) includes Buses, Truck, trailers and other heavy vehicles. While LTV (Light Transport
Vehicles) includes Wagons, mini buses, mini truck, coasters and other small luggage carriage
vehicles as shown in Figure. The average percentage flow of respective vehicles type and hourly
road traffic flow were calculated.

HTV
LTV
Cars
Rickshaws
(3-Wheelers)
Motorcycles
(2-Wheelers)
Tractor
Trolley
Fig: 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 been
affecting their daily life, interview was carried out at each site. Minimum 20 persons were
interviewed at each site. In order to interview, a questionnaire was prepared which is given in
Appendix II.
3.5 Suggestion remedial measures
The remedial measures for the control of road traffic noise pollution is suggested in chapter 5.

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Traffic Flow Results
4.1.1 Traffic Flow at B.C. Chowk
Traffic 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 from
motorcycles and rickshaws. Highest traffic flow at B.C. Chowk was found 2610 vehicles/ hour
between 1 pm to 2 pm. Where as the lowest traffic flow was found 2015 vehicles/ hour between
7 pm to 8 pm. Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at B.C. Chowk is given in figure
4.1.
Table 4.1: Traffic flow at B.C. Chowk
Type of Vehicles
8AMto9AM
9AMto10AM
10AMto11AM
11AMto12AM
12AMto1PM
1PMto2PM
2PMto3PM
3PMto4PM
4PMto5PM
5PMto6PM
6PMto7PM
7PMto8PM
Average
Traffic
Flow
(Vehicles/hr)
HTV 50 44 30 32 26 38 35 28 26 23 27 25 32
LTV 184 152 140 120 128 180 136 148 180 172 144 132 151.33
Cars 400 348 340 320 360 380 390 340 348 392 404 368 365.83
Rickshaws 680 608 540 528 595 790 785 732 740 724 752 660 877.83
Motorcycles 1144 1120 1010 1008 1120 1190 1170 1180 1080 1060 1112 810 1083.66
Tractor Trolley 30 24 20 18 16 32 30 28 25 28 32 20 25.25
Total 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. Chowk
4.1.2 Traffic Flow at Chowk Shaheeda
Traffic flow recorded at Chowk Shaheeda is given in Table 4.2. The average traffic flow was
found 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 and
3.33 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. Graphical
representation of hourly traffic flow at Chowk Shaheeda is given in figure 4.2.

Table 4.2: Traffic Flow at Chow Shaheeda
Type of
Vehicles 8AMto9AM
9AMto10AM
10AMto11AM
11AMto12AM
12AMto1PM
1PMto2PM
2PMto3PM
3PMto4PM
4PMto5PM
5PMto6PM
6PMto7PM
7PMto8PM
Average
Traffic
Flow
(Vehicles/hr
)
HTV 18 12 0 4 8 4 0 4 4 0 0 4 4.83
LTV 44 50 30 32 36 40 42 38 36 28 34 18 35.66
Cars 144 160 110 136 156 140 156 134 154 140 160 136 143.83
Rickshaws 580 600 500 466 480 560 584 490 540 580 504 444 527.33
Motorcycles 1120 1400 1210 1088 1160 1440 1300 1188 1404 1198 1124 1000 1219.33
Tractor
Trolley
8 8 0 0 0 4 4 8 0 0 0 8
3.33
Total 1914 2230 1850 1726 1840 2188 2086 1862 2138 1946 1822 1610 1934.31
Fig 4.2: Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Chowk Shaheeda

4.1.3 Traffic Flow at Chungi No. 6
Traffic flow recorded at Chungi No. 6 is given in Table 4.3. The average traffic flow was found
2771.83 vehicles/ hour between 8.00 am to 8.00 am. Average flow of HTV, LTV, cars,
8 vehicles/ hour respectively. The major contribution to traffic flow was from motorcycles and
cars. 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. 6
Type of
Vehicles
8AMto9AM
9AMto10AM
10AMto11AM
11AMto12AM
12AMto1PM
1PMto2PM
2PMto3PM
3PMto4PM
4PMto5PM
5PMto6PM
6PMto7PM
7PMto8PM
Average
Traffic
Flow
(Vehicles/hr
)
HTV 54 30 24 20 32 36 38 50 28 45 30 28 34.58
LTV 12 90 76 70 85 88 104 95 78 68 70 72 75.67
Cars 810 835 680 610 880 830 845 904 888 780 846 880 815.67
Rickshaws 526 586 496 570 585 600 610 500 480 545 570 404 539.33
Motorcycles 1410 1436 1222 1200 1408 1440 1478 1328 1095 1066 1190 1310 1298.58
Tractor
Trolley
12 12 8 4 8 8 12 4 16 8 4 0 8
Total 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. 6
4.1.4 Traffic Flow at Derra Adda
Traffic flow recorded at Derra Adda is given in Table 4.4. The average traffic flow was found
10.83 vehicles/ hour respectively. The major contribution to traffic flow was from motorcycles
and cars. Highest traffic flow at Derra Adda was found 3024 vehicles/ hour between 1 pm to 2
pm. 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 Adda
Type of
Vehicles 8AMto9AM
9AMto10AM
10AMto11AM
11AMto12AM
12AMto1PM
1PMto2PM
2PMto3PM
3PMto4PM
4PMto5PM
5PMto6PM
6PMto7PM
7PMto8PM
Average
Traffic
Flow
(Vehicles/
hr)
HTV 38 32 24 28 36 28 20 18 22 28 32 24 27.5
LTV 262 224 230 190 226 240 236 199 236 244 218 208 226.08
Cars 600 582 498 486 580 606 560 500 538 624 612 576 563.5
Rickshaws 608 566 504 546 600 654 640 609 594 532 566 518 578.08
Motorcycles 1480 1398 1168 1094 1294 1480 1520 1255 1235 1286 1308 1206 1310.34
Tractor
Trolley
8 16 4 20 8 16 4 8 8 12 22 4
10.83
Total 2996 2818 2428 2364 2744 3024 2980 2589 2633 2726 2758 2536 2716.33
Fig 4.4: Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Derra Adda

4.1.5 Traffic Flow at Dolat Gate
Traffic flow recorded at Dolat Gate is given in Table 4.5. The average traffic flow was found
rickshaws, motorcycles and tractor trolley was found 11.66, 134, 438, 606.17, 1250.33 and 9.67
vehicles/ 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. Where
as the lowest traffic flow was found 2182 vehicles/ hour between 7 pm to 8 pm. Graphical
representation of hourly traffic flow at Dolat Gate is given in figure 4.5.
Table 4.5: Traffic Flow at Dolat Gate
Type of
Vehicles
8AMto9AM
9AMto10AM
10AMto11AM
11AMto12AM
12AMto1PM
1PMto2PM
2PMto3PM
3PMto4PM
4PMto5PM
5PMto6PM
6PMto7PM
7PMto8PM
Average
Traffic
Flow
(Vehicles/hr)
HTV 20 12 16 8 8 12 8 8 20 16 8 4 11.66
LTV 180 120 156 120 136 152 140 128 112 132 120 112 134
Cars 400 440 390 320 460 488 410 400 544 500 476 428 438
Rickshaws 680 600 580 620 600 662 600 680 572 590 566 524 606.17
Motorcycles 130
0
122
0
106
0
120
0
136
4
147
6
141
2
111
0
116
4
130
0
129
2
110
6
1250.33
Tractor
Trolley
8 12 12 16 4 8 4 12 12 16 4 8
9.67
Total 258
8
240
4
221
4
228
4
257
2
279
8
257
4
233
8
242
4
255
4
246
6
218
2
2449.83

Fig 4.5: Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Dolat Gate
4.1.6 Traffic Flow at Ghanta Ghar
Traffic flow recorded at Ghanta Ghar is given in Table 4.6. The average traffic flow was found
2671.5 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/ hour
respectively. The major contribution to traffic flow was from motorcycles. Highest traffic flow at
Ghanta Ghar was found 2960 vehicles/ hour between 1 pm to 2 pm. Where as the lowest traffic
flow was found 2240 vehicles/ hour between 7 pm to 8 pm. Graphical representation of hourly
traffic flow at Ghanta Ghar is given in figure 4.6.

Table 4.6: Traffic Flow at Ghanta Ghar
Type of
Vehicles 8AMto9AM
9AMto10AM
10AMto11AM
11AMto12AM
12AMto1PM
1PMto2PM
2PMto3PM
3PMto4PM
4PMto5PM
5PMto6PM
6PMto7PM
7PMto8PM
Average
Traffic
Flow
(Vehicles/hr
)
HTV 20 12 8 8 16 20 4 4 4 8 16 12 11
LTV 140 120 128 104 160 148 116 88 100 132 116 88 120
Cars 520 512 540 520 560 580 500 480 546 534 520 472 523.67
Rickshaws 740 780 640 580 880 740 720 840 764 720 680 568 721
Motorcycles 1440 1408 1260 1128 1240 1460 1370 1280 1298 1266 1176 1100 1285.5
Tractor Trolley 20 12 16 8 4 12 8 8 12 16 8 0 10.33
Total 2880 2844 2592 2348 2860 2960 2718 2700 2724 2676 2516 2240 2671.5
Fig 4.6: Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Ghanta Ghar

4.1.7 Traffic Flow at Haram Gate
Traffic flow recorded at Haram Gate is given in Table 4.7. The average traffic flow was found
Highest traffic flow at Haram Gate was found 2544 vehicles/ hour between 1 pm to 2 pm. Where
as the lowest traffic flow was found 1928 vehicles/ hour between 7 pm to 8 pm. Graphical
representation of hourly traffic flow at Haram Gate is given in figure 4.7.
Table 4.7: Traffic Flow at Haram Gate
Type of
Vehicles
8AMto9AM
9AMto10AM
10AMto11AM
11AMto12AM
12AMto1PM
1PMto2PM
2PMto3PM
3PMto4PM
4PMto5PM
5PMto6PM
6PMto7PM
7PMto8PM
Average
Traffic
Flow
(Vehicles/hr
)
HTV 9 12 0 0 4 8 4 0 4 0 0 4 3.75
LTV 24 30 16 12 28 32 24 16 25 22 18 16 21.92
Cars 220 280 190 150 190 200 184 160 200 210 185 160 194.08
Rickshaws 800 810 780 710 820 900 840 720 844 880 790 620 792.83
Motorcycles 1200 1240 1280 1200 1340 1400 1320 1240 1204 1360 1220 1120 1260.33
Tractor
Trolley
8 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 8 0 0 8
2.67
Total 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 Gate
4.1.8 Traffic Flow at Qazafi Chowk (Kumharawala)
Traffic flow recorded at Qazafi Chowk is given in Table 4.8. The average traffic flow was found
Highest traffic flow at Qazafi Chowk was found 2708 vehicles/ hour between 9 am to 10 am.
representation of hourly traffic flow at Qazafi Chowk is given in figure 4.8.
Table 4.8: Traffic Flow at Qazafi Chowk

Type of
Vehicles
8AMto9AM
9AMto10AM
10AMto11AM
11AMto12AM
12AMto1PM
1PMto2PM
2PMto3PM
3PMto4PM
4PMto5PM
5PMto6PM
6PMto7PM
7PMto8PM
Average
Traffic
Flow
(Vehicles/hr
)
HTV 60 52 46 44 44 54 48 40 48 50 38 42 47.17
LTV 200 210 176 180 190 218 220 200 220 240 175 180 200.75
Cars 500 506 588 510 496 524 510 475 600 540 490 480 518.25
Rickshaws 650 668 598 605 623 660 654 604 716 580 630 604 632.66
Motorcycles 1240 1252 1120 1090 1105 1230 1165 1124 1064 1200 1184 1085 1154.91
Tractor Trolley 12 20 32 28 22 20 16 26 18 40 16 12 21.83
Total 2662 2708 2560 2457 2480 2706 2613 2469 2666 2650 2533 2403 2526.33
Fig 4.8: Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Qazafi Chowk
4.1.9 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 found
rickshaws, motorcycles and tractor trolley was found 6.5, 121.25, 764, 503.67, 1264.83 and
Highest traffic flow at M.D.A Chowk was found 2982 vehicles/ hour between 2 pm to 3 pm.
representation of hourly traffic flow at M.D.A Chowk is given in figure 4.9.
Table 4.9: Traffic Flow at M.D.A Chowk
Type of
Vehicles
8AMto9AM
9AMto10AM
10AMto11AM
11AMto12AM
12AMto1PM
1PMto2PM
2PMto3PM
3PMto4PM
4PMto5PM
5PMto6PM
6PMto7PM
7PMto8PM
Average
Traffic
Flow
(Vehicles/hr)
HTV 12 16 6 4 8 4 12 4 8 0 4 0 6.5
LTV 180 120 150 160 84 80 96 75 160 140 120 90 121.25
Cars 810 840 780 766 780 820 866 790 650 710 690 666 764
Rickshaws 468 480 436 408 460 600 620 500 610 510 486 466 503.67
Motorcycles 1320 1410 1110 1086 1560 1420 1380 1180 1266 1180 1130 1136 1264.83
Tractor
Trolley
12 36 8 40 16 12 8 4 12 8 16 4
14.67
Total 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. Chowk
4.1.10 Traffic Flow at Nishtar Road
Traffic flow recorded at Nishtar Road is given in Table 4.10. The average traffic flow was found
2.83 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 Road
Type of
Vehicles 8AMto9AM
9AMto10AM
10AMto11AM
11AMto12AM
12AMto1PM
1PMto2PM
2PMto3PM
3PMto4PM
4PMto5PM
5PMto6PM
6PMto7PM
7PMto8PM
Average
Traffic
Flow
(Vehicles/hr
)
HTV 24 8 4 4 0 8 12 4 12 0 0 0 6.33
LTV 80 100 70 66 92 86 84 72 75 88 104 88 83.75
Cars 480 600 560 440 580 620 660 586 542 670 700 680 593.16
Rickshaws 400 610 550 485 500 604 640 622 620 602 650 580 571.91
Motorcycles 1000 1050 980 900 985 1020 1080 998 1028 1000 1146 1180 1030.58
Tractor
Trolley
8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 10
2.83
Total 1992 2372 2164 1895 2157 2338 2476 2282 2277 2357 2608 2538 2288.56
Fig 4.10: Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Nishtar Road

4.1.11 Traffic Flow at Rasheedabad Chowk
Traffic flow recorded at Rasheedabad Chowk is given in Table 4.11. The average traffic flow
was 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, 1273.5
and 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 2
pm. 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 Chowk
Type of
Vehicles
8AMto9AM
9AMto10AM
10AMto11AM
11AMto12AM
12AMto1PM
1PMto2PM
2PMto3PM
3PMto4PM
4PMto5PM
5PMto6PM
6PMto7PM
7PMto8PM
Average
Traffic
Flow
(Vehicles/hr
)
HTV 40 60 30 28 45 38 48 32 26 38 30 24 36.58
LTV 140 210 150 136 140 170 168 144 120 138 100 104 143.33
Cars 900 988 880 896 976 1008 998 998 1010 1026 1010 920 967.5
Rickshaws 426 448 480 510 576 590 556 468 548 598 686 572 538.16
Motorcycles 1420 1432 1132 1100 1486 1524 1460 1090 1006 1132 1256 1244 1273.5
Tractor
Trolley
8 24 16 20 8 4 12 4 8 16 8 4
11
Total 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 Chowk
4.1.12 Traffic Flow at Vehari Chowk
Traffic flow recorded at Vehari Chowk is given in Table 4.12. The average traffic flow was
found 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 and
21.33 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 Chowk
Type of
Vehicles 8AMto9AM
9AMto10AM
10AMto11AM
11AMto12AM
12AMto1PM
1PMto2PM
2PMto3PM
3PMto4PM
4PMto5PM
5PMto6PM
6PMto7PM
7PMto8PM
Average
Traffic
Flow
(Vehicles/hr
)
HTV 160 164 176 204 208 224 192 220 188 122 155 112 177.08
LTV 228 296 296 240 290 288 264 262 244 236 260 224 260.67
Cars 816 860 764 680 888 860 800 644 678 828 798 750 780.5
Rickshaws 480 510 460 520 580 544 688 589 590 510 575 568 551.17
Motorcycles 1090 1166 1100 1178 1228 1386 1336 1164 1188 1240 1090 1078 1187
Tractor
Trolley
24 30 28 20 32 18 12 16 18 28 14 16
21.33
Total 2798 3026 2824 2842 3226 3320 3292 2895 2906 2964 2892 2748 2977.75
Fig 4.12: Graphical representation of hourly traffic flow at Vehari Chowk

4.2 Noise Level Results
4.2.1 Noise Level at B.C. Chowk
The statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at B.C. Chowk are
summarized in tabular form in table 4.13. The graphically representation of statistical and
cumulative distribution of noise levels at B.C. Chowk is given below in figure 4.13 and 4.14
respectively. The results shows that the noise levels at B.C. Chowk vary from 71 dB(A) to 102
dB(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. Chowk
Sr.
No. Noise Frequency No. Statistical Distribution
Cumulative
Distribution
1 71 1 0.65 100
2 72 2 1.32 99.35
3 73 1 0.65 98.03
4 74 5 3.32 97.38
5 75 3 2 94.06
6 76 2 1.32 92.06
7 77 4 2.6 90.74
8 78 1 0.65 88.14
9 79 4 2.64 87.49
10 80 4 2.64 84.85
11 81 2 1.32 82.21
12 82 3 2 80.89
13 83 5 3.32 78.89
14 84 7 4.63 75.57
15 85 8 5.33 70.94
16 86 5 3.32 65.61
17 87 4 2.6 62.29
18 88 10 6.6 59.69
19 89 11 7.32 53.09
20 90 9 6 45.77
21 91 13 8.6 39.77
22 92 15 10 31.17
23 93 8 5.3 21.17

24 94 5 3.32 15.87
25 95 3 2 12.55
26 96 4 2.64 10.55
27 97 2 1.32 7.91
28 98 5 3.32 7.28
29 99 2 1.32 3.27
30 100 1 0.65 1.95
31 101 1 0.65 1.3
32 102 1 0.65 0.65
Fig. 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. Chowk
4.2.2 Noise Level at Chowk Shaheeda
The statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Chowk Shaheeda are
cumulative distribution of noise levels at Chowk Shaheeda is given below in figure 4.15 and 4.16
respectively. The results shows that the noise levels at Chowk Shaheeda vary from 71 dB(A) to
102 dB(A). Where as L90, L50 and L10 at Chowk Shaheeda were found 77.5, 89.4 and 96.3
respectively.

Table 4.14: Statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Chowk Shaheeda
Sr.
No. Noise Frequency No. Statistical Distribution
Cumulative
Distribution
1 71 1 0.66 100
2 72 2 1.33 99.34
3 73 2 1.33 98.01
4 74 1 0.66 96.68
5 75 1 0.66 96.02
6 76 5 3.33 95.36
7 77 4 2.67 92.03
8 78 2 1.33 89.36
9 79 5 3.33 88.03
10 80 4 2.67 84.7
11 81 8 5.34 82.03
12 82 4 2.67 76.69
13 83 3 2 74.02
14 84 1 0.66 72.02
15 85 2 1.33 71.36
16 86 7 4.67 70.03
17 87 14 9.33 65.36
18 88 6 4 56.03
19 89 10 6.7 52.03
20 90 16 10.67 45.33
21 91 12 8 34.66
22 92 7 4.67 26.66
23 93 9 6 21.99
24 94 4 2.67 15.99
25 95 4 2.67 13.32
26 96 3 2 10.65
27 97 1 0.66 8.65
28 98 1 0.66 7.99
29 99 4 2.67 7.33
30 100 2 1.33 4.66
31 101 2 1.33 3.33
32 102 3 2 2

Fig. 4.15: Statistical distribution of road traffic noise levels at Chowk Shaheeda
Fig. 4.16: Cumulative distribution of road traffic noise levels at Chowk Shaheeda

4.2.3 Noise Level at Chungi No. 6
The statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Chungi No. 6 are
cumulative distribution of noise levels at Chungi No. 6 is given below in figure 4.17 and 4.18
respectively. The results shows that the noise levels at Chungi No. 6 vary from 71 dB(A) to 100
dB(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. 6
Sr.
No.
Noise
dB(A)
Frequency No. Statistical Distribution
(%)
Cumulative Distribution
(%)
1 71 3 2 100
2 72 1 0.66 98
3 73 1 0.66 97.34
4 74 2 1.33 96.68
5 75 3 2 95.35
6 76 2 1.33 93.35
7 77 3 2 92.02
8 78 5 3.33 90.02
9 79 9 6 86.69
10 80 5 3.34 80.69
11 81 3 2 77.35
12 82 6 4 75.35
13 83 1 0.66 71.35
14 84 6 4 70.69
15 85 2 1.33 66.69
16 86 10 6.7 65.36
17 87 12 8 58.66
18 88 15 10 50.66
19 89 7 4.67 40.66
20 90 5 3.33 35.99
21 91 14 9.33 32.66
22 92 4 2.67 23.33
23 93 2 1.33 20.66
24 94 11 7.33 19.33
25 95 3 2 12
26 96 3 2 10

27 97 5 3.34 8
28 98 1 0.66 4.66
29 99 4 2.67 4
30 100 2 1.33 1.33
Fig. 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. 6
4.2.4 Noise Level at Derra Adda
The statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Derra Adda are
cumulative distribution of noise levels at Derra Adda is given below in figure 4.19 and 4.20
respectively. 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.
Noise
dB(A)
(%)
(%)
1 72 0 0 100
2 73 1 0.66 100
3 74 1 0.66 99.34
4 75 2 1.33 98.68
5 76 6 4 97.35
6 77 1 0.66 93.35
7 78 2 1.33 92.69
8 79 2 1.33 91.36
9 80 4 2.67 90.03
10 81 3 2 87.36
11 82 1 0.66 85.36
12 83 1 0.66 84.7
13 84 5 3.33 84.04
14 85 5 3.33 80.71
15 86 8 5.33 77.38
16 87 4 2.67 72.05
17 88 5 3.33 69.38
18 89 9 6 66.05
19 90 7 4.67 60.05
20 91 5 3.33 55.38
21 92 10 6.7 52.05
22 93 8 5.33 45.35
23 94 13 8.7 40.02
24 95 10 6.7 31.32
25 96 5 3.33 24.62
26 97 7 4.67 21.29
27 98 5 3.33 16.62
28 99 6 4 13.29
29 100 3 2 9.29
30 101 1 0.66 7.29
31 102 3 2 6.63
32 103 2 1.33 4.63
33 104 1 0.66 3.3
34 105 1 0.66 2.64
35 106 1 0.66 1.98
36 107 1 0.66 1.32
37 108 1 0.66 0.65

Fig. 4.19: Statistical distribution of road traffic noise levels at Derra Adda
Fig 4.20: Cumulative distribution of road traffic noise levels at Derra Adda
4.2.5 Noise Level at Dolat Gate

The statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Derra Adda are
cumulative distribution of noise levels at Derra Adda is given below in figure 4.21 and 4.22
respectively. 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 Gate
Sr.
No.
Noise
dB(A)
(%)
(%)
1 71 2 1.33 100
2 72 1 0.66 98.67
3 73 1 0.66 98.01
4 74 2 1.33 97.35
5 75 1 0.66 96.02
6 76 2 1.33 95.36
7 77 4 2.67 94.03
8 78 3 2 91.36
9 79 1 0.66 89.36
10 80 7 4.67 88.7
11 81 5 3.33 84.03
12 82 2 1.33 80.7
13 83 1 0.66 79.37
14 84 3 2 78.71
15 85 5 3.33 76.71
16 86 2 1.33 73.38
17 87 5 3.33 72.05
18 88 7 4.67 68.72
19 89 6 4 64.05
20 90 9 6 60.05
21 91 10 6.7 54.05
22 92 7 4.67 47.35
23 93 15 10 42.68
24 94 13 8.7 32.68
25 95 9 6 23.98
26 96 6 4 17.98
27 97 5 3.33 13.98
28 98 3 2 10.65
29 99 5 3.33 8.65

30 100 4 2.67 5.32
31 101 2 1.33 2.65
32 102 1 0.66 1.32
33 103 1 0.66 0.66
Fig. 4.21: Statistical distribution of road traffic noise levels at Dolat Gate

Fig. 4.22: Cumulative distribution of road traffic noise levels at Dolat Gate
4.2.6 Noise Level at Ghanta Ghar
The statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Ghanta Ghar are
cumulative distribution of noise levels at Ghanta Ghar is given below in figure 4.23 and 4.24
respectively. The results shows that the noise levels at Ghanta Ghar from 71 dB(A) to 107
dB(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.
Noise
dB(A)
(%)
(%)
1 71 1 0.67 100
2 72 1 0.67 99.33
3 73 1 0.67 98.66
4 74 1 0.67 97.99
5 75 3 2 97.32
6 76 2 1.33 95.32
7 77 5 3.33 93.99
8 78 4 2.66 90.66
9 79 3 2 88
10 80 2 1.33 86
11 81 1 0.67 84.67
12 82 4 2.67 84
13 83 6 4 81.33
14 84 7 4.67 77.33
15 85 5 3.33 72.66
16 86 9 6 69.33
17 87 3 2 63.33
18 88 7 4.67 61.33
19 89 9 6 56.66
20 90 16 10.66 50.66
21 91 9 6 40
22 92 8 5.33 34
23 93 12 8 28.67
24 94 5 3.33 20.67
25 95 2 1.33 17.34
26 96 6 4 16.01
27 97 3 2 12.01
28 98 3 2 10.01
29 99 2 1.33 8.01
30 100 1 0.67 6.68
31 101 1 0.67 6.01
32 102 1 0.67 5.34
33 103 2 1.33 4.67
34 104 1 0.67 3.34
35 105 1 0.67 2.67
36 106 2 1.33 2
37 107 1 0.67 0.66

Fig. 4.23: statistical distribution of road traffic noise levels at Ghanta Ghar
Fig. 4.24: Cumulative distribution of road traffic noise levels at Ghanta Ghar

4.2.7 Noise Level at Haram Gate
The statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Haram Gate are
cumulative distribution of noise levels at Haram Gate is given below in figure 4.25 and 4.26
respectively. 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 Gate
Sr.
No.
Noise
dB(A)
(%)
(%)
1 73 2 1.33 100
2 74 2 1.33 98.67
3 75 1 0.66 97.34
4 76 5 3.33 96.68
5 77 4 2.67 93.35
6 78 8 5.34 90.68
7 79 6 4 85.34
8 80 7 4.67 81.34
9 81 3 2 76.67
10 82 2 1.33 74.67
11 83 2 1.33 73.34
12 84 1 0.66 72.01
13 85 8 5.34 71.35
14 86 8 5.34 66.01
15 87 4 2.67 60.67
16 88 4 2.67 58
17 89 12 8 55.33
18 90 16 10.7 47.33
19 91 9 6 36.63
20 92 11 7.33 30.63
21 93 2 1.33 23.3
22 94 4 2.67 21.97
23 95 5 3.33 19.3
24 96 7 4.67 15.97
25 97 5 3.33 11.3
26 98 4 2.67 7.97

27 99 2 1.33 5.3
28 100 1 0.66 3.97
29 101 1 0.66 3.31
30 102 1 0.66 2.65
31 103 2 1.33 1.99
32 104 1 0.66 0.66
Fig. 4.25: statistical distribution of road traffic noise levels at Haram Gate

Fig. 4.26: Cumulative distribution of road traffic noise levels at Haram Gate
4.2.8 Noise Level at Qazafi Chowk (Kumharawala)
The statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Qazafi Chowk are
cumulative distribution of noise levels at Qazafi Chowk is given below in figure 4.27 and 4.28
respectively. The results shows that the noise levels at Qazafi Chowk from 73 dB(A) to 104
dB(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 Chowk
Sr.
No.
Noise
dB(A)
(%)
(%)
1 71 0 0 100
2 72 0 0 100
3 73 1 0.65 100
4 74 2 1.32 99.35
5 75 5 3.33 98.03
6 76 5 3.33 94.7
7 77 3 2 91.37
8 78 2 1.32 89.37
9 79 1 0.66 88.05
10 80 5 3.33 87.39
11 81 4 2.64 84.06
12 82 2 1.32 81.42
13 83 4 2.64 80.1
14 84 3 2 77.46
15 85 7 4.33 75.46
16 86 6 4 71.13
17 87 10 6.65 67.13
18 88 8 5.32 60.48
19 89 5 3.33 55.16
20 90 11 7.3 51.83
21 91 15 10 44.53
22 92 9 6 34.53
23 93 5 3.32 28.53
24 94 9 6 25.21
25 95 13 8.65 19.21
26 96 1 0.65 10.56
27 97 3 2 9.91
28 98 1 0.65 7.28
29 99 2 1.32 7.26
30 100 2 1.32 5.94
31 101 1 2 4.62
32 102 1 0.65 2.62
33 103 1 0.65 1.97
34 104 2 1.32 1.32

Fig. 4.27: statistical distribution of road traffic noise levels at Qazafi Chowk
Fig. 4.28: Cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Qazafi Chowk

4.2.9 Noise Level at M.D.A. Chowk
The statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at M.D.A. Chowk are
cumulative distribution of noise levels at M.D.A. Chowk is given below in figure 4.29 and 4.30
respectively. The results shows that the noise levels at M.D.A. Chowk from 74 dB(A) to 104
dB(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. Chowk
Sr.
No.
Noise
dB(A)
(%)
(%)
1 74 1 0.66 100
2 75 2 1.33 99.34
3 76 1 0.66 98.01
4 77 1 0.66 97.35
5 78 5 3.33 96.69
6 79 3 2 93.36
7 80 2 1.33 91.36
8 81 3 2 90.03
9 82 1 0.66 88.03
10 83 6 4 87.37
11 84 4 2.67 83.37
12 85 2 1.32 80.7
13 86 7 4.67 79.38
14 87 4 2.67 74.71
15 88 10 6.7 72.04
16 89 9 6 65.34
17 90 8 5.33 59.34
18 91 15 10 54.01
19 92 9 6 44.01
20 93 6 4 38.01
21 94 9 6 34.01
22 95 13 8.7 28.01
23 96 5 3.33 19.31
24 97 7 4.67 15.98

25 98 4 2.67 11.31
26 99 5 3.33 8.64
27 100 2 1.33 5.31
28 101 3 2 3.98
29 102 1 0.66 1.98
30 103 1 0.66 1.32
31 104 1 0.66 0.66
Fig. 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. Chowk
4.2.10 Noise Level at Nishtar Road
The statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Nishtar Road are
cumulative distribution of noise levels at Nishtar Road is given below in figure 4.31 and 4.32
respectively. The results shows that the noise levels at Nishtar Road from 71 dB(A) to 101
dB(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 Road
Sr.
No.
Noise
dB(A)
(%)
(%)
1 71 1 0.66 100
2 72 1 0.66 99.34
3 73 1 0.66 98.68
4 74 2 1.33 98.02
5 75 2 1.33 96.69
6 76 6 4 95.36
7 77 2 1.33 91.36
8 78 1 0.66 90.03
9 79 1 0.66 89.37
10 80 1 0.66 88.71
11 81 5 3.33 88.05
12 82 2 1.33 84.72
13 83 11 7.33 83.39
14 84 6 4 76.06
15 85 9 6 72.06
16 86 13 8.7 66.06
17 87 8 5.33 57.36
18 88 7 4.67 52.03
19 89 10 6.7 47.36
20 90 14 9.34 40.66
21 91 6 4 31.32
22 92 4 2.67 27.32
23 93 12 8 24.65
24 94 2 1.33 16.65
25 95 5 3.33 15.32
26 96 6 4 11.99
27 97 3 2 7.99
28 98 2 1.33 5.99
29 99 3 2 4.66
30 100 2 1.33 2.66
31 101 2 1.33 1.33

Fig. 4.31: Statistical distribution of road traffic noise levels at Nishtar Road
Fig. 4.32: Cumulative distribution of road traffic noise levels at Nishtar Road

4.2.11 Noise Level at Rasheedabad Chowk
The statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Rasheedabad Chowk
are summarized in tabular form in table 4.23. The graphically representation of statistical and
cumulative distribution of noise levels at Rasheedabad Chowk is given below in figure 4.33 and
4.34 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 97.7
dB(A) respectively.
Table 4.23: Statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Rasheedabad
Chowk
Sr.
No.
Noise
dB(A)
(%)
(%)
1 73 1 0.66 100
2 74 1 0.66 99.34
3 75 2 1.33 98.68
4 76 3 2 97.35
5 77 5 3.34 95.35
6 78 4 2.67 92.01
7 79 5 3.34 89.34
8 80 3 2 86
9 81 1 0.66 84
10 82 4 2.67 83.34
11 83 2 1.33 80.67
12 84 4 2.67 79.34
13 85 7 4.67 76.67
14 86 3 2 72
15 87 10 6.7 70
16 88 9 6 63.3
17 89 6 4 57.3
18 90 8 5.33 53.3
19 91 8 5.33 47.97
20 92 13 8.66 42.64
21 93 7 4.67 33.98
22 94 5 3.34 29.31

23 95 4 2.67 25.97
24 96 9 6 23.3
25 97 12 8 17.3
26 98 2 1.33 9.3
27 99 5 3.34 7.97
28 100 1 0.66 4.63
29 101 1 0.66 3.97
30 102 2 1.33 3.31
31 103 1 0.66 1.98
32 104 1 0.66 1.32
33 105 1 0.66 0.66
Fig. 4.33: Statistical distribution of road traffic noise levels at Rasheedabad Chowk

Fig. 4.34: Cumulative distribution of road traffic noise levels at Rasheedabad Chowk
4.2.12 Noise Level at Vehari Chowk
The statistical and cumulative distributions of road traffic noise levels at Vehari Chowk are
cumulative distribution of noise levels at Vehari Chowk is given below in figure 4.35 and 4.36
respectively. The results shows that the noise levels at Vehari Chowk from 71 dB(A) to 110
dB(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 Chowk
Sr. No. Noise Frequency No. Statistical Distribution Cumulative Distribution

dB(A) (%) (%)
1 71 1 0.67 100
2 72 1 0.67 99.33
3 73 2 1.33 98.66
4 74 1 0.67 97.33
5 75 3 2 96.66
6 76 3 2 94.66
7 77 1 0.67 92.66
8 78 1 0.67 91.99
9 79 6 4 91.32
10 80 3 2 87.32
11 81 2 1.33 85.32
12 82 4 2.66 83.99
13 83 5 3.33 81.33
14 84 2 1.33 78
15 85 2 1.33 76.67
16 86 5 3.33 75.34
17 87 9 6 72.01
18 88 5 3.33 62.68
19 89 13 8.7 53.98
20 90 7 4.66 49.32
21 91 9 6 43.32
22 92 11 7.33 35.99
23 93 8 5.33 30.66
24 94 10 6.66 24
25 95 9 6 18
26 96 2 1.33 16.67
27 97 4 2.66 14.01
28 98 2 1.33 12.68
29 99 1 0.67 12.01
30 100 2 1.33 10.68
31 101 1 0.67 10.68
32 102 3 2 10.01
33 103 1 0.67 8.01
34 104 1 0.67 7.34
35 105 3 2 6.67
36 106 2 1.33 4.67
37 107 2 1.33 3.34
38 108 1 0.67 2.01
39 109 1 0.67 1.34
40 110 1 0.67 0.66

Fig. 4.35: Statistical distribution of road traffic noise levels at Vehari Chowk
Fig. 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 parameters
are shown in table 4.25 and their graphically representation is shown in figure 4.37. The
minimum 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 from
100.3 to 109.9 dB(A). Highest maximum noise level was recorded at Vehari Chowk. Maximum
noise 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 from
17.6 to 22.5 dB(A). Peak value of Noise climate (NC) was calculated at Vehari Chowk (i.e. 22.5
dB(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 shown
in 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 121.83
dB(A). The highest Leq was found at Vehari Chowk. Noise Pollution Level (Lnp) at all sites is
shown 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 in
tabular 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 City
Location
Lmin
dB(A)
Lmax
dB(A)
L90
dB(A)
L50
dB(A)
L10
dB(A)
N.C
dB(A)
Leq
dB(A)
Lnp
dB(A)
TNI
dB(A)
B.C. Chowk 70.6 102.4 77.3 89.4 96.2 18.9 95.35 114.25 122.9
Chowk Shaheeda 71 102.1 77.5 89.4 96.3 18.8 95.29 114.09 122.7
Chungi No. 6 70.8 100.3 78.1 88.2 95.9 17.8 93.48 111.28 119.3
Derra Adda 73 108 80 92.4 99.5 19.5 98.73 118.23 128
Dolat Gate 71.2 103.4 78.8 91.6 98.4 19.6 98 117.6 127.2
Ghanta Ghar 71 106.9 78.1 90 97 18.9 95.95 114.85 123.7
Haram Gate 72.8 104 78.2 88.6 96.2 18 94 112 120.2
Qazafi Chowk 73.4 104.4 77.6 90.3 96.2 18.6 96.06 114.66 122
MDA Chowk 74.1 103.9 80.9 91.4 98.5 17.6 95.56 114.16 121.3
Nishtar Road 71.2 101 77.4 88.5 96.6 19.2 94.64 113.84 124.2
Rasheedabad Chowk 73 105 78.7 88.6 97.7 19 94.61 113.61 124.7
Vehari 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 Survey
4.3.1 Public Opinion Survey Results
A survey was conducted to find out the public opinion about the noise annoyance and effects of
noise at all 12 sites. Two hundred and forty respondents were interviewed personally in this
survey. The results of the survey indicates that 25% are suffering from headache, 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 % less temper and 65 % reported the
annoyance. The survey results are shown in table 4.26, where as graphically it is given in figure
4.38.
Table 4.26: Public opinion survey results at all 12 locations
Questionnaires Yes No Percentage
Headache 60 180 25
Stress / Tension 78 162 32.5
Blood Pressure 34 206 14.16
Cardiac Disease 18 222 7.5
Hearing Problem 84 156 35
Irritation 138 102 57.5
Less Temper 66 174 27.5
Annoyance 156 84 65

Fig. 4.38: Graphical representation of public opinion survey at all 12 locations
4.3.2 Traffic Police Opinion Survey Results
A survey was conducted to find out the opinion about the noise annoyance and effects of noise at
all 12 sites from traffic police. Forty eight traffic police respondents were 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 low blood pressure, 8.33 % from cardiac diseases,
37.5 % from hearing problem, 62.5 % from irritation, 54.16 % less temper and 70.83 % reported
the annoyance. The survey results are shown in table 4.26, where as graphically it is given in
figure 4.38.

Table 4.27: Traffic police opinion survey results at all 12 locations
Questionnaires Yes No Percentage (%)
Headache 18 30 37.5
Stress / Tension 16 32 33.33
Blood Pressure 10 38 20.83
Cardiac Disease 4 44 8.33
Hearing Problem 18 30 37.5
Irritation 30 18 62.5
Less Temper 26 22 54.16
Annoyance 34 14 70.83
Fig. 4.39: Graphical representation of traffic police opinion survey at all 12 locations

4.4 Discussion
The rapid growth of the population, urbanization and the support of leasing companies are
significant factor which highly contribute to road traffic volume in Multan city, as well as other
major cities of Pakistan. That is why road traffic flow volume increases day by day which causes
many environmental as well as health related problems including road traffic noise pollution.
Noise pollution affects and disturbs more people than from occupational noise pollution. As
every person is contact with road traffic noise pollution on daily basis. The un-availability of
regulatory laws about vehicular noise emission in Multan City as well as other major cities of
Pakistan makes this situation worst. Results of this study reveals that noise levels recorded at all
12 location, was above the permissible limit as recommended National Environmental Quality
Standards (NEQS) for motor vehicle noise.
The study shows that all 12 locations have high traffic flow. Vehari chowk was found heavy
traffic flow. Because this intersection of roads have high amount of heavy vehicles and also this
chowk is near to the City Bus Terminal of the Multan City. The average hourly traffic flow at all
12 locations from 8 am to 8 pm was found ranging 1934.31 to 2977.75 vehicles / hour while
average hourly traffic flow is 2977.75 vehicles / hour at Vehari Chowk busiest location among
all 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, Dolat
Gate, Ghanta Ghar, Haram Gate, Qazafi Chowk, MDA Chowk, Nishter Road and Rasheedabad
Chowk 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, ranging
from 70.6 to 74.1 dB(A) and 100.3 to 109.9 dB(A) respectively. Maximum nnoise level of 109.9
dB(A) was recorded at Vehari Chowk. The statical noise levels i.e. L90, L50 and L10 was observed
at 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 of
the Multan City. The equivalent noise level (Leq) at Vehari Chowkwas found higher than all other
locations ranging from 93.48 to 99.33 dB(A). The noise pollution level (Lnp) and Traffic Noise
Index (TNI) was also found higher at Vehari Chowk among all locations (i.e 121.83 and 139.5
dB(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 and
recommended silencers. Rickshaws were found the nosiest vehicle among all other types of
vehicles. Because most of the rickshaws are equipped with 2-stroke engines and also improper or
no use of silencers. There is improper legislative, administrative and judicial support to tackle
with noise pollution. Existing NEQS and motor vehicles rules are not sufficient in minimizing or
mitigating the motor vehicles noise emissions.

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
The 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 other
locations. 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 85
dB(A) as recommended by National Environmental Quality Standards (NEQS) for
vehicular noise emissions. The maximum noise levels at all 12 sites were recorded and
ranging from 100.3 to 109.9 dB(A). The noise climate (NC) at all 12 sites were recorded
and ranging from 17.6 to 22.5 dB(A). Peak value of Noise climate (NC) was calculated at
Vehari Chowk (i.e. 22.5 dB(A)). 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. The Noise Pollution Level (Lnp) at all sites were calculated, ranging from 111.28
to 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 Leq
was found at Vehari Chowk.

3. A survey was conducted to find out the public opinion about the noise annoyance and
effects of noise at all 12 sites. Two hundred and forty respondents were interviewed
personally in this survey. The results of the survey indicates that 25% are suffering from
headache, 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 % less
temper and 65 % reported the annoyance. Where as forty eight traffic police respondents
were 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 low
blood pressure, 8.33 % from cardiac diseases, 37.5 % from hearing problem, 62.5 % from
irritation, 54.16 % less temper and 70.83 % reported the annoyance.
5.2 Recommendations / Suggestions
All developed and any developing nations of the world have implemented various noise control
legislations, laws, guidelines and regulation for laying down maximum allowable noise level for
different areas. While in Pakistan there is no appropriate and specific regulation at present to
control the noise pollution except NEQS for motor vehicle noise which allows 85 dB(A). also
there are no guide lines or standards for noise limits for commercial, residential and industrial
zones. Two-stroke engine vehicles (i.e. Rickshaws) are responsible for high level of noise and
these vehicles should be replaced by 4-stroke engine vehicles. There should be legislation for the
maintenance 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 continuously
monitored.
• There is a need to create awareness among students through curriculum and extra
curriculum about noise and other environmental issues.
• The vehicles should be inspected for excessive noise of vehicle before the annual token is
issued.
• 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 laws
about noise emissions.

REFERENCES
1. Braj BS, Jain VK. A comparative study of noise levels in some residential, industrial and
commercial 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 of
roadside 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; 1998
4. Anonymous (2003), “ISO: 1996-1: 2003, Acoustics: Description, measurement and
assessment 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 Noise
Level”, Indian Journal of Environmental Health, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 324-329
6. Aftab Tayyab, Bashir Farzana and Tahira Shafiq (2007), “Road Traffic Noise Pollution a
Hazard” , 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 Noise
Pollution 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, Deepak
Prasad Subedi (2007), “Assessment Of Traffic Noise Pollution In Banepa, A Semi Urban
Town Of Nepal”, Kathmandu University Journal of Science, Engineering and
Technology Vol.3, No.2, August 2007, pp 12-20.
10. Avnish Chauhan and Krishna Kumar Pande (2010), “Study of noise level in different
zones 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 Regression
Technique”, 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 and
community 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 of
Hyderabad 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 of
Engineering & Technology, Jamshoro, Pakistan, 1999.

15. Akhtar N.H., Shah M.Z. and Qamar I., “Road Traffic Noise Peshawar-An increasing
Problem”, Dept. of Community Medicine, Khaber Medical College, 1998.
16. Serkan Ozer , Hasan Yilmaz, Murat Yesil and Pervin Yesil (2009), “Evaluation of noise
pollution caused by vehicles in the city of Tokat, Turkey”, Scientific Research and Essay
Vol.4 (11), pp. 1205-1212.
17. Sumiani Yusoff and Asila Ishak (2005), “Evaluation of Urban Highway Environmental
Noise 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 Pollution
in Karachi, Pakistan”, JLUMHS, Vol. 09, No. 03.
19. Zubair, A. and Siddiqui, S.N. (2011), “Status of Noise Pollution - A Case Study of
Gulshan-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 Urban
Areas, Fascicle of Management and Technological Engineering, Volume VI (XVI), 2007
21. Parida M., S.S. Jain, D.S.N.V. Amar K. & Namita M., Metropolitan Traffic Noise and
Abatement Measures, Centre of Transportation Engineering (COTE), Indian Institute of
Technology Roorkee, India, 2001.

Appendix-II
Public Opnion Survey Questionaire Form
Location: _________________________________
Name: ___________________________________
Age: ___________________________________
Time: ___________________________________
Sex:
□ Male
□ Female
Opinion:
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Max Noise Level: ________
Min Noise Level: ________
Average Noise Level: ________
□ Headache
□ Stress / Tension
□ Blood Pressure
□ Cardiac Disease
□ Hearing Problem / Deafness
□ Irritation
□ Less Temper

Thesis irfan BY Muhammad Fahad Ansari 12IEEM14

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Thesis irfan BY Muhammad Fahad Ansari 12IEEM14

Similaire à Thesis irfan BY Muhammad Fahad Ansari 12IEEM14 (20)

Plus de fahadansari131

Plus de fahadansari131 (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Thesis irfan BY Muhammad Fahad Ansari 12IEEM14