Merrimack delegation and residents press for sound barriers on F.E. Everett Turnpike as DOT outlines federal criteria

Representative Bill Boyd’s written testimony, read by Representative Maureen Mooney, asked the committee to support House Bill 578 to authorize sound barriers along the F.E. Everett Turnpike through Merrimack, where proponents say recent Turnpike widening has exposed 17 neighborhoods and four condominium complexes to elevated noise. “House Bill 5 78 seeks to erect sound barriers along the northbound and southbound corridors of the F. E. Everett Turnpike,” Mooney read from Boyd’s prepared text.

Residents and local officials told the committee the noise has already degraded quality of life. Senator Tim McGough said residents are experiencing “deafening” noise levels in backyards and asked the committee for flexibility from strict density criteria used in NHDOT’s noise policy. Representative Nancy Murphy, a Merrimack representative and co-sponsor, said the committee would be voting on policy and not the fiscal note but urged support so residents “can once again enjoy the peace and comfort of their homes.”

Paul McCauley, Merrimack’s town manager, told the committee that a NHDOT environmental study from 2019 identified 17 neighborhoods in Merrimack with decibel readings over 70 dB, but only four were included in mitigation as part of the project. “I have several acres of woods in between me and the turnpike. My backyard now... I cannot even hear [my dog] sometimes barking because of the noise on the turnpike,” McCauley said.

NHDOT noise program manager John Evans explained the federal framework and the department’s process for evaluating noise impacts and abatement. “Noise impacts are identified as anything in excess of the Federal Highway noise abatement criteria, which in this case here is 66 decibels,” Evans said. He described two sequential tests DOT uses: feasibility (engineering constraints) and reasonableness (a cost-effectiveness threshold). Under the department’s current reasonableness metric, a noise barrier must achieve an effectiveness of roughly 1,500 square feet of barrier per benefited receptor to be approved. Evans said the project-wide noise study identified about 289 impacted properties across the corridor; 20 locations showed impacts and seven locations met feasibility-and-reasonableness tests and are included in the project. He told the committee the seven included locations would cost about $19 million and that constructing barriers at the remaining impacted locations would add roughly $24 million in additional expense.

Several committee members and witnesses challenged aspects of the modeling and measurement. Representative Rosemarie Rung said initial measurements likely underestimated impacts because clearing trees for construction increased noise exposure and because some people use front yards and porches—locations not always captured in standard measurement points. Representative John Graham, a former committee chair, asked the committee to consider amending any bill to include other neighborhoods (he cited Teaberry Lane in Bedford as an example) and warned that any departure from established criteria creates expectations elsewhere.

Evans emphasized that the department follows federal guidance and that exterior areas are the focus of mitigation; interior measures (for example, window upgrades) are not eligible under federal and department policies. He also said DOT typically models build conditions 20 years out to capture projected traffic volumes and that the department had modeled without assuming tree buffers (so loss of trees is effectively captured in the modeling assumptions).

Ending — The committee closed the public hearing on HB 578 after extended testimony and DOT technical presentation. No committee recommendation on HB 578 was recorded in the transcript.