0% found this document useful (0 votes)

212 views128 pages

Local Noise Action Plans Guide

This document provides guidance for developing local noise action plans according to the European Union's Environmental Noise Directive. It discusses getting started with the planning process, including defining leadership responsibilities, involving stakeholders, and assessing existing noise abatement efforts. It also outlines the main steps and considerations in developing a noise action plan, and references technical details and requirements to support transportation planners and engineers involved in the process. The document was created as part of the SILENCE project, an EU-funded initiative to research solutions for reducing noise from urban transportation.

Uploaded by

Nina Lukić

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

212 views128 pages

Local Noise Action Plans Guide

Uploaded by

Nina Lukić

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 128

Practitioner Handbook for

Local Noise Action Plans

Recommendations from the SILENCE project

SILENCE is an Integrated Project co-funded by the European Commission under the Sixth Framework Programme for R&D, Priority 6 Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystems

Guidance for readers

Step 1:
Getting started responsibilities and competences
Objective
To dene a leader with sufcient capacities and competences to successfully setting up a local noise action plan. To involve all relevant stakeholders and make them contribute to the implementation of the plan clear competences with the leading department are needed. The END ...

Content
The current responsibilities for noise abatement within the local authorities will be considered and it will be assessed whether these institutional settings are well tted for the complex task of noise action planning. It might be advisable to attribute the leadership to another department or even to create a new organisation. The organisational settings for steering and carrying out the work to be done will be decided. The nancial situation will be claried. A work plan will be set up. If support from external experts is needed, it will be determined in this stage.

These pages give an overview on the steps of action planning and the noise abatement measures and are especially interesting for DECISION MAKERS and TRANSPORT PLANNERS.

Requirements of the END and any other national or regional legislation regarding noise abatement should be considered from the very beginning!

To keep in mind
For many departments, noise action planning will be an additional task. It is necessary to convince them of the benets and the synergies with other policy elds and to include persons in the steering and working group that are willing and able to promote the issue within their departments. Even though it is advisable to limit the time period for setting up the action plan to a manageable period, it is not meaningful to rush through this rst step. A good preparation and establishment of the institutional framework is the basis for a successful process.

Questions to consider
Who is responsible for noise abatement today? Various departments might be responsible for different aspects of noise abatement. Which department has the capacity (due to responsibilities, human resources) to lead the process? In order to ensure the strong involvement of the relevant departments in the process, it is advisable to set up a (high level) steering group as well as working group at working level. Who should participate in these groups? Will external expertise be needed? For which tasks? What nancial resources are allocated to noise abatement today? Are there any additional funding opportunities at regional or national level? When should the action plan be ready? What is a realistic timetable for setting up the plan?

Information needed
Departments that deal with any kind of noise aspects Financial resources allocated to noise abatement in the different departments

Silence | page 15

These parts give detailed explanation concerning the action planning process and the noise abatement measures for those being in charge of noise action planning, mainly TRANSPORT PLANNERS.
The percentage of highly annoyed persons caused by road and rail trafc noise
Source: European Communities, 2002, p. 6

Why consult the public?

The END requires public consultation to accompany the process of noise action planning. However, it may be worth looking at the benets of involving the public rather than considering public consultation simply as statutory exercise. Noise exposure can be quantitatively described by average values like L den or L night. However, citizens noise perception and annoyance might be more related to the characteristics of noise. For example, road and rail trafc noise with their different patterns of noise occurrence and their different types of sounds leads to distinct annoyance at the same sound pressure level. 37% of the people exposed to road trafc noise at a level of 75 db(A) L den are highly annoyed compared to about 23% when exposed to rail trafc noise of the same L den value. The difference can be explained by the fact that road trafc noise is more continuous in time than rail trafc noise. Furthermore, subjective factors like age, socialeconomic background and attitude towards

The graph shows the percentage of highly annoyed persons (%HA) as a function of the noise exposure of the dwelling for road and rail trafc noise. The solid lines are the estimated curves, and the dashed lines are the polynomial approximations. The gure also shows the 95% condence intervals (dotted lines).

different means of transport inuence the level of annoyance. A study carried out within the SILENCE sub-project A Noise perception and annoyance shows that annoyance by road trafc noise increases with age and noise sensitivity.

This means that quantitative noise mapping is only part of the exercise.
When it comes to dening and detecting noise hot spots, quantitative calculations or measurements do not necessarily come up with the problem areas where intervention is the most important to the citizens. To survey the citizens perception and annoyance and to ask them about the areas and the type of noise they prioritise for intervention is

Silence | page 30

design has been improved in order to protect pedestrians and passengers in case of an accident. Inside the vehicle, rounded shapes reduce the severity of injuries in case of an accident. Outside covers protect pedestrians from getting beneath the vehicle.

Estimated source contributions to the wayside noise (with skirts) Source Wheel-rail Traction motor & gear HVACs Converters SPL at 7.5m/1.2m SPL at 7.5m/1.2m (v=40 km/h) (v=60 km/h) 75 dB(A) 67 dB(A) < 55 dB(A) < 60 dB(A) 80 dB(A) 76 dB(A) < 55 dB(A) < 60 dB(A)

Problems
As the renewal of the eet normally is not being done on the short run, the overall noise reducing effect will only become effective after several years. However, the new trams could be concentrated on those tram lines with the highest noise problems. At low speeds, for example in pedestrian areas, the rolling noise is very low. Other noise sources like ventilation and converters are much less noisy for modern trams than for the older rolling stock. This might cause problems for blind people (and others relying on the sense of hearing) recognising the approaching vehicle. The text is based on ndings from SILENCE subproject E Rail Vehicle.

Further developments
Provided that wheels and rails are kept smooth, the self-ventilated traction motor will dominate the noise emission for the higher speeds. In the SILENCE project, research was carried out on how to reduce the noise emission of fans. Efforts were focused on optimising the shape of the blades, improving the inlet and outlet ow, and closing the gap between blades and stator. On a classical fan, a noise reduction of around 8 dB(A) can be reached.

These sections contain more detailed technical information and are particularly addressed to TRANSPORT ENGINEERS.

Technical details
The German association VDV has issued recommendations for noise limits for mass transit vehicles (VDV 154) (see table). These recommendations are de facto standard for tram contracts in Germany and are increasingly used also in other European countries. Recommendations for exterior noise limit values issued by VDV Standstill (1.2 m/ 3.5 m mic height) Passby (60 km/h) Starting 60/63 dB 79 dB 75 dB

Exterior microphone distance 7.5m; LpAeq for all cases except starting (LpAmax) With low-oor trams, the equipment is placed on the roof. For the example of the T3000 tram, this includes two ventilation and air conditioning units separate ones for the drivers cab and the passenger compartment. Also the converter for traction motors and auxiliary equipment are positioned on the roof. Noise sources in the bogie are wheel-rail, traction motor and gear.

Silence | page 88

The SILENCE project

This practitioner handbook was written in the framework of the SILENCE project on Quieter Surface Transport in Urban Areas. SILENCE is an integrated research project, co-funded for 3 years by the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Commission. The SILENCE project provides relevant and world leading methodologies and technologies for the efcient control of noise caused by urban road and rail transport, innovative strategies for actions plans on urban transport noise abatement and practical tools

for their implementation. SILENCE includes research in the elds of road surfaces, tyres, and road vehicles, rail infrastructure and rail vehicles, as well as road trafc ow. SILENCE involved the right mix of European expertise to develop appropriate solutions. The project gathered city authorities, public transport operators, research and engineering institutes, European associations, vehicle manufacturers, equipment, systems and technology suppliers, and specialised SMEs. It was co-ordinated by AVL List GmbH (Austria).

Foreword
Urban life generates sound, often perceived as unwanted sound as noise. Noise conicts have always been part of urban life. They arise from the population density and the close vicinity of housing, industrial sites, trafc routes, etc. that form our cities. Today, much is known about the negative impacts of noise, in particular the related health problems have been widely discussed. This has led to the European Directive on Environmental Noise (END) that obliges Member States to develop noise maps and noise action plans for agglomerations with more than 250,000 inhabitants. The directive focuses on noise exposure of citizens, thus supplementing the European policy related to the control of noise emissions. Part 1 presents the noise problem and the obligations related to noise action planning. Part 2 introduces the main objectives, benets and characteristics of noise action planning. Part 3 suggests a step-by-step approach to the process of action planning. Such an approach however, does not imply that one step is to be taken strictly after the other. Several steps are closely interlinked and might need to be addressed in parallel. However, with respect to local experience and local particularities, cities will nd their own way to successfully development of a local noise action plan. Part 4 presents long-term strategies to avoid and abate noise. Part 5 presents a range of concrete noise abatement measures. Part 6 is the annex with the list of sources and examples for the soundscape approach.

The European Directive on Environmental Noise is referred to as END in this handbook. The Directive can be found on the CD-Rom attached.

The handbook is targeted to the three main groups concerned with noise issues at local level: Local decision makers Transport planners and urban planners Transport Engineers

Decision makers will nd basic information about This handbook focuses on the second step of the END, i.e. the noise action plans. Only a short overview is given on noise mapping, for which other relevant literature is available. In most EU Member States, local authorities are responsible for drawing up the noise action plans. Many cities already have experience in this eld, as even prior to the END, national legislation in many countries obliged them to take action. However, requirements might have changed due to the European directive and local authorities need to learn about their changed obligations. For other cities, noise action planning might be a completely new task. This handbook aims to support local authorities in the process of setting up action plans. It is divided into 6 parts. the requirements of noise action plans, the approach towards the action planning process and possible noise abatement measures. For planners, more detailed information is provided on how to organise the planning process, on advantages and problems of abatement measures and their links to other policy elds, as well as on long-term strategies to mitigate noise. Finally, engineers will nd comprehensive technical information about the presented measures, and references to relevant technical SILENCE reports containing in-depth information. The reports are compiled on the CD-Rom attached to this handbook.

Silence | page 1

Table of content
Part 1: Introduction
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

4 5 6 8

Why noise matters The noise problem in European cities

.......................................................................................................................................................................

Obligation to act European Directive on Environmental Noise Noise mapping

..........................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Part 2: Overview of noise action planning Main objectives and benets Basic characteristics

10 11 11 12 13

Action planning step by step

Noise abatement measures short overview

Part 3: Action planning step by step

14 15 19 23 29 35 43 51 53 55

Step 1: Getting started responsibilities and competences

...................................................................................................................................................................

Step 2: Review of current limit values, competences, (legal) measures, and existing conicts Step 3: Involving stakeholders Step 4: Consulting the public

........................................

Step 5: Detecting and analysing hot spots

Step 6: Identifying noise abatement measures and long-term strategies Step 7: Drafting the plan

.....................................................................................................................

Step 8: Adopting, monitoring, and reporting Step 9: Review and revision

Part 4: Long-term strategies to avoid and abate noise Public awareness raising

................................................................................................................................................................

56 57 60 66 67 68 69

Land use planning and building design Taking advantage of changes

Promoting less noisy transport modes modal shift Inuencing driver behaviour Complaint management

.............................................................................................................................................................................................

Silence Silence | page 2 n

Part 5: Tackling noise

70 71 76 80 82 84 86 87 89 91 92 93 95 99

Low-noise road surfaces

Road surface maintenance

Low-noise tracks for trams Railway and tram depots

Noise screens and tunnels Building insulation Low-noise trams

Renewal of public transport eet

Low-noise waste collection vehicles Check on noisy vehicles

Low-noise night time delivery

Trafc management: Basic trafc noise relations Reducing and enforcing speed limits Humps and cushions Chicanes

102 103 104 105 107 108 110

Redesign of street space Junction design

Calming green waves

Reducing trafc volume Bans on trucks

Part 6: Annex Sources

112 113 116 122

Soundscape Approach Example from Barcelona Questionnaire to survey citizens perception

.................................................................................................................................................................................................

Silence | page 3

Part 1: Introduction

Why noise matters is the main question in the introduction. It refers to health effects and costs of noise and explains the obligations deriving from the European Directive on Environmental Noise. Noise action planning is presented as an essential piece in the puzzle of the various planning processes at urban level and a rough overview on noise mapping is given.

Silence | page 4

Why noise matters The noise problem in European cities

All citizens are at some point affected by noise, which can have a considerable impact on peoples quality of life. As stated in WHOs Guidelines for Community Noise (Berglund et al 1999, p. iii), about half of the EU citizens (EU 15) are estimated to live in areas which do not ensure acoustical comfort for residents: 40% of the population is exposed to road trafc noise with an equivalent sound pressure level exceeding 55 dB(A) during daytime, and 20% to levels exceeding 65 dB(A). At night, more than 30% are exposed to sound levels that disturb sleep (exceeding 55 dB(A)). Even though the question of causality between exposure to noise and health risks has not yet been answered, existing studies show that noise exposure increases the risk for high blood pressure and heart attacks. There is evidence that noise pressure levels exceeding 50 db(A) during night time are related to the development of high blood pressure. Road trafc noise exceeding 65 db(A) during day time increases the risk for heart attacks in men with 20% (Babisch, 2004: p. 51). It has been calculated for Germany that approximately 3% of myocardial infarctions are due to road trafc noise. This accounts for around 4,300 cases a year, of which about 2,800 end fatally (Babisch, 2006: p. 59f.).

Furthermore, noise diminishes the quality of life in a more general perspective. It interferes with communication, on the road, in the garden and even inside the dwelling. Many people react and leave cities as a result. Surveys show that (environmental) noise is a relevant reason for people moving out of the cities into the suburban area (e.g. for every third household moving out of Cologne, noise and air pollution in the city was a crucial reason; Stadt Kln, 2003, p. 28). Besides creating even more (road) trafc and noise, shrinking is also a risk for the citys revenues as in many countries the tax share is directly or indirectly linked to the number of inhabitants. More and more cities across Europe are aware that noise requires a dedicated and long-term abatement strategy of its own, and cannot just be tackled indirectly through other policies. Noise abatement requires a local and tailor-made approach to reduce noise along existing roads and for existing dwellings. However, there are many synergies between measures abating noise and other sustainable urban transport and development measures. Furthermore, many measures to abate noise also improve air quality; synergies with the clean air programme are considerable. Over recent years, acoustic pollution has become a common problem for urban centres and its treatment one of the new challenges in environmental policy. As Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, puts it in his Ambient Noise Strategy (Greater London Authority 2004, p. 1):

Summarising these ndings: noise kills - not directly, but causes premature death.

Our soundscape needs as much care as the townscape or landscape.

When discussing costs of the development and particularly the implementation of noise action plans, it should be considered that noise itself generates costs. Those costs are for example related to health (medical treatments) and to decreasing house prices and rental income. The social costs of road trafc noise in the EU22 is estimated to be in the range of 30 to 46 billion euro per year, which is approximately 0.4% of the
Photo: PORTAL project

GDP in the EU22 (CE Delft, 2007, p. 21). With this

Silence | page 5

has for example calculated that for every decibel of noise reduction at-source, 100 million EUR for end-of-pipe measures (such as noise barriers and building insulation) will be saved (CE Delft, 2007, p. 23f., based on IPG 2007).

Obligation to act European Directive on Environmental Noise

In 2002, Directive 2002/49 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise was adopted by the European Parliament and Council. This Directive will guide and steer activities on noise in Member States and large conurbations in the coming years. The directive describes environmental noise as unwanted or harmful outdoor sound created by human activities, including noise emitted by means of transport, road trafc, rail trafc, air trafc, and from sites of industrial activity (Directive 2002/49/EC, article 3). Ambient or environmental noise covers long-term noise, from in mind, it is clear that noise abatement will not only result in social and health benets, but in economic benets as well. A Dutch study calculated the benets of noise abatement measures for the Netherlands, using the reduction in market value of dwellings and building land in urban areas as a result of noise from road and rail trafc noise, to be nearly 10.8 billion EUR (Jabben, Potma, Lutter, 2007, p. 14). Other studies conducted in different European countries suggest a reduction of 20 EUR per person and year based on a monthly average rent of 350 EUR for each db(A) that exceeds the level of 50 db(A). Depending on the tax system, this might result in a decrease of tax revenues for the local authorities as well (Bund/Lnderarbeits-gemeinschaft fr Immissionsschutz, 2007, p. 12). These numbers clearly show that even high costs for noise abatement measures are often justied by high benets through noise mitigation. This is especially true for noise abatement at the source. The Dutch governments Noise Innovation Programme (IPG) transport and industry sources, as distinct from noise caused by neighbours, construction sites, pubs, etc. Main aim of the Directive is to provide a common basis for tackling the noise problem across the EU, focusing on four underlying principles (cp. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/ directive.htm): Monitoring the environmental problem: competent authorities in Member States are required to make strategic noise maps for major roads, railways, airports and agglomerations, using harmonised noise indicators Lden (day-evening-night equivalent level) and Lnight (night equivalent level). These maps will be used to assess the number of people throughout Europe that suffer from annoyance and sleep disturbance caused by noise. Informing and consulting the public: the public needs to be informed and consulted on exposure to noise and its effects, as well as the measures considered to address noise, in line with the principles of the Aarhus Convention.

Silence | page 6

Addressing local noise issues: based on the noise mapping results, competent authorities are required to develop action plans to reduce noise where necessary and maintain environmental noise quality where it is good. The directive does not set any limit values, nor does it prescribe the measures to be used in the action plans. Developing a long-term EU strategy: including objectives to reduce the number of people affected by noise on the longer term and providing a framework for developing existing Community policy on noise reduction from source.

By June 2007 Member States were to ensure that strategic noise maps had been made for all agglomerations with more than 250 000 inhabitants and for all major roads which have more than six million vehicle passages a year, major railways which have more than 60 000 train passages per year and major airports within their territories. (Directive 2002/49/EC, article 7)

The END ... indicates the minimum requirements that the action plans should full: An action plan must at least include the following elements: a description of the agglomeration, the major roads, the major railways or major airports and other noise sources taken into account, the authority responsible, the legal context,

By July 2008 competent authorities should draw up actions plans designed to manage, within their territories, noise issues and effects, including noise reduction if necessary for agglomerations and places near major roads, railways and airports as described above.
These plans shall also aim at protecting quiet areas against an increase in noise. The measures within the plans are at the discretion of the competent authorities. They should particularly address the priorities identied in the strategic noise maps. As a second step, noise maps and action plans are also to be drawn up for smaller agglomerations with more than 100,000 inhabitants. Maps have to be ready by 2012, action plans by 2013.

any limit values in place in accordance with Article 5, a summary of the results of the noise mapping, an evaluation of the estimated number of people exposed to noise, identication of problems and situations that need to be improved, a record of the public consultations organised in accordance with Article 8(7), any noise-reduction measures already in force and any projects in preparation, actions which the competent authorities intend to take in the next ve years, including any measures to preserve quiet areas, long-term strategy, nancial information (if available): budgets, costeffectiveness assessment, cost-benet-assessment, provisions envisaged for evaluating the implementation and the results of the action plan. (Directive 2002/49/EC, Annex V)

Silence | page 7

Integrating different planning processes and different objectives for urban development is a complex task, and conicts between those cannot always be solved. Objectives such as the revitalisation of inner city browneld development sites close to main roads for housing, or focusing growth on the city centre are likely to generate new noise conicts. Considering the noise issue at an early stage however, gives the opportunity to nd better solutions to reduce the noise level than simply adding a noise screen at the last minute.
Noise abatement planning as part of urban planning processes (SMILE, n.d., p. 14)
SMILE, n.d., p. 14

Making noise an important aspect of urban development and balancing the different objectives of urban development remains a challenge. Local noise action plans can be a support tool to stipulate

Integrating noise abatement planning into urban planning processes

Noise - as unwanted sound - arises from the close vicinity of different land uses, housing, market places, industrial sites, trafc routes, etc. Urban development and the development of noise levels are closely linked. Thus, land use planning and urban development planning can signicantly contribute to increasing or decreasing the noise exposure of residents. However, today noise abatement planning is very often down on the planning hierarchy and is only done when general decisions on the future development have already been taken. Thus, noise abatement planning is degenerated to the management of decits (Lrmkontor, BPW, konsalt, 2004, p. 14).

the noise reduction targets and to feed them into local planning processes.

Noise mapping
The strategy put forward by the European Directive on Environmental noise is that the rst step towards controlling ambient noise, consists of collecting detailed information on the number of residents exposed to various noise levels and providing these data in the form of noise maps. The Noise Directive describes noise mapping as the presentation of data on an existing or predicted noise situation in terms of a noise indicator, indicating breaches of any relevant limit value in force, the number of people affected in a certain area, or the number of dwellings exposed to certain values of a noise indicator in a certain area (Directive 2002/49/CE, p.3). A noise map allows to visually present data related to the following aspects: the noise environment according to certain noise indicators; the exceeding of limit values; the estimation of the number of dwellings, schools and hospitals in certain areas that are exposed to certain noise levels; the estimated number of people exposed to certain noise levels in an area.

Avoiding the generation of noise as the most effective way of noise abatement means inuencing urban development in an early stage.
Considering the noise issue and avoiding noise conicts should therefore be an integral part of land use planning, development plans, trafc or mobility plans, etc.

Silence | page 8

Noise maps thus identify and certify the scale of noise problems on a local level and inform planners where limits are exceeded and people affected. This is the basis for the development of local noise action plans. Evaluating the areas where noise limits are exceeded taking into account the number of people affected, allows for setting priorities and developing a hierarchy of noise abatement measures. Noise maps are a tool to set realistic targets for noise reduction and for a more effective use of planning controls to reduce noise from new noise sources, to protect new noise sensitive developments from existing noise sources and to identify, protect and create quiet areas. The maps can also be used as a tool to provide information to the public, politicians and noise professionals on noise problems in a city and the location of these problems. The timeframe foreseen by the Directive is 2007 for the production of the noise maps and 2008 for the rst noise action plans.
Senator fr Bau, Umwelt und Verkehr Referat Immissionsschutz Ansgaritorstr. 2 28195 Bremen

Legende
Gebietsgrenze Gebude Wasser/Flsse

Beurteilungspegel
<= 55 dB(A) > 55 - 60 dB(A) > 60 - 65 dB(A) > 65 - 70 dB(A) > 70 - 75 dB(A) > 75 dB(A)

LRMKONTOR GmbH Altonaer Poststrae 13 b 22767 Hamburg Tel.: 040 - 38 99 94.0 Fax: 040 - 38 99 94.44 mail: [email protected] http://www.laermkontor.de Projekt:

Lrmkartierung Bremerhaven; Ausarbeitung strategischer Lrmkarten

Planinhalt:

Anlage 4a: Strategische Lrmkarte Straenverkehr/ Schallimmissionsplan Lden 2005 (Mittelungspegel des Tages-, Abend- und Nachtzeitraums)
Mastab: 2005.089 1:50.000 12.06.2007 Bearbeiter: Hr. Bachmeier
V6 277 ver oP20 R25/200

Noise map for the City of Bremerhaven, Germany (Noise exposure from road trafc in Lden)
Source: Senator fr Bau, Umwelt und Verkehr, 2007.

Noise mapping
is not in the focus of this report. A helpful guidebook on how to develop noise maps has been provided by the European Commission and can be found on the EC-website: Good Practice Guide for Strategic Noise Mapping and the Production of Associated Data on Noise Exposure (WG-AEN, 2006; http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/pdf/ wg_aen.pdf).

Silence | page 9

Part 2: Overview of noise action planning

Local noise action plans include the process of action planning as well as the plan itself as a (legal) instrument. This part gives an overview of the objectives and benets, as well as the basic characteristics of both the plan and the planning process followed by a rough presentation of the main steps of action planning and a short summary of the general means of noise abatement.

Silence | page 10

Main objectives and benets

Local noise action plans aim to avoid and abate noise, thus improving the noise situation in areas where the noise exposure of residents is considered too high and protecting relatively quite areas as recreational zones in urban or rural environments. As such, noise action plans aim to: protect the health and well-being of citydwellers; improve quality of life and in particular quality of housing in urban areas, thereby supporting objectives to avoid further migration to the suburbs with all negative consequences for the centres of agglomerations, and along with this; increase the attractiveness of the area also for businesses and tourists.

Basic characteristics
The action plan sets noise reduction targets and describes the measures to achieve these; it sets priorities and schedules the implementation of measures over a short, medium and long term period. The plan names the responsible agencies, the expected costs of the measures and nancial means to be used for implementation. It species the expected noise reduction potential of all measures and determines responsibilities and timeframes for monitoring and evaluating the results. The action plan includes maps and descriptions of the noise problems, as well as detailed descriptions of the chosen measures visualised with maps or sketches where useful. In order to produce documents that are also easily accessible to non-experts, it might be advisable to produce maps on two levels: one overview map showing the noise hot spots and the noise reduction targets for the whole area and more detailed maps showing the abatement measures for the individual noise hot spots. The noise action planning process ideally follows some basic principles. It is a: participatory approach: it involves the public in the (qualitative) assessment of the noise situation, the discussion and selection of adequate abatement measures as well as the evaluation of their results and readjustment if necessary;

Noise action plans help to structure and prioritise noise abatement measures through clear stocktaking and assessment of the noise situation and resulting conicts, transparent prioritising of measures, as well as involving stakeholders and the public.
To formalise noise abatement measures in an action plan facilitates the coordination with other objectives, strategies, and instruments of urban development such as land use planning, protection of air quality, promotion of eco-friendly modes of transport, revitalisation of city centres, etc.

Ideally, setting up a local action plan is a wellstructured and open process that aims to: subject the results of noise mapping to a quantitative and qualitative assessment which results in the detection of noise hot spots and the setting of priorities for intervention; involve all relevant departments of local authorities, other relevant stakeholders and the local public in this assessment process; link the action planning process to other local strategies and plans; develop solutions for the noise problems in cooperation with local authorities, stakeholders, and the public; implement the chosen measures with support of all the actors involved.

Silence | page 11

cooperative approach: it involves all relevant stakeholders in assessing the situation, drawing up solutions and implementing measures; open approach: it actively links noise abatement to other objectives and instruments like clean air programmes, land use planning or mobility plans; measurable approach: it sets quantied noise reduction targets, species the expected reduction to be achieved by the implemented measures, and monitors the results.

Another basic characteristic of local noise action plans are its limits.
Local noise action plans can only abate noise in the legal and organisational framework set by European, national and regional regulations. Financial resources are needed for the implementation of most measures, which makes that necessary measures usually only can be implemented over a longer period. Thus, improvement of the noise situation will only appear gradually. Other limits are the limited competences of local authorities. For example, railway tracks and highways normally are not within their eld of competence. Therefore, noise mitigation measures will also have to be taken by the railway and highway authorities. To get them involved in local noise action planning often is a challenge.

Even though the END stipulates some common requirements for noise action plans, there is no common standard for action planning which ts all the cities. The concrete noise problems, local possibilities and necessities, as well as existing institutional settings will guide the development of the action plan. Furthermore, cities usually have experience in involving stakeholders and the public in other policy elds (e.g. urban renewal, urban development plans). Participation and cooperation within the action planning process will make use of these practiced procedures or will consciously develop a new approach.

Action planning step by step

The following gure gives a rough overview of the typical steps of local noise action planning. It does not imply that all steps need to be taken one after the other. In fact, the process is much more complex. It can be necessary to do several steps in parallel or to go back to a step that was assumed to be nished.

Getting started: responsibilities and competences Review of limit values, legal framework, and noise situation Consulting the public Involving stakeholders Hot spots Detecting and analysing hot spots Identifying abatement measures and long-term strategies Drafting the plan Draft and adopt the plan Adopting, monitoring, and reporting Monitoring and reporting Review and revision Review and revision
Action planning step by step

Silence | page 12

Noise abatement measures short overview

Different categories of measures with a clear hierarchy can be distinguished for the management and reduction of noise emission and exposure (CALM Network 2002, p. 17): Measures to avoid and reduce noise at its source: noise which is not generated does not lead to noise exposure, e.g. low-noise road surfaces road trafc management trafc calming low-noise tyres low-noise vehicles driver behaviour

Measures to reduce the propagation of noise: as close to the source as possible to protect the highest number of people, e.g. land use planning and management noise screening buildings as noise barriers tunnels vegetation as noise shield (mainly impacting on annoyance levels, rather than having a physical noise reduction effect)

Measures to reduce noise at the receiver: only to be used if the other measures are ineffective, e.g. sound insulation building design

The rst category of measures, reduction at the source, clearly is the most effective and also the most cost effective one. Next to technical measures, more socioeconomically oriented measures can be introduced as well, e.g. noise taxes and charges, economic incentives for quiet vehicles, reducing the need for transport, awareness raising, etc. However, not all of these measures are within the competence of local authorities.

Silence | page 13

Part 3: Action planning step by step

This part suggests a step-by-step approach to setting up local noise action plans. The description of each step starts with an overview page informing about the objective and content of the step and presenting a number of questions to consider in the process. Requirements of the END are mentioned where necessary. This is followed by more comprehensive information. The presentation of a step by step approach does indeed not mean that one step is to be taken after the other. Several steps are closely connected and might need to be addressed at the same time. This is a suggestion for a typical planning process and will not necessarily t all the cities. With respect to local experience and local particularities the cities will nd their own way how to successfully develop a local noise action plan.

Silence | page 14

Requirements of the END and any other national or regional legislation regarding noise abatement should be considered from the very beginning!

Information needed
Departments that deal with any kind of noise aspects Financial resources allocated to noise abatement in the different departments

Silence | page 15

Who takes the lead?

Today, abatement of (road) trafc noise and other environmental noise at municipal level is often spread among town and trafc planners, road administrations, environmental authorities, building authorities, and perhaps several other authorities. This is often a barrier to an effective effort and might even result in a lack of appropriate action because no one really feels responsible. For an effective development of noise action plans at local level, it has to be claried which department of the citys administration shall take the lead.

Commitment to noise abatement through local government decision

It is obvious that besides the leading department other departments could and should contribute to developing the plan, such as the land use department or the health department. As cooperation might be difcult, with all departments having full agendas and noise having a different level of priority, it is advisable to have a formal decision from the local government on the development process and the contribution of the different departments. In the same way, it is essential to approve the developed action plan on the political level to raise the noise problem on the political agenda and to enforce the implementation of the chosen measures.

Which department offers the best conditions for setting up the plan as well as for implementing it?
Usually, the environmental department is in charge of noise issues. So it would seem logical to make them responsible for the noise action plan as well. Many noise abatement measures however are closely linked to trafc management or trafc calming. Giving the transport department the leading role for the process could therefore facilitate the implementation of the action plan. Sometimes even a shared leadership between two departments could be the best solution to ensure adequate engagement.

Silence | page 16

Example: Bruitparif Ile-de-France

Bruitparif is the noise observatory for Ile-deFrance, the Paris region. It was created in October 2004 at the initiative of the Regional Council, in order to gather the numerous noise actors in Ile-de-France, to centralise all the data available and to inform the public. It became fully operational in 2005. In France, the transposition of the European Noise Directive is very complex. The State is in charge of the infrastructure maps, while the local authorities are responsible for the agglomeration maps. The Paris agglomeration represents 396 towns. Since some of them are grouped into cooperation structures 238 entities are in charge of the map. The role of Bruitparif is to help the various entities by giving them information on the Directive, providing technical assistance on map specications and conducting noise measurements to validate the maps. In the future, Bruitparif will help to consolidate a global map for the Paris agglomeration and prepare guidelines for the action plans. Bruitparif has also started to implement a long-term monitoring network, RUMEUR, in order to provide noise data in real time. The main objectives are to better understand noise inuence factors, to provide indicators to local authorities for decision support and to give people easy-to-understand information. Bruitparif has 7 employees. Its budget for 2008 is 800,000 EUR.

Responsible agencies and cooperation partners Bruitparif is a non-prot association whose board is made up of representatives from the various entities involved in noise management: the State, the Regional Council, the 8 departments of Ile-de-France, the economic activities that generate noise (mainly means of transportation), acousticians and environmental protection associations. Why is it regarded as good example? The French transposition of the Directive made it necessary to have an entity in charge of coordinating all the actors involved in the noise maps. Bruitparif is also useful to provide objective noise measurements and to contribute to the improvement of noise indicators, mainly regarding multi-exposure contexts. Consumer groups, environmental protection associations and the general public appreciate being able to access free independent noise data. Tips for copying It is important that all the noise actors are involved in the structure so that effective actions can be taken. For more details contact Mlaine Bossat at [email protected]; http:// www.bruitparif.fr (website in French)

Could a new organisation support the process?

In urban agglomerations where several municipalities are in charge of developing action plans for their area, it might be wise to set up a special body to coordinate the process as competences may be split over different levels of authorities and institutions with different targets. Bruitparif for the Paris agglomeration is a good example for this.

Managing the project

Within the responsible authority, one person (or small team) should manage the action planning process. The project management task includes setting up a work plan and coordinating its implementation. The work plan should indicate: the main steps of the process; which stakeholders to involve and at which stage of the process; the organisational structure (e.g. working groups on distinct topics, steering group); the structure of public consultation; the schedule for the action planning process.

Furthermore, identifying the potential need for external consultancy (e.g. on technical issues, moderation of public consultation events) is also part of the project management task.

Silence | page 17

other departments concerned and their possibilities to contribute to funding; potential funding schemes to apply for at regional or national level (e.g. funding for measures of transport planning, funding for purchase of new public transport vehicles, funding for urban renewal); the polluter pays principle; possibilities to charge (motorised) road users for the generated noise should be investigated; the revenues can be used to nance noise abatement measures (cp. WG 5, 2002, p. 34); noise abatement measures are often also in the economic interest of people as reduced noise exposure may lead to increased property values; joint public-private nancial schemes for noise abatement could be constructed, e.g. the additional costs for low noise pavements compared to traditional road surfaces could be passed to the building owners (Ellebjerg Larsen, Bendtsen, 2006, p. 4ff.); scheduled maintenance or renewal measures for streets which can be combined with noise abatement measures.

Financial resources
Developing a local noise action plan, and in particular implementing the chosen measures, requires funding. On all levels, national, regional and local, there will probably be (political) barriers to the allocation of additional funding for noise abatement. However, in most cities nancial resources are already allocated to noise abatement measures or to other measures in transport planning that reduce noise or can be (re)designed to do so as well. Not all measures necessarily involve extra costs (e.g. choosing low-noise solutions when trafc calming devices like humps and cushions are to be implemented).

When discussing costs of the development and particularly the implementation of noise action plans,

The key idea with regard to small budgets everywhere is to optimise the use of existing resources by using synergies between different measures and strategies (such as noise abatement and clean air programmes).
Of course, additional funding will still be necessary. Setting up a solid local action plan might need specialised staff either within the local authorities or subcontracted, as well as appropriate technical tools (e.g. for modelling of noise reduction potential of selected measures). With respect to funding, the responsible authority should consider the following when preparing for the development of the noise abatement plan: the budget currently (directly or indirectly) allocated to noise abatement policies;

it should be considered that noise itself generates costs.

Those costs are for example related to health (medical treatments) and to decreasing house prices, respectively rent levels. Studies conducted in different European countries suggest a reduction of 20 EUR per person and year based on a monthly average rent of 350 EUR for each db(A) that exceeds the level of 50 db(A). Depending on the tax system this might result in a decrease of tax revenues for the local authorities as well (Bund/Lnderarbeitsgemeinschaft fr Immissionsschutz, 2007, p. 12). To turn it around, abating noise results in nancial benets which need to be taken into account when discussing the costs of noise abatement measures. Calculating these benets however is a complex task.

Silence | page 18

Step 2:
Review of current limit values, competences, (legal) measures, and existing conicts
Objective
To take stock of the current context of the noise issue as a basis for any further action planning.

Content
The stocktaking refers to existing noise limit values at regional or national level and noise indicators in use that might be relevant in addition to those stipulated in the END. The availability of relevant data in addition to the noise maps will be reviewed, for example additional noise measurements in certain areas. Noise abatement measures currently in place will be mapped as well as already identied and so far unsolved noise conicts (including those aspects that hindered solving the problems so far) and conicts between different target groups about the preferred abatement solution. Besides these direct noise related issues, it will be considered which other instruments and policies at the local level could have a positive or negative impact on the noise situation and it will be considered how noise action planning can be linked to other plans and planning processes. The END ... requires that the action plans include information on any noise reduction measures already in force and any projects in preparation.

Questions to consider
Which limit values are set by the regional or national level? If no values are xed legally, is it recommended to refer to other values (like those suggested by the WHO)? In addition to the noise map as required by the END, are there any other data available on the current noise situation? Which noise abatement measures are currently used? Are there certain areas in the city where noise conicts are known but unsolved (e.g. along urban motorways)? Conicts between different target groups like residents and shop owners that argue about the delivery with HGV? Which stakeholders are relevant? Which other plans or policies in place, under preparation or planned, impact on the noise situation? How can these be linked?

Information needed
Limit values in place Noise data in addition to noise map Noise conicts

Silence | page 19

Local authorities do not start from scratch

EU Member States are obliged to transpose the END into national legislation. Thus, before developing any new policy or action plan on noise to comply with the END, it is important to identify the (national) legal framework regarding local and regional competences, limit values and consequences when these are exceeded. Local authorities do not start from scratch when responding to the END requirements. A range of noise abatement measures already in place and often a long history of discussing noise problems at local or neighbourhood level should be taken into account when preparing a local noise action plan.

Noise indicators and limit values

The END does not set any limit values, but leaves it to the Member States to dene criteria for the identication of priorities to be addressed by noise action plans. The END describes limit values as a value of L den or L night, and where appropriate L day and L evening as determined by the Member State, the exceeding of which causes competent authorities to consider or enforce mitigation measures. Limit values may be different for different types of noise (road, rail, air trafc noise, industrial noise, etc.), different surroundings and different noise sensitiveness of the populations; they may also be different for existing situations and for new situations (where there is a change in the situation regarding the noise source or the use of the surrounding) (Directive 2002/49/CE, Article 3 (s)). This means that authorities responsible for noise action planning have to identify any limit values set by national regulation, in complying with the END or having been in place already before.

Silence | page 20

Available information on noise situation

The noise maps as required by the END are supposed to be the basis for the local noise action plans. However, in many cities additional data on the local noise situation will be available. This might include noise measurements from certain areas (in addition to calculations of noise for noise mapping), information on noise perception collected through surveys or processing of citizens complaints, etc. When preparing for noise action planning, all these data sources should be compiled and checked for relevant information. Thus, it might also become clear that relevant information is missing.

The END ... stipulates two different noise indicators to be used for the statutory noise maps, L den (L day-evening-night) and L night. L den is the long-term average sound level during the day, evening and night periods of a year, whereas L night covers only the night periods. The END indicates that the day is 12 hours, the evening is 4 hours and the night is 8 hours. The start of the day, evening and night period is to be determined by the Member States. However, the default values chosen by the European Commission are 07.00 to 19.00 for the day, 19.00 to 23.00 for the evening and 23.00 to 07.00 for the night. The values for L den and
Lnight

can

Surface Transport Noise Strategy for Bristol

This report prepared in the framework of SILENCE by Tim Clarke from Bristol City Council is a good example for stocktaking the legal framework for noise action planning, existing information on the noise situation, (legal) noise abatement measures in place, etc. The paper can be found on the enclosed CD-Rom.

be determined either by computation or by measurement. In some cases, supplementary noise indicators can be used, such as L day or L evening. Among commonly used noise indicators, the END mentions that L Amax (maximum sound level) or SEL (sound exposure level) can also be used for night period protection in case of noise peaks. For further details regarding the noise indicators, see annex I of the directive (Directive 2002/49/EC).

Silence | page 21

Existing abatement measures

In most cities, noise abatement measures have been put in place already before the END. Taking stock of these existing measures is an integral part of noise action planning. Relevant measures include those particularly designed for noise abatement, but also measures with positive effects on noise mitigation implemented in the frame of other policies (such as trafc calming, abating air pollution). However, this exercise will only focus on the priority areas identied for interventions and not on the complete area to be covered by the action plan.
Noise map of Bristol
Source: Bristol City Council

Known conicts
Noise problems and potential solutions often have a long history in cities. In many cases these include established conicts in certain areas (like residential areas close to major roads), between different policies or plans (like focussing urban growth on the inner city to avoid additional trafc, as opposed to noise abatement in that area) or between different stakeholders (for example local businesses with delivery demands versus residents complaining about delivery noise during the night). These conicts will inuence further action planning and should therefore be mapped in the preparatory phase.

Silence | page 22

Step 3:
Involving stakeholders

Objective
To select the relevant stakeholders, make them aware of the noise issue, give real participation opportunities and convince them of participating in the process.

Content
Potential stakeholders will be listed, together with contribution they could/should make towards the noise action planning. A strategy on who will be invited to participate at which stage of the process will be set up. It will be decided which instruments will be used for participation, for example: The END ... requires that the public dened as natural or legal persons and in accordance with national legislation their association, organisations or groups are consulted about proposals for action plans, giving them early and effective opportunities to participate. Results of the participation need to be taken into account. The action plans shall give a record of the public consultation organised.

steering or working group; general meetings to discuss the noise conicts and potential abatement measures; small working group meetings to draft concrete measures; written input for the analysis of noise hot spots, etc.

Questions to consider
Which stakeholders within the local authorities are concerned with the noise issue and need to be involved? Which other plans and instruments of urban development, transport, air quality etc. are in place, under preparation or planned, that impact on the noise situation and who is responsible for their development? Do any stakeholders on the regional level need to be involved? At local level, which stakeholders can contribute to the development of the plan on the level of the entire territory, which for certain areas / neighbourhoods, and which for certain thematic elds (e.g. railway noise)? Is the range of stakeholders balanced or are there gaps to be lled? You always have stakeholders that are well aware of opportunities to bring in their interests and others that need to be convinced because they do not see the advantage of participating (e.g. schools might not be aware of being a relevant stakeholder unless you explain them that the noise level could be signicantly reduced by children walking to school instead of being taken by car). Do some stakeholders want to be involved from the very beginning to be able to inuence the entire process, while others want to focus only on concrete noise hot spots and/ or measures? Allow for tailormade participation. How could actions taken to involve stakeholders be recorded in an easy way as the action plan should summarise the consultation process?

Information needed
Overview of potential stakeholders and earlier experiences with involving them

Silence | page 23

Local authorities need partners

Whilst the public authorities preferably at local level are responsible for developing and implementing the noise action plan, it is obvious that they do not have the competences to implement all necessary measures. Cities can only inuence part of the noise sources; other sources are for example within the responsibility of public/ collective transport operators or local companies (deliveries). As local authorities are often not in the position to enforce third parties to introduce necessary measures, they need to invite these stakeholders to cooperate.

Anyway, cooperation proves often to be more efcient than forcing the private sector through regulations.
Cooperation is also needed within the public administration. Several departments at local, regional or even national level are concerned with noise issues or are working on closely related issues and can contribute to noise abatement. Noise action plans are associated with other plans and tools like local transport plans or urban development plans. Particularly close links exist between the issues of noise and air quality management. Monitoring and modelling both can be done in one integrated process. Munichs approach gives a good example. Cooperation even within the citys administration is not always easy. All departments have their own, full agenda. Even for the most concerned departments, i.e. transport and environment, noise does not have the same priority, which inuences their willingness to allocate resources to the development and implementation of noise action plans. As mentioned earlier, a formal

Silence | page 24

Environmental Module calculation of air pollution and noise exposure in Munich

The Environmental Module is a programme, which is used to calculate the current air pollution and the current noise exposure caused by road trafc. Purpose of this system is to determine the current status of pollution (online) and to evaluate the output of trafc scenarios (ofine). It contains various models for calculating the air pollution and the noise exposure: a model for calculating trafc-related pollutant emissions within the main road network; a model for determining the initial pollution in the streets, caused by surrounding emission sources and estimation of the regional background pollution; a model for determining pollution within the area of streets; a model for determining the noise-rating level within the area of streets. The calculation of air pollution and noise exposure is carried out online and automatically every hour, when current trafc data are available. These data are delivered by the Trafc Centre as part of the citys administration. Data from every quarter of an hour are collected in a database and aggregated to hourly values. The trafc forecast information is extrapolated to full-hour values. The installation of the Environmental Module in Munich started four years ago and it has not yet completely nished. At the beginning of the project, no other cities had experience with the implementation of such systems. Thus, a lot of development work and coordination was needed to set up the system in the Trafc Centre. The most expensive part of the application of the module is the preparation of the input data. If the data are available in a compatible format, costs will be signicantly lower. The costs for purchasing the module itself depend on which parts are included: noise and/or air pollution, only calculation of trafc emissions or taking into account the background immission as well. The minimum price for the Environmental Module will be about 20,000 Euro. Responsible agencies and cooperation partners City of Munich Department for Health and Environment City of Munich Municipal Services Department Trafc Centre Consulting engineer, specialised in air pollution and noise exposure (IVU-Umwelt GmbH) Why is it regarded as good example? The results of the noise and pollution modelling can be visualised immediately. On this basis, the Trafc Centre is able to react in time to increased pollution in the street by trafc management measures. Furthermore, the results of the calculation tool can be used to inform the public via online information on the current air pollution and noise exposure. Tips for copying Thorough preparation of the trafc data is crucial. The compatibility between the systems used for collecting and calculating trafc data and for the calculation of the noise exposure has to be ensured in the early beginning of the project. For more details contact City of Munich: [email protected]; http:// www.muenchen.de/umweltatlas IVU-Umwelt GmbH: [email protected]; http:// www.ivu-umwelt.de

Silence | page 25

decision taken by the local government on the contribution required from different departments to the plan can facilitate the cooperation. For the leading department, the involvement of this range of internal (within the local authorities) and external stakeholders is challenging and the process needs to be planned carefully. In some countries, national regulations on the selection of stakeholders and the formal procedures of involvement are in force and need to be taken into account when preparing the noise action planning process. The tables below list which stakeholders typically would need to be involved in the process of setting up and implementing local noise action plans. Information is given on how these stakeholders are concerned with noise issues and in which way they could contribute towards successful noise abatement. One table lists internal, the other external stakeholders (from the local authorities perspective).

Which stakeholders should be involved and at which stage of the process depends on the local situation and has to be decided when preparing the action planning process.
However, it is advisable to involve stakeholders at least in the dening and detecting of hot spots, dening of noise abatement measures and monitoring and reporting the mitigation measures.

Silence | page 26

Internal Stakeholders Stakeholder responsible for Transport planning / Road maintenance (civil engineering) / Urban planning Why is cooperation with these stakeholders necessary? - transport planning measures can a have positive or negative impact on noise (e.g. road safety measures like humps) - many measures to abate trafc noise at the source have an impact on trafc ows - these stakeholders are responsible for the implementation of many measures to abate trafc noise (e.g. redesign of residential roads, road surface replacement, speed limits) Air quality - synergies between air quality and noise modelling are manifold: the same software can be used, the same trafc data are needed, etc. - skills like GIS analysis and trafc data processing are likely to be present already in teams dealing with air quality - measures taken to abate noise or to improve air quality often have a positive or negative impact on the other aspect as well Health - noise has adverse effects on health (e.g. annoyance, sleep disturbance, increase of cardiovascular diseases) - health departments are often assigned to protect residents from harmful environmental emissions - sirens from ambulance vehicles are an important noise source in particular in hospital areas Land use planning - allocation of land use has an impact on trafc volumes and therefore on noise - avoiding and abating noise should be considered when setting up development plans Urban renewal - renewal of neighbourhoods often includes the redesign of residential roads, which can be used as an opportunity for noise abatement as well - to provide information on future development areas and their impact on trafc volumes and composition - to consider noise abatement targets in land use planning - to provide information on urban areas scheduled to be redesigned - to include the noise issue in public consultations on renewal activities - to consider the noise issue when redesigning (residential) roads Municipal waste management - waste collection is a noisy activity with much potential for noise reduction - waste collection often disrupts trafc which generates additional noise Communication - raising public awareness on noise requires an efcient communication strategy - the END stipulates that the public is to be informed and consulted - to make the collection eet less noisy (through change of vehicles, staff behaviour) - to develop time frames for collection that interfere less with trafc - to support the development of a consistent public consultation scheme - to develop information material (e.g. websites, brochures, posters) targeted at stakeholders, the public and local decision makers/ local government - to enforce speed limits and trafc restrictions What is expected from these stakeholders for the development and implementation of a noise action plan? - to revise transport planning strategies and measures regarding their noise impact - to assess potential noise abatement measures regarding their impact on trafc volumes, trafc ow etc. - to implement noise abatement measures

- to share software and data

- to provide support in the modelling process - to provide information on the potential impacts of noise abatement measures on air quality - to support public awareness raising regarding harmful effects of noise - standards for using sirens

Local police (in some countries not part of the local authority, but external stakeholder)

- the police are responsible for enforcing speed limits and trafc restrictions (e.g. for HGVs), being often used measures for abating noise - in some cities an approval from the police is required for the implementation of trafc ow regulation measures - police sirens are a noise source

- to check on noisy vehicles that do not comply with limit values (e.g. two wheelers) - to revise standards for the use of sirens and staff behaviour

Silence | page 27

External Stakeholders Stakeholder Why is cooperation with these stakeholders necessary? - public transport can be a major source of noise in urban areas; it might be the dominant noise source in hot spots (e.g. curve squeal from tramway tracks) What is expected from these stakeholders for the development and implementation of a noise action plan? - public transport operators should address the noise issue by making their own eet and infrastructure (tracks, depots, etc.) as quiet as possible through the use of available technologies and training their staff - public transport operators can be asked to adjust and extend their services to support the reduction of private car use and if applicable to compensate for restrictions for individual motor car trafc (e.g. restrictions in the inner city) - to provide data on road surface for analysing hot spots - to implement measures such as quieter road surfaces, speed limits, noise screens etc. - to provide data on noise emissions - good maintenance of tracks and use of less noisy vehicles can help to avoid noise - to set up noise screens to reduce the propagation of noise - to review the operation of depots and to train staff for less noisy operation Private transport operator (local companies, suppliers, etc.) - heavy duty and even light duty vehicles are generally up to 6 dB noisier compared to a car; therefore; eet owners are key stakeholders in reducing noise - to use less noisy vehicles - to respect temporary restrictions (night-time restrictions) and restricted zones (e.g. residential roads) - to invest in less noisy trucks and delivery equipment (e.g. plastied roll-containers) and to train staff in quiet deliveries (in particular for deliveries in residential areas) - to develop delivery schemes that reduce the number of deliveries and that help to reduce congestion Citizens (individuals, associations, groups) - for the assessment of noise problems and the analysis of hot spots the perception and annoyance of citizens have to be taken into account - citizens generate noise themselves; it is necessary to make them aware - to provide information on noise perception and annoyance - to bring in ideas for noise abatement measures (in particular at hot spots) - to change travel habits / driving behaviour to less noisy modes - to respect speed limits and restrictions Shop owners, bars, etc. - neighbourhood noise is not addressed in the END, but can be a major factor of noise annoyance and will certainly be an important issue in consulting the public - noise (and trafc) does not end at a city or county border; noise abatement measures might be more effective when coordinated for the whole area - measures taken to abate noise in one city may have negative impacts on neighbouring cities - competences concerning noise are often shared between local, regional and national authorities; their involvement can be crucial for the implementation of certain measures - the involvement of higher levels of government can facilitate the cooperation with highway operators, national railways, etc. - to bring in ideas for noise abatement measures and to implement them

Public transport operator

- public transport offers a quieter alternative to private car use

Operator of regional / national roads and highways (that are not within the responsibility of the local authorities) Railway operator (infrastructure, rolling stock)

- because of the trafc volumes, the high share of HGVs and the higher speed, urban main roads and urban highways are a relevant source for trafc noise; local authorities are often not competent for these roads (e.g. in relation to speed limits) - railway operation in urban areas is an important source of noise (tracks, stations, depots)

Noise abatement planning in neighbouring cities / counties

- to share data on noise exposure

- to cooperate on noise abatement measures - to provide available data as needed - to take necessary noise abatement measures - to support cooperation with other parties

National or regional government

Silence | page 28

Step 4:
Consulting the public

Objective
To consult the public on their noise perception, priorities for noise abatement and suggestions for abatement measures and thus, improve the selection and design of abatement measures, while increasing public acceptance for necessary measures.

Content
The various target groups and adequate consultation methods and tools are developed. Participation approaches differ between the city level and the level of hot spots. On the city level, consultation relates to the general targets and strategies for noise abatement. On the level of hot spots consultation involves the concrete analysis of the noise problem and suggested noise abatement measures in a certain area.

The END ... requires that the public dened as natural or legal persons and in accordance with national legislation their association, organisations or groups is consulted about proposals for action plans, giving early and effective opportunities to participate. Results of the participation need to be taken into account and the public shall be informed on the decisions. The action plans shall give a record of the public consultation organised.

Questions to consider
Which target groups can be differentiated? How are they concerned with noise? What are they interested in and how could they be addressed? How to make sure that results of consultation are taken into account when nally determining the noise abatement measures? How could actions taken to consult the public be recorded in an easy way? (The action plan shall record the consultation process.)

Silence | page 29

The percentage of highly annoyed persons caused by road and rail trafc noise
Source: European Communities, 2002, p. 6

Why consult the public?

Silence | page 30

therefore an essential part of analysing the noise situation in a city. When assessing the initial noise situation, it should be borne in mind that citizens perception might signicantly differ from the suggestions of the quantitative analysis. Also when monitoring interventions in noise hot spots, citizens might come up with different evaluations than the quantitative measurements. Research in Berlin Germany, shows that citizens might perceive an improvement of the noise situation when the number of very loud incidents (such as passing by of a HGV in a residential area) is reduced even when the average sound level is almost the same as before (SMILE, n.d., p. 10). This highlights the need for discussing the priorities for intervention in a hot spot and potential measures for noise abatement with the residents when setting up an action plan, before implementing any measures. Besides the perception issue, it is also worth addressing the public as generator of noise.

Who is the public?

The public shall mean one or more natural or legal persons and, in accordance with national legislation or practice, their associations, organisations or groups. (Directive 2002/49/ EC, Article 3). National legislation might give further explanations on target groups that have to be involved. In addition to legal regulations, the local specic context should guide the selection of target groups which are to be addressed by information and participation measures.

Here, a distinction should be made between the more general approach of action planning at the city level and the area based work when dealing with certain noise hot spots.

People make ambient noise.

Driver behaviour for example, can make an essential difference in generating or avoiding noise. Active noise abatement therefore requires an active contribution from the public. Involving the public in developing solutions to noise problems can help to nd innovative solutions or better compromises as well as increase the acceptance of measures (e.g. speed limits in residential areas). In this regard it is crucial to raise public awareness of the negative impacts of noise, e.g. the adverse health effects and the dampening effects on house prices. While air quality today ranks high on the political agenda and people are aware of the issue, ambient noise is not. Informing the general public might also help to raise noise on the political agenda, which in turn might support the long-term implementation of noise abatement strategies.

Silence | page 31

In the rst case, the general approach towards the noise problem, the criteria for dening hot spots, and overarching noise reduction strategies are to be discussed. In the second case, the focus lies on the perception of the noise problem in a certain area as well as concrete abatement measures and their implementation. Depending on the level addressed, different kind of representatives of the public should be targeted. On the city level: Besides the stakeholders mentioned in step 3, all kind of civil society associations like chambers of commerce, home owners and landlord associations as well as tenants associations, and local groups dealing with transport, environmental or health issues can contribute to the development of local noise action plans. On the area level, the priority lies with informing and involving the people directly affected by noise and the potential abatement measures. This includes residents, shop owners, other businesses, schools, hospitals, and similar institutions.

Actions to inform and involve the public

It goes without saying that actions to inform and involve the public will differ according to the level of action planning and the target group. For all measures it is to be kept in mind that people normally are no noise experts. All information given should be easily accessible and avoid technical terms and details. To raise awareness, real time noise maps or the latest available version could be published on the web and via the newspapers. Recommendations on how to present noise maps to the public can be obtained from WG-AEN, 2008. Additionally, booklets, poster campaigns, special event days and many other tools can be used. Besides the general public, it is advisable to address certain target groups like schools with tailor-made information material. More information on public awareness raising can be found in part 4.

On both levels, it needs to be ensured that the people involved properly represent the public, including groups which are often underrepresented in consulting processes such as the elderly, children and minority groups. The END ... stipulates in this regard, that for a wide spread of information the most appropriate information channels should be used (Directive 2002/49/EC,

Make consultation part of the process

To make public consultation an integral part of the noise action planning process, it is advisable to set up a schedule for information and participation together with the overall working plan. This schedule should contain measures to raise public awareness for the noise problem; and in particular to inform local politicians to raise the issue on the political agenda; to gather qualitative data on noise perception and annoyance to complement the quantitative noise mapping; to involve civil society representatives and institutional stakeholders in the process at city level; to inform the people affected by noise hot spots, to collect their viewpoints on the issue and to involve them in developing solutions.

preamble).

Silence | page 32

When addressing local politicians, their limited time resources need to be taken into account. Therefore, the focus should rather be on concise information focusing on key messages, while the number of meetings should be restricted. Often citizens complain about noisy situations towards the local authorities and thereby provide useful information even without being asked for it. Additionally, and to gather a more representative view, surveys on citizens noise perception and annoyance could be conducted whether on the city level or targeted to hot spots. For the analysis of hot spots the soundscape approach can be used. This approach combines quantitative data on physical sound measurements with the scientic analysis of users sound perception and takes into account the interaction between the acoustical, esthetical and social perception of a certain site. The soundscape of the studied area is recorded during so called soundwalks. The recorded sound can be analysed in detail (characteristics of the single sources) and used to inform the public (Here the sound level is made up of tram trafc and chatting on a cafes terrace and here you can hear examples of the single noise sources ). More details on the soundscape approach are provided in step 5.
Raising awareness
Picture: Environmental Protection UK

Silence | page 33

To involve people affected in hot spot areas in the development of solutions it is advisable to organise targeted meetings with concrete objectives.
These meetings should have the form of discussion forums with many possibilities for residents (and others interested) to bring in their opinion, rather than concentrate on speeches by experts. Additionally, advisory boards including representatives of residents and shop owners maybe supported by experts could be created that accompany the whole process. In particular, the practice of neighbourhood-based urban renewal has produced a lot of information and participation tools that can be used for noise action planning as well. Finally, it should be mentioned that involving the public does not necessarily mean that all suggestions made have to be implemented, but they have to be considered and decisions have to be made transparent.

Silence | page 34

Step 5:
Detecting and analysing hot spots

Objective
To dene what should be considered as a noise hot spot, to locate hot spots and to make a thorough analysis of the situation, the noise reduction potential and maybe upcoming conicts.

Content
The denition of noise hot spots will be discussed. On that basis, hot spots will be identied and analysed. Priorities for tackling noise at the hot spots will be set following a discussion on criteria to be used for priority setting. Quiet areas and measures to protect them from an increase of noise will be dened. The END ... does not dene criteria for hot spots. It is in the hands of the Member States or the responsible authorities for local action plans to The aim of analysing the noise situation is to detect areas, so called hot spots, where intervention is needed to decrease the noise level as well as quiet areas that need to be protected. Once dened, a thorough analysis of the hot spots will then be the basis for further discussion and action planning. establish thresholds for intervention and criteria for setting priorities.

Questions to consider
Which criteria shall be used to dene hot spots? What are suitable criteria to set priorities for intervention considering the local context? For the analysis of hot spots: When does the noise mainly occur (time of the day)? Which are the relevant noise sources (rail, road trafc, HGV, etc.)? Which factors inuence the noise generation (e.g. road surface, an intersection with starts and stops, congestion, etc.)? Which factors inuence the propagation of noise (e.g. shape of the street, reection at buildings, etc.)? How do the residents perceive the noise problem? How shall quiet areas be dened? Are there certain aspects that due to the local situation need to receive special attention in the analysis of the noise hot spots? Is there a (strategic) need to discuss this issue with certain stakeholders (e.g. to gain their acceptance for the results of the analysis)?

Silence | page 35

What are hot spots?

European cities use various approaches to dene hot spots whereas it is most likely that most cities do not use a binding denition at all in this exercise. The cities involved in the SILENCE project, for example, use quite weak denitions like areas where a high density of the population is exposed to noise levels exceeding the limits or areas where noise levels are very high. Their approach to detect noise hot spots is often based on data indicating areas with high levels of sound exposure combined with knowledge of the cities structures (areas of high population density, major roads, etc.). The number of citizens complaints concerning a particular area is also used for indicating hot spots.

How to detect hot spots?

The END stipulates that noise maps shall put emphasis on the noise emitted by road trafc, rail trafc, airports and industrial activity sites, including ports. For the detection of hot spots, all these noise sources have to be taken into account. If the sound level for the different sources is calculated by using modelling tools, software can help to integrate them into one noise map showing the overall sound level exposure. Another possibility of course is to base the noise map on noise measurements. However, this is comparatively costly and does not allow for predicting changes in the noise exposure due to changes in trafc. It is therefore not advisable. The noise maps, as required by the END, show noise exposure for different bands of noise levels in L den (e.g. 55-59, 60-64 dB, etc.).

To comply with the END, a more systematic approach of hot spot detection is needed.
This will also help to gain more transparency in the assessment of a citys noise situation, the priority setting and action planning, which is particularly valuable with respect to public consultation.

The next step is to compare the sound pressure level with any targets set for the noise exposure of citizens.
These targets can be any limit values dened by the national or regional authorities. The comparison between real noise levels and limit values will result in noise conicts, which can

The END ... stipulates that local noise action plans should address priorities which may be identied by the exceeding of any relevant limit value or by other criteria chosen by the Member States and apply in particular to the most important areas as established by strategic noise mapping (Directive 49/2002/EC, Article 8,1).

be shown in conict maps. Such maps present the areas where limit values are exceeded but they do not refer to whether the area is densely populated or used as industrial site. To detect noise hot spots and to set priorities for intervention, it is therefore also necessary to relate the exceeding of limits to the number of people affected. Also, the END demands that the noise action plans inform about the number of people affected in the initial situation and after the abatement measures will have been implemented.

Noise limit values

When no limit values are set or when the local authorities choose to dene own quantied targets for the maximum noise exposure of the population, the WHO recommendations regarding day and night noise limits can be used as guidance: 65 dB daytime, 55 dB night time.

Silence | page 36

To show the noise level combined with the number of people affected on a map, it is helpful to create single scores representing these information.
Various methods have been suggested to calculate those scores. Two different approaches are shortly described here: Counting the number of highly annoyed people

In addition to or instead of these calculation methods, hot spots could also be identied by combining the results from noise maps with those from surveys questioning citizens on noise perception and annoyance. This approach will be followed in Bristol, UK, where citizens were surveyed on their noise perception.

This concept is based on the number of people that are highly annoyed by a given noise level. A lot of surveys have been carried out to investigate the percentage of people highly annoyed by a certain noise level with regard to three different transport modes (road trafc, rail trafc, and aircraft noise). Based on the analysis of a range of surveys, Miedema and Vos suggest a method to calculate the number of highly annoyed people in relation to different noise levels and noise sources (Miedema, Vos, 1998). They estimate for example that for road trafc noise with a level of 65 dB, 18% of the population is highly annoyed whereas for rail trafc noise only 11% is highly annoyed with the same noise level. The problem with this approach is that only highly annoyed people are taken into account. This results in noise scenarios with more highly annoyed people being ranked higher than scenarios where the number of highly annoyed people is lower but the number of annoyed people is signicantly higher. Taking into account the total number of residents affected with the related level of annoyance

Respondents to the Quality of Life Survey 2006 in Bristol reporting trafc noise as problem
Picture: Bristol City Council

This method is more complex, and specialised software is needed for calculations (see for example Probst, 2006). The advantage of this method is that the weighing between highly and moderately annoyed people is open for political decisions. The equations of the calculations can be adjusted to decisions taken. However, for both methods it has to be mentioned that results shown as numbers often seem to be very objective but are usually based on subjective decisions. In communicating with stakeholders and the public the presumptions behind the gures should be open for discussion.

Another or additional approach could include the criterion of sensible uses / vulnerable groups.
Based on a conict map, sensible uses / vulnerable people (people with decreased personal abilities (old, ill, or depressed people), people dealing with complex cognitive tasks, people who are blind or have hearing impairment, babies and (young) children, and the elderly in general; Berglund et al., 1999, p. 35) or areas that shall be developed or renewed with priority (other than noise priority) could be used to set

Silence | page 37

priorities for intervention. The advantage of this approach is that clear political decisions need to be taken, which are open to public discussion. The END ... does not address neighbourhood noise. Thus, dealing with neighbourhood noise is voluntary for local authorities. However, in consultation with the public this will certainly be an important issue.

Analysing noise sources and propagation

For planning and implementing adequate measures to reduce the noise in hot spot areas a thorough analysis of the different noise sources and the propagation as well as perception of noise has to be carried out. A number of questions as shown in the table could guide the analysis.

Questions for the analysis of noise hot spots Question Which types of noise are relevant? Aspects to be investigated For road trafc noise: tyre-road noise, propulsion noise, noise from sirens and horns, etc. For rail trafc noise: curve squeal, breaking noise, noise from depots, etc. Neighbourhood noise: cafs and bars with terraces, loud music, people talking loudly when leaving these places; loud music in dwellings, air conditioning devices, etc. Which factors inuence the generation of noise? Which factors inuence the propagation of noise? Number of vehicles, average speed, share of HGV, road surface, congestion, etc. Architectural structure (reection of buildings), urban furniture, green space, natural noise barriers, noise screens, etc.

When does the noise occur?

Time of the day when noise levels are exceeded; are high noise levels related to certain events (congestion during rushhours, etc.)? Land use, number of people affected, vulnerable groups affected

Who is affected?

Silence | page 38

The effort for analysing the noise hot spots will vary with the complexity of the noise scenario. Sometimes the analysis will be short and solely based on expert assessment, sometimes consultation of stakeholders and the public will be needed to clarify the noise problems and the most annoying aspects.

function of the site, urban structure, maintenance status of buildings, urban furniture, etc., and quality of private and public spaces (SchulteFortkamp, et al., 2007, p. 214). Furthermore, a persons socio-cultural background might also inuence the way in which noise is perceived and the extent to which a person gets annoyed. When surveying citizens noise perception, data

Analysing noise perception and annoyance Soundscapes

Average noise pressure levels as indicated by L den or L night are a solid basis for noise maps and the general detection of hot spots. When it comes to analysing the annoyance of residents a more detailed view on the compilation of these averages is necessary. Noise peaks might occur frequently or in relation to certain events that can cause high annoyance even with the average sound pressure values being quite low. Furthermore, noise maps based on calculations only include trafc noise, while in practice other noise sources like neighbourhood noise might contribute as well to the dwellers annoyance and overall perception of the sound environment.

concerning their social situation and personal background should therefore be gathered as well. The soundscape approach has been increasingly put forward over the past ten years as a possible tool to analyse users perception of a sites sound situation in a holistic way. The approach usually includes interviews with users of the place under investigation and so called soundwalks: a soundwalker follows routes which are specic for the studied area and records the occurring sound events. The recordings are usually made with a binaural microphone system that allows for analysing the sound in a stereophonic way (like the functionality of the human ear) and thereby creates a more realistic image of the soundscape perception of users. The advantage of this way of recording compared to the simple measurement of the sound pressure level is that it allows for identifying the single sound sources and thus for analysing their quality (frequencies, intensity, spatial effect ).

These aspects show why it is necessary to learn about citizens noise perception and to analyse the noise sources more in-depth.
Another aspect was already mentioned: different noise sources like road trafc noise and rail trafc noise cause different levels of annoyance at the same sound pressure level. Psychoacoustical measurement methods like loudness, sharpness, or roughness represent the sound perception and evaluation better than measurements based on the sound exposure level (Schulte-Fortkamp, et al., 2007, p. 213). Besides these sound characteristics, the perception of a sites sound prole or soundscape (by analogy with landscape) respectively the annoyance caused by this soundscape is determined by other factors like esthetical aspects, atmosphere, and feelings related to a certain site. Research therefore suggests that analysing a site with respect to its soundscape needs to include aspects such as

Silence | page 39

Within the SILENCE project, the soundscape approach was used in Barcelona, Bristol, Brussels and Genoa to demonstrate the potential of this methodology and to provide useful data for the cities planning activities. The study included stocktaking of morphological data (ground, buildings, plants and trees, urban furniture), activities present (means of transport, human activities, mechanical activities) and other elements (water, air, animals), as well as sound walks and surveys with pedestrians. On the basis of the collected data, recommendations were given on how to change the urban design in order to improve the soundscape for the sites users. To give a more concrete idea of the outcome of a soundscape analysis the results of the Barcelona case study are presented in annex 1 (Semidor, 2007b, p.5-9). The questionnaire used for surveying the opinion of passers-by in Bristol can be found in the annex (Semidor, 2007a, p.23-32). Further information can be obtained from the full reports on the CD-Rom (SILENCE I.D5 and SILENCE I.D6).

The END ... makes a difference between quiet areas in agglomerations and in open country. While a quiet area in an agglomeration shall mean an area, delimited by the competent authority, for instance which is not exposed to a value of L den or of another appropriate noise indicator greater than a certain
Soundwalk in the Roi Boudouin Park in Brussels
Photos: GRECAU

value set by the Member State, from any noise source (Directive 49/2002/ EC, Article 3 (l)), a quiet area in open country shall be undisturbed by noise from trafc, industry or recreational activities (Article 3 (m)).

Silence | page 40

Identication and protection of quiet areas

When developing strategies to reduce noise in the urban environment, the protection of quiet areas should not be forgotten. The END demands that noise action plans shall include measures to preserve quiet areas. Quiet areas can include a range of different sites such as parks, residential areas, hospital areas, playgrounds, or cemeteries.

In Hamburg, Germany, a very practical approach towards quiet areas is used (Planungsbuero Richter-Richard, n.d.-b). The approach distinguishes between large open spaces (landscape), relatively quiet open spaces in the city centre, quiet footpaths and urban oases. For large open spaces, it was decided to differentiate between quiet and particularly quiet areas. The limit values were set to 55 db(A) for quiet and 45 db(A) for particularly quiet areas. Empirical data were collected from noise maps in which minimum distance from major roads the noise levels would be under these limits. For Hamburg, this distance was found to be about 160 metres. This means that the edge length of quiet areas has to be at least 320 metres for the noise level at least in the middle of the open space (being 160 meters away from the road) being under 55 db(A). For particularly quiet areas the needed edge length goes up to 3,400 metres.

When limit values for quiet areas in agglomerations have not (yet) been dened by the national (or regional) authorities, the responsible authorities for noise action planning have to dene their own approach.

Silence | page 41

Relatively quiet open spaces in the city centre are dened as areas where the sound pressure level is 6 db(A) lower compared to the surroundings, following the fact that a noise reduction by 6 db(A) is clearly perceivable. Without barriers for sound propagation a reduction of 6 db(A) is achieved in a distance of 100 metres from the road as noise source. This means that these quiet areas need to have an edge length of at least 200 metres. Quiet footpaths are considered as footpaths in attractive open spaces aside major roads with a length of at least 1,000 metres.

Areas of these three categories are rstly identied by means of GIS-data. In a second step, the identied areas are checked for plausibility, using the existing knowledge of the area within the responsible authorities. Urban oases are not dened by noise pressure levels but by qualitative criteria. They are considered as any space used for recreational activities that are evaluated by users as quiet. The identication of such areas is based on public consultation.

Silence | page 42

Step 6:
Identifying noise abatement measures and long-term strategies
Objective
To dene appropriate noise abatement measures, including measures to tackle noise problems locally on a short-term basis as well as long-term strategies. Taking into consideration the advantages and disadvantages of the potential measures in the local context. To set up a concrete work plan for the implementation of measures and strategies. The END ... requires that action plans include noise abatement measures to be implemented in the next ve years as well as a long-term strategy. Furthermore, the action plan shall contain estimations in terms of the reduction of the number of people affected by noise and nancial information (if available: budgets, cost-effectiveness assessment, and cost-benet assessment).

Content
On the basis of the analysis of the noise conicts, a bundle of measures will usually be determined to tackle the noise problem. In this decision making process, the noise reduction potential of the measures will be assessed. This will not only refer to the reduction of the noise level, but will also estimate the number of people that benet from this reduction. Furthermore, the potential impact on other policy elds will be taken into account. Besides denite measures to tackle identied noise hot spots within the next ve years, long-term strategies to reduce the noise level will be developed. The list of measures will (then) be turned into a work plan that contains detailed information for each measure on the period of implementation, responsible agencies, nancial resources needed, sponsors, and expected results. The work plan will set priorities and distinguish between measures to be implemented on a short-term, medium-term and long-term basis.

Information needed
Details on the noise problem to be tackled Benets and disadvantages of possible noise abatement measures

Questions to consider
What shall be the scale for determining the effectiveness of measures? A higher number of people beneting from a lower reduction of the noise level or a lower number beneting from a higher reduction? Is an increase of the noise level for a small number of people acceptable if a larger number of people is beneting? Under which circumstances? Which measures and strategies would be the most efcient to tackle noise? Are they cost-efcient as well? If a bundle of measures is preferred, are possible synergies or conicts between them taken into account? Are possible impacts on other policy objectives considered? When will the impacts of the measures become effective? Will this meet the expectations of the public? Are there alternatives that would become effective earlier? Is there a need for additional information and explanation towards the public concerned? Are the proposed measures accepted by the public (e.g. will residents accept the construction of a noise screen in front of their houses)? Could the acceptance of measures be raised through additional measures (e.g. through detailed information, turning a noise screen into a green wall with vegetation, etc.)? Who will be responsible for the implementation of the single measures? Which other stakeholders need to be involved? What is a realistic timeframe for implementing the measures (keeping in mind that the END requires a list of measures to be taken within the next ve years)? With regard to limited resources, what are the priorities for implementation?
Silence | page 43

How to select adequate noise abatement measures?

Fortunately, a wide range of possible noise abatement measures exists. Thus, criteria are needed to make appropriate choices and to make the selection processes as transparent as possible. The following criteria are suggested: noise reduction effect; positive or negative impact on other policy objectives; costs; public acceptance and compliance.

considered that annoyance is not simply linked to noise levels. Annoyance in populations exposed to environmental noise varies not only with the acoustical characteristics of the noise (source, exposure), but also with many non-acoustical factors of social, psychological, or economic nature (Fields 2003, cited after Berglund et al., 1999, p. 33). Knowing this

it is not surprising that reducing sound levels and reducing noise disturbances are two separate issues,
and that in some cases even a large reduction in sound levels will not be fully appreciated by those affected, whilst in other cases even small changes to sound levels may be perceived as a considerable improvement. (SMILE, n.d., p. 9) Studies suggest several explanations for this effect. One explanation is linked to the structure of the sound. Research in Berlin shows that residents might perceive the noise situation as improved when the number of very loud events is reduced even when the average noise level has not changed much (ibid., p. 10). Improvements in other policy elds might also lead to reduced annoyance even with only a small reduction of the

Noise reduction effect

Similar to the assessment of noise hot spots, also for evaluating the effect of abatement measures the number of people affected respectively beneting from the noise reduction is relevant rather than the reduction in terms of dB. This leads to the following questions to be discussed when selecting abatement measures: What is to be preferred? A higher number of people beneting from a lower reduction of the noise level or a lower number beneting from a higher reduction? Is an increase of the noise level for a small number of people acceptable if a larger number of people is beneting? Under which circumstances?

sound level. For residential roads, slowing down vehicles thus reducing the dangers posed by car trafc, giving more space to pedestrians, and planting trees, bushes and owers have proven to lead to greater annoyance reduction than what would have been expected based on the reduction of the average sound level (ibid., p. 11).

Some basics on noise reduction

A change in sound pressure level of 1 dB(A) is barely audible. A decrease with about 3 dB(A) would imply halving the number of vehicles. A decrease by 10 dB(A) is necessary to be perceived as a noise reduction by half. This means a reduction of the number of vehicles to 10% of the original number!

Although noise regulation and abatement are based on noise levels for practical reasons, the overall aim must be to reduce the annoyance, sleep disturbance and adverse health effects that noise may cause. In this respect, it has to be

Silence | page 44

Photo: PORTAL project

Positive or negative impact on other policy objectives

Measures designed to abate noise might interfere with other policy objectives, in particular in the elds of air quality, road safety, energy consumption, and congestion. Vice versa, measures taken to achieve objectives in other elds might impact on noise targets. Examples of synergies and conicting impacts are:

Night-time restrictions for HGVs might lead to (more) congestion in the early morning hours.

Implications of noise abatement measures on other policy elds depend very much on the concrete design and the local settings. Thus, the impact of potential measures should be checked for each individual application.

Air quality
Speed limits and HGV restrictions might reduce noise emissions as well as air pollution. Noise barriers might interfere with local air circulation, thus contributing to high concentrations of air pollutants.

What if all the measures together dont achieve a sufcient noise reduction?
There will certainly be scenarios where a sufcient noise reduction cannot be achieved. Because the needed reduction of trafc volume on a certain road is not possible or politically not accepted, because there is no alternative to HGVs passing by a recreational area because neighbouring industry is dependent on the delivery, because Even if a reduction in terms of db(A) seems impossible, a reduction in terms of annoyance could still be achieved. Noise sources which are not visible tend to annoy less than visible sources. To place a vegetation shield between a major road and a park might help. Another option is to try to draw the attention of visitors to pleasant sounds in the overall soundscape. Adding a fountain might reduce annoyance caused by trafc noise. Furthermore, the physical design of the site impacts on the perception of the soundscape as well (see step 5). This gives additional possibilities for reducing annoyance.

Road safety
Reducing the number of cars and HGVs might reduce noise and increase road safety. Road safety measures such as paving stone sections to make drivers aware of speed limits or road humps to reduce speed might increase noise.

Energy consumption
Less noisy driving styles normally save fuel as well.

Congestion
Smoothing the trafc ow, for example through replacing trafc lights by roundabouts might reduce noise and congestion.

Silence | page 45

At-source abatement most cost-effective, but

One disadvantage of at-source measures at the vehicle level, however, is that penetration of the vehicle eet takes several years for tyres and almost a decade for motor vehicles. Local measures like speed reduction and low-noise road surfaces are therefore also needed. Given the very long life spans of railway rolling stock, this is even truer of railway noise reduction measures. The optimal strategy will need to comprise a mix of local and at-source measures, including noise barriers at hotspots. (CE Delft, 2007a, p. 27)

Two methods to valuate benets of noise abatement

Research in this eld has mainly used two different methods to valuate the benets of noise reduction. The rst method Stated Preference refers to the peoples willingness to pay to reduce their noise exposure. This can for example be the willingness to pay higher rent for a quiet dwelling. The second method Hedonic pricing is based on price differences on the housing market that result from trafc noise.

Costs
The following questions can help to assess the cost aspects of potential measures: What will the implementation of the measure cost? Which resources can be used? Are there any funding schemes at regional or national level? Are maintenance or renewal measures scheduled anyway that can be combined with noise abatement? Polluter pays principle: Can those generating the noise be charged for abatement measures? Can people beneting from noise reduction contribute?

A Danish study for example concludes that in Denmark the the prices of houses affected by road noise above 55 decibel (dB) situated near ordinary roads decline by 1.2% pr. dB. The prices of houses placed by motorways decline by 1.6% pr. dB. (Miljstyrelsen, 2003, p. 9) A Dutch study applied this method not only to houses and dwellings, but to building land as well. This results in the amount of 10.8 billion Euros as total reduction in market value of dwellings and building land in urban areas in the Netherlands caused by noise from road and rail trafc (Jabben, Potma, Lutter, 2007, p. 14). In addition to the often-used approach where the external costs of noise increase on a linear base above the threshold of 55 dB, the authors of the Dutch study also used dose-response curves by Miedema. The results clearly show that in the case of motorway and aircraft noise there is also a substantial amount of noise damage below this threshold

Cost-benet estimations can support decisionmaking. The Working Group on Health and Socio-Economic Aspects, supporting the European Commission, concludes in this regard, that

with a well-conducted cost-benet analysis, it is possible to develop a noise action plan where the benets of noise reduction are clearly higher than the costs of noise mitigation.
Cost benet analysis can also help to prioritise between options so as to ensure that limited funds are spent to the best effect. (WG Health, 2003, no. 5) However, to valuate the benets of noise reduction is obviously not a simple task. How to valuate an increase of risk for heart diseases or the improved quality of life in general?

Silence | page 46

value (ibid., p. 11). Noise levels below 55 dB should therefore be taken into account as well. To calculate benets of noise reduction for recreational zones, the Dutch study used the willingness to pay approach. Using data on the willingness to pay of visitors to enjoy undisturbed nature, it was assumed that noise damage in nature areas and noise abatement zones in rural parts of the Netherlands increases linearly from 0 euro/m at and below 35 dB(A) up to 0.3 euro/m at and above 55 db(A) (ibid., p. 13). These kinds of studies are quite complex and can clearly not be conducted in the same way for setting priorities and choosing options at the level of local noise action plans.

different noise reduction measures and bundles. One example is City-Sustain which is based on property costs (loss of rental prices) and health costs (increasing health risks with higher noise levels). The software manages all needed noise data sets and combines them with population data coming from urban GIS. Results can be presented in gures and maps (Schmedding et al., 2005). A good overview on the valuation of noise effects can be found in CE Delft, 2007b.

Public acceptance and compliance

Many noise abatement measures such as speed limits need public compliance to become (fully) effective. The expected public acceptance should therefore be assessed when selecting noise abatement measures. Answers to the following questions can support this assessment. Are the proposed measures accepted by the public, and will people comply with restrictions like speed limits and limited-access zones? Can the compliance be increased by additional measures? Is the measure effective even with many people not complying?

However, these studies are very valuable for local decision makers for two reasons:
They point out the high benets of noise reduction in monetary terms. Even though different studies come up with different results (due to different calculation approaches and different local conditions in the countries), they clearly show that costs of abatement measures often are much less than benets to be achieved. The studies result in gures that can be used for much simpler estimations of benets at the level of local action planning.

Decision Support Systems

To compare various potential measures with regard to the noise reduction effect and the other criteria suggested can easily grow into a complex exercise. Furthermore, many major cities will face the situation that noise limit (or target) values are exceeded in large parts of their territory. Due to limited nancial resources, priorities for intervention have to be set. (Political) decision making in this situation is a complex task. Decision Support Systems (DSS) are tools that have the potential to deliver valuable input to this process. DSS in the context of noise can be dened as an

Based on a review of Stated preference studies and taking into account average values from each European country

the Working Group on Health and Socio-Economic Aspects recommends a value of the perceived benet of noise reduction of 25 euro/ household/dB/ year
(WG Health, 2003, no. 18). In the absence of robust data on whether people valuate each dB the same regardless the initial noise level, the working group suggests this value as a constant value across the range of noise levels (ibid., no. 19). For more comprehensive approaches, software tools have been developed that calculate the external costs of noise for given noise scenarios, thus allowing for the comparison between

Environmental Management Systems that collect, analyse and transform complex activity and environmental data into results that can form the basis

Silence | page 47

for supporting tactical and strategic decisions.

A DSS includes the following main features: Collect and analyse relevant data; Use computer models (e.g. emission- and dispersion models); Support Scenario calculations and forecasts; Report and present the data and results; Address different spatial and temporal structures.

implementation. More information on the HEAVEN DSS can be obtained from http://heaven.rec.org. Within the SILENCE project, 5 cities/regions (Brussels, Dublin, Genoa, Munich and Paris-Ile-deFrance) worked on the upgrading of their existing approaches in data collection and analysis in direction of a DSS. The cooperation with the cities in the course of the SILENCE project has revealed a number of aspects which are undoubtedly important for other cities wishing to follow the same direction and enhancing their approaches and systems for noise assessment. From the lessons learned, some recommendations for follower cities can be given. More information on DSS can be obtained from report SILENCE I.D12 on the CD-Rom.

Specify the assessment objectives and boundary conditions

A clear specication of the assessment objectives and the boundary conditions is unavoidable. The way the objectives are set may have a large
Photo: Polis

impact on the work to be undertaken and on the required resources. The spatial scale to be

The level of involvement of decision makers, the availability of data, and the nature of the decision making process will dene the structure and extent of the DSS. It is obvious that there is no unique solution or even a unique approach for a DSS, as the approach and the speed of development of these systems is strongly inuenced by a multitude of local constraints. The available resources and the political priorities given to an environmental burden are dominating factors in this respect. The development of DSS is usually based on existing data, databases and modelling tools. Thus, each city starts from a unique position and develops a unique (approach towards a) DSS. In the context of the HEAVEN project, a DSS concept was developed that can be used to assess the environmental impacts of transport measures in large urban areas. The concepts and tools allow cities to assess the impacts of trafc on air quality and noise pollution in near-real time and to assess the impacts of planned measures prior to

covered has a signicant impact on the way noise assessment is implemented. The number of sources to be included in an assessment denes to a large extent how much effort to calculate the noise impact is needed. Although computer sciences have made signicant progress, there might be physical limitations to address large areas. The same accounts for the temporal scale to be addressed. In case the noise assessment should be done, for example once per year, the constraints are less prominent than for a higher time resolution.

Legacy systems and data availability

The modelling process calls for a wealth of data that need to be available either as static or dynamic data. The update frequency depends on the required temporal resolution. The amount of data is dened by the size of the domain and the spatial resolution. Usually, a lot of the required data are already available from legacy systems (e.g. trafc loops, trafc modelling). It is strongly

Silence | page 48

Noise assessment in Brussels

is jointly performed by two regional bodies. IBGE, responsible for environmental issues in the region, is operating a noise model which is fed with static trafc data. The second body is AED, which is in charge of trafc management in the Brussels Capital Region and delivers trafc data as input to the noise model. The main challenge for Brussels was the availability of accurate trafc data both from trafc counts and from trafc models. In the course of the SILENCE project, AED has developed a detailed plan to enhance the trafc counting and trafc modelling and to deliver comprehensive and up-to-date trafc data via structured databases as a dynamic input to the noise modelling process. This will be a major step towards a DSS, as the availability of accurate trafc data and related data on the road network are crucial for the quality of any noise assessment. These activities are in progress and are expected to yield tangible results in the future. Subsequently, IBEG will establish the dynamic link between the trafc data bases and the noise model.

Dublin is using a noise model

which is fed with static trafc data to prepare the noise maps as they are required by the European Noise directive. Similar to the case in Brussels, Dublin faces the challenge to feed dynamic trafc data into the noise modelling process. Dublin is currently undertaking further research in the context of the Urban Environment Project (UEP). The objective of this study is to utilise the existing SATURN transportation model and other trafc data to deliver better trafc data for the assessment of noise and air quality impact of urban trafc. At this stage, an exploratory action to facilitate this link is in progress.

When preparing the rst noise map, Genoa

only used noise monitoring, no noise model was deployed. The challenge for Genoa was to replace this complicated and expensive approach by the adoption of a noise model and to integrate it into an existing DSS for trafc management purposes which already includes a component to assess the air quality impact of trafc. A noise model was selected and is currently under implementation. Meanwhile, the departments for Trafc and for Environment have started a joint project whose implementation will enhance the actual DSS and offer Genoa the possibility to assess the environmental impacts of trafc in an integrated manner.

The situation in Munich

is characterised by the fact that they are operating basically two different sets of tools for noise assessment. One set is used in an off-line manner mainly for planning and licensing tasks. For trafc management purposes, on the other hand, Munich is operating an integrated system which includes (since 2002) an Environmental Module to assess air quality and noise impacts from trafc. This system has links to near real-time trafc data. The challenge for Munich was to update the existing environmental module and the noise model especially to meet the demands of the European regulations. Another challenge is the migration of MS-Windows to a Linux operation system. It is expected that Munich will have a DSS for the integrated assessment of noise and air quality impacts from trafc in operation by the end of 2008.

Due to the size and the complexity of the Paris-Ile-de-France Region

around 240 authorities are cooperating in about 60 local projects to complete the noise mapping as a response to the European Noise Directive. This complex situation has led to a two stage approach. When the mapping projects are nished, the maps will be integrated forming the noise information layer in the regional Geographical Information System (GIS). In parallel, work is in progress to create a dynamic environmental noise map for the city of Paris, which constitutes a part of the whole region. The aim is get a higher time resolution of the noise levels than in the strategic noise maps. This requires not only cooperation with different bodies responsible for trafc, air quality and noise, it also requires an optimisation of the noise modelling process, which is currently explored in a test-area. It is expected that the dynamic noise assessment will be integrated into the HEAVEN DSS, which is already in place to assess the air quality impact of trafc.

Silence | page 49

recommended to investigate the availability of existing systems, to scrutinise them in detail and make efcient use of them. In some cases, it might be necessary to enhance the existing data to meet the specications of the noise model.

Turning it into a work plan

Identifying measures and strategies which are effective, reasonable in price, and do not unacceptably conict with other policy objectives is one thing. Turning this into a work plan is another. The work plan should show who is responsible for implementation, when implementation is scheduled, the expected costs and which resources will be used. Due to limitations in staff capacity and nancial resources, it is obvious that not all dened measures can be taken immediately. When scheduling the implementation it also needs to be taken into account that some measures might be linked to each other or to other measures (like maintenance works). Setting priorities for intervention can cause as much debate as the selection of the measures themselves. Transparent decision-making is therefore advisable, as well as involving stakeholders in this process.

Institutional cooperation and synergies

As the above mentioned data might be owned by different local or regional actors, it is strongly recommended to establish close cooperation with all parties involved. This cooperation has the clear potential to exploit or even create synergies. An excellent example is the joint use of data, such as trafc data, information on the road network or on the topography, which are usually needed by different departments and should be used jointly. Another example is clearly the integration of noise assessment into an already existing DSS for trafc and air quality, which could create large synergies.

Political commitment and resources

The assessment of noise, possibly in conjunction with air quality, is a challenge and needs time and substantial resources. The success of such an activity is largely inuenced by the political commitment. Only with a strong political commitment it is possible to dene the overall objectives of the assessment, establish well functioning local/regional cooperation and to make the required resources available.

Silence | page 50

Step 7:
Drafting the plan

Objective
To summarise all ndings and decisions in a comprehensive and easily accessible plan that meets the needs of the municipality (to have a concrete plan to follow), of the public (to have easily accessible information of what is planned), and the requirements of the END respectively the national legislation.

Content
The nal document will summarise the ndings on the noise problems, measures to be taken, strategies to be implemented, responsibilities, allocated resources, and expected results in the form of text, tables and maps. The END ... requires that action plans include a description of the agglomeration, the authority responsible, the legal context, any limit values in place, a summary of the results from noise mapping, the estimated number of people exposed to noise, the identication of problems and situations to be improved, a record of the public consultations organised, any noise-reduction measures already in place and under preparation, measures to tackle noise to be taken within the next ve years, a long-term strategy,

Questions to consider
Which requirements do national regulations set for the content and form of the plan? (Keep in mind that the END is to be transposed into national legislation.) In addition to that, are there any national or regional requirements concerning the plan? What could the plan look like? Are there any documents available that have proven useful and can be used as template? How shall the plan be published? Keep in mind that there are different design requirements for printed copies and for internet presentation.

nancial information and provisions envisaged for evaluating the implementation and results. It is not necessary to wait with preparing this document until the end of the action planning process. In fact, a lot of content is already needed as input for the planning process (e.g. summary of noise mapping results, description of measures already in place, etc.). It is advisable to give some thought to the design of the action plan document in order to make it as useful and easy to read as possible.

Silence | page 51

Norderstedt Action Plan an Example

The city of Norderstedt in Germany has delivered its Noise Action Plan following the END in 2006. It contains (Planungsbuero Richter Richard, 2006): Aim and scope of the report Current situation and context regarding legal framework, description of the studied area, changes since the last report, summary of data from the noise mapping, long-term strategy for noise protection Conceptual framework for action, including a) Fields of action (promotion of sustainable transport, HGV strategy, management of parking space, etc.) Consulting the public (results of working groups, opportunities for participation for housing companies) Protection of quiet areas Overview of measures and cost estimations

Achievable noise reduction Annex a) b) c) d) e) f) Limit values in place b) Zones for noise protection in airport areas Double noise exposure due to different noise sources (road trafc, aircraft noise) Suggestions for the protection of quiet areas developed by the working group Characterisation and description of quiet areas Overview of measures grouped by nancial years

Following the Norderstedt example the overview of measures grouped by nancial years could be presented as follows:

c) d)

Expected effect in db (A)

Remarks (e.g. conicts)

Added value for other policy elds

Measure to be taken

2008-08

Street / square / neighbourhood

Concrete description

- x db(A)

xx,xxx EUR

Estimated costs

Start date for implementation (Year month)

Area / hot spot

e.g. noise reduction effect could be increased if trafc calming measures foreseen in the mobility plan for 20xx would be implemented already in 20xx In addition: chicane as speed reducing element

in terms of air quality, road safety, support for other objectives of transport planning, etc

e.g. aircraft noise

Example from the Norderstedt Noise action plan 2008-03 Hot spot Marommer Strasse Speed limit, -2.4 db(A) reduction from 50 to 30 km/h 11,400 EUR 10,000 EUR per chicane Road safety

Silence | page 52

Other noise sources than road trafc

Step 8:
Adopting, monitoring, and reporting

Objective
To adopt the plan at the political level, ensuring that there is enough support for its implementation. To follow up the implementation, make sure that agreed measures are taken in time, and readjust the measures and/or the timetable whilst necessary to gain optimal results.

Content
The Local Noise Action Plan will be adopted by the city council or the board of deputies, depending on responsibilities. The leading department will coordinate the implementation of the action plan, monitor the progress made and report to the decision making body, the stakeholders and the public. Monitoring of the progress will include measures implemented, results in terms of noise level (measurements) and number of people affected, as well as any delays or difculties, reasons for that and potential solutions. It is advisable to deliver a complete monitoring report for every nancial year. Short progress reports in between could be useful.

Questions to consider
Is it useful to involve the political level at an earlier stage of the process to get acceptance for the plan? Can the formal approval be used to raise public awareness? Are there any similar monitoring and reporting procedures at local level that could be used as template? Which bodies and stakeholders in particular are to be informed about progress and results? Especially consider neighbourhood initiatives that actively demanded improvement of the noise level. Are there any demands on the action planning process to facilitate monitoring and reporting later on (e.g. to consider in the implementation period any nancial periods / bookkeeping periods (other than the nancial year) that allow for short-term nancial monitoring?)

Silence | page 53

Silence | page 54

Step 9:
Review and revision

Objective
To keep the action plan up to date with regards to (major) changes in the noise situation.

Content
The action plan will be reviewed whenever major changes of the noise situation are expected, e.g. when speed limits are to be changed or a new development is planned that generates additional trafc. Noise levels, reduction targets and measures will be checked and if necessary revised. Smaller changes of the plan will typically be within the competence of the leading department, while major changes might need approval by the city council. If there are no major changes in the noise situation, a formal review of the plan is due for 5 years after the approval of the action plan. The END ... states that action plans shall be reviewed, and revised if necessary, when a major development occurs affecting the existing noise situation, and at least every ve years after the date of their approval.

Questions to consider
What shall be considered as major changes of the noise situation? It might be useful to discuss this question with relevant stakeholders during the process of drawing up the plan.

Silence | page 55

Part 4: Long-term strategies to avoid and abate noise

This part focuses on strategies that can help to avoid the development of noise conicts. These strategies will only become effective on a long-term basis. This might make their implementation more difcult, as politicians prefer to spend money on measures that give results on a short-term basis. However, for offering citizens a good soundscape it is much more sensible to avoid the generation of noise conicts than to try to abate them afterwards.

Silence | page 56

Public awareness raising

Informing and consulting the public on the development of a noise action plan is important and will certainly raise awareness about the noise problem among those involved. However, usually only a small group of citizens will be actively involved in such planning processes or will closely follow the results in the media. Other tools are needed to reach the broader public. Objectives for awareness raising in this eld are to increase the knowledge about the (health) impacts of noise exposure and the relation between own behaviour (in particular driving behaviour) and noise generation, thus increasing the general acceptance of noise abating measures. Even more ambitious aims would be to change attitudes towards public transport and cycling and walking as less noisy alternatives to private car use and nally to change travel behaviour to a less noisy mode.

What is the target groups need for information on noise? What is the preferred way of being informed: an article in the newspaper, on a website, etc.?

The aim is to create understanding, to touch the attitude-level

For example, the LDEN in a certain area is 70 db(A). This exceeds the limit value by 5 db(A). This noise level is caused for 90 percent by cars and trucks. The trafc department is considering measures to make sure that for residents in this area the noise exposure meets the limit values as soon as possible but in any case by 2012. If communication is meant to inuence the attitude of the receiver of the information, one must show the usefulness of this information for the receiver, or at least indicate the general usefulness. It is important to make a link between the contents of the message and the receivers. The following questions need to be considered: How useful is the information to the receivers? What is important to the receivers? How do they feel about noise? Can worries be taken away or problems solved? When do receivers need this; when are they receptive for noise information? What is the preferred way of being informed?

Aims of communication
Before developing any kind of information tools or campaign, it is necessary to clearly dene the aims and the target groups of the communication strategy. Applying the recommendations on Communicating air quality developed within the INTERREG project CITEAIR to noise, the following questions could guide the development of an information campaign (van den Elshout, 2006, p. 15ff.).

The aim is to change peoples behaviour

For example, the LDEN in a certain area is 70 db(A). This exceeds the limit value by 5 db(A). This noise level is caused for 90 percent by cars and trucks, of which half relate to trafc that needs to cross this area. The other half however, relates to cars making short trips (less than 4 km). Taking the bike or using public transport could have avoided most of these trips. Changing peoples behaviour to reduce noise, could target on quieter driving styles or use of public transport or cycling and walking, e.g. If this regards you, before taking the car, wonder if it is necessary. You will be helping those living in this area and besides, cycling is good for your own health!

The aim is to give information and to raise the level of knowledge on noise
For example, the LDEN in a certain area was 70 db(A). This exceeds the limit value by 5 db(A). If the communication is only meant as a way to improve the noise knowledge of the receiver of the information the following questions should be answered: For whom is this information useful? Which target groups need this information? How much knowledge does the target group already have on this subject? In case of low knowledge levels, it must be explained how noisy 70 db(A) are and how a reduction by 5 dB(A) would make a difference.

Silence | page 57

However, it has to be mentioned, that inuencing peoples behaviour is very difcult. Communication can make people aware of their behaviour, but generally it wont change it. To change behaviour, sanctions or rewards are a more appropriate means. Anyway, communication targeted at inuencing attitudes or behaviour is important to create support for usually unpopular policies, such as speed limits or trafc bans. This in turn might help to convince politicians to implement such necessary measures. Another option could be to draw on economic arguments instead of noise arguments. In times of high fuel prices, many drivers are more likely to comply with speed limits to save fuel than to reduce their noise emissions.

Target groups
Considering the questions mentioned before, it becomes clear that the answers will depend signicantly on the groups targeted for communication. Different groups have different know-ledge about noise, different needs, and different attitudes and behaviour. To successfully communicate the needs and possible measures for abating noise, it is necessary to get a clear understanding of the addressees of the information. Relevant data on the various target groups can be gathered via questionnaires, focus group discussions, or other instruments. The following table gives an overview of possible target groups for communicating noise issues at local level (based on van den Elshout, 2006, p. 17). Journalists / Media Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) Health sector Educational sector Freight delivery sector Target groups Citizens Subgroups City dwellers People working in the city Tourists Public transport users Car drivers Cyclists and pedestrians (Parents of) babies, toddlers, small children Migrants / minorities Elderly people Shop owners Truck drivers People responsible for delivery schemes of businesses Shop owners School children Teachers Parents Hospital staff General practitioners Public health service Patients in hospitals Regional and local newspapers Target group-specic papers Environmental groups / Interest groups Organised citizens at neighbourhood level Research institutes Consulting companies Government / decision makers
Silence | page 58

Information brochure from Brussels: Road trafc and noise exposure: a map to act!
Source: IBGE-BIM, 2002

City council Regional authorities

Tools
There is a range of tools for communicating with the different target groups. All kinds of leaets, brochures, posters, websites, questionnaires, information desks in hot spot areas, childrens competitions, etc. can be used. It is important to nd the right tool, the right style and tone, and the right time for delivery for each target group.

Another interesting way could be to inform citizens with tools dedicated to noise, such as sound barometers in the streets, just as is done for air quality. For example in the French city of Clermont-Ferrand, the air quality in the city is displayed on an air quality barometer.

The following scale, based on common standards, could be used to present sound levels to the public in a similar way:

Air quality barometer in the French City of Clermont-Ferrand

Photo: Melanie Kloth, Polis

More than 85 dB(A) >75 85 dB(A) >65 75 dB(A) >55 65 dB(A) >45 55 dB(A) Less than45 dB(A)

Harmful sound levels in case of long exposure Communication is very difficult Mediocre soundscape Acceptable soundscape Good soundscape Excellent soundscape

Silence | page 59

Land use planning and building design

As mentioned earlier, avoiding and mitigating noise should be an integral part of land use planning and building design. The noise reduction potential is much higher when taken into consideration from the very beginning of a new or re-development.

neighbourhoods on inner-city brownelds or as town expansion. The possibility of using these measures depends on the size of the available space, the terrain, the zoning policy applied, as well as other restraints like objectives for high population density on the site, the necessity to provide for HGV access to existing shops, etc.

Land use planning

Typical tools for land use planning are land use plans or zoning plans that cover the entire territory of the city (or the district). These plans can be used for noise abatement planning by indicating (relatively) quiet spaces that are to be protected against new noise immissions; allocating land use in such a way that the distance between future noise emissions and noise-sensitive areas is big enough. However, research has shown that a sprawled city structure (as particularly promoted in the middle of the 20th century) compared to a compact structure does not offer a solution to the noise problem (WG 5, 2002, p. 22). The separation of land uses reduces noise on the one hand but generates additional (motorised) trafc and thus noise on the other hand; avoiding the generation of additional trafc by sensible allocation of land use categories.
I

a) Noise-compatible buildings as noise barriers

A cost-effective way to protect residential buildings from trafc noise can be to place buildings with noise-compatible uses like shops and ofces between the road or railway line and the housing area. In particular at inner-city locations this noise abatement solution responds to the request for an intensive use of rare and expensive building land. However, this solution requires a sufcient demand for additional space for ofces and/or shops.

Land use plans often have a time horizon of 15 or more years. Decisions taken in those plans will not directly impact on the noise exposure of dwellers. Noise reducing effects become only measurable when on the basis of land use plans concrete development plans are implemented.
I II P III S III II II

III

building as barrier

Land use plans thus are often underestimated as to their relevance for noise abatement
(Lrmkontor, BPW, konsalt, 2004, p. 78). They are however an important planning level when it comes to avoiding future noise conicts. On the next level, planning tools that cover only parts of a city such as development plans or plans for urban renewal / redevelopment offer the opportunity to stipulate concrete measures to avoid or abate noise. The following measures can be used for the redevelopment of existing housing areas as well as for the development of new

Buildings as noise barriers along a railway line

Source: Lrmkontor, BPW, konsalt, 2004, p. 35

In this example the form of the new building is especially designed to reduce the propagation of noise towards the residential houses located behind.

Silence | page 60

In redevelopment areas, additional buildings can form a noise barrier together with existing buildings.

Closed buildingstructure through extension

Noise abatement through extension of buildings

Source: Lrmkontor, BPW, konsalt, 2004, p. 29

The noise abating effect of buildings is not only relevant for the development of new neighbourhoods. In shrinking cities, where the demolition of residential houses is under discussion, the noise issue also has to be considered. Taking away houses at the edge of a neighbourhood could lead to an increase of the noise level in the centre. Alternative options on how to reduce the number of dwellings or additional noise abatement measures should be discussed.

Demolition of buildings at the edge of the neighbourhood thus removing the noise barrier

Demolition of houses in shrinking cities

Source: Lrmkontor, BPW, konsalt, 2004, p. 72

Silence | page 61

b) Building structure
Another opportunity is to design the residential houses themselves in such a way that the propagation of noise is reduced. Compared to detached or semi-detached houses, terraced houses reduce the sound propagation and offer at least one quiet faade to the houses.

B
Terraced houses instead of semi-detached houses in the first row towards the highway protect the neighbourhood from noise

Closed front of houses forms noise barrier

Source: Lrmkontor, BPW, konsalt, 2004, p. 30

Sheds and garages can be used to form a kind of courtyard that gives one quiet faade to the houses.

C
II II II
II II

Sheds and garages next to houses form quiet courtyards

II II II

Sheds and garages forming quiet courtyards

Source: Lrmkontor, BPW, konsalt, 2004, p. 49

Silence | page 62

c) Allocation of buildings in combination with noise barriers

Screens or barriers can be used to protect residential areas from noise. Noise screens abate the propagation of noise depending on their height and the distance from the noise source. Thus, low-rise buildings are easier to protect from noise than high-risers. High-rise buildings therefore need to benet from the longer distance from the noise source rather than from the effects of noise screens. In areas with a mix of houses, low-rise houses should be placed next to the barrier whereas high-rise houses should be placed as far from the noise source as possible. Unfortunately, high-rise buildings for social housing or dwellings for rent are often placed directly at the noise source to protect the low-rise buildings behind from the noise.

enhance the use of public transport it is advisable to place a new neighbourhood as close to a railway station as possible and to avoid 100 meters of open space (with bad noise quality) in between the houses and the station (Lrmkontor, BPW, konsalt, 2004, p. 35).

Noise zoning
The Danish project The city without noise annoyance has developed a noise zoning tool as an easily accessible plan showing the city area divided in 4 different noise categories. The aim with this plan is to support municipal planning, trafc planning and noise action planning as well as to serve as an easily understandable tool for consulting the public on noise issues. It is suggested to use 4 different zones with specic requirements (L Aeq, 24h) for dwellings and institutions in each zone (Ellebjerg Larsen, Bendtsen, 2006, p. 3): A. Quiet areas, where noise levels may not exceed 45 dB. No through trafc at night. B. Residential areas with reasonable noise conditions, where noise levels may not exceed 55 dB. No through trafc at night. C. Noise polluted central areas, where noise levels may not exceed 65 dB. No heavy vehicles at night. D. Heavily noise polluted areas that are typically located near main roads and intersections. As far as possible no heavy vehicles at night. In longer perspective, trafc planning and urban planning should secure that there are no dwellings in these areas.

Noise screens protect low-rise buildings

d) Distance
Placing as much distance between the road or railway line and the residential buildings is maybe the most obvious option to reduce the noise immission on residents. Doubling the distance will in general lead to a reduction by 3 to 5 dB, depending on the attenuation of the ground in between (WG 5, 2002, p. 21). For motorways this means that on a distance of less than 100 meters the noise level will seldom fall below 70 dB (ibid., p. 22)!

In areas labelled as zone C or D, there should be public open spaces such as parks, playgrounds or similar areas that have relatively low noise levels (<55 dB) within 10-15 minutes walk from dwellings. In all zones the noise levels inside dwellings should not exceed 30 dB. In zones C and D, the dwellings should have a quiet faade where the noise level does not exceed 55 dB, and sleeping rooms should be located towards this faade. In zone D, living rooms should also be located towards the quiet faade. For END related use and the required noise maps,

Thus, distance might be a solution for rural areas. For urban areas it is rarely an option!
Besides its low noise protection effect, in many cases distance is contradictory to other objectives of urban development. For example, in order to

Silence | page 63

the noise levels could be adjusted to L DEN instead of L Aeq, 24h. Compared to noise maps showing the contour lines for 55, 60, 65 and 70 dB as demanded in the END

barrier to the other rooms (WG 5, 2002, p. 31). Such rooms include kitchens, bathrooms, stairways and storages. Noise-sensitive rooms should be placed towards the quiet faade.

those zoning maps are a more comprehensive way of explaining the issue to the public
because they include both the actual status of noise exposure as well as requirements to keep this level respectively to improve the situation.

b) Shape and orientation of buildings

The shape and orientation of buildings should be planned with due consideration of their impact on the indoor noise level of the building itself, as well as of other buildings nearby. Sound will be reected by the faade. It should be avoided that the noise is reected towards other faades, thus provoking additional annoyance.

Planning new routes for roads and railway lines

When planning a new route it should be considered that as mentioned before noise levels in dB from two distinct noise sources do not simply sum up arithmetically. This phenomenon can be used when planning a new road or railway line. A good solution might be to place the new road along an existing railway line. The noise level will increase little, while avoiding the creation of new noise in a formerly quiet area.

(a)

Building design
In the section on land use planning, the relevance of the building structure for the protection of the house itself and buildings lying behind has been mentioned. In relation to the single building, there are more aspects to be considered for reducing the inside noise level. They concern the room plan, the shape and orientation of buildings, as well as sound insulation of walls and windows (the latter will be presented in Part 5 of this handbook). A more comprehensive way of building design is utilising parts of the building itself as noise barriers for the noise-sensitive rooms. In particular balconies, wing walls and adjoining buildings can be used for such self-protecting buildings (ibid., p. 32). Orienting the windows

(b)
Noise reection at buildings: a) to be avoided b) preferred
Source: WG 5, 2002, p. 27

a) Room plan
In dwellings and ofces, rooms for less noisesensitive activities can be placed towards the road or railway line, thus forming an additional noise

away from the road or railway line and protecting them through wing walls can reduce the inside noise level signicantly.

Road
WC Living Kitchen Dining Bed Bath Bed WC Office WC Equipment Store Office
Noise compatible arrangement of rooms
Source: WG 5, 2002, p. 31

Silence | page 64

Design of parks and green spaces

In inner-city areas with a relatively high noise exposure of dwellings it is especially important to provide for quiet parks and green spaces. However, many parks are affected by road and railway noise as well. The primary concern in this case should be to reduce the noise emissions.

If there is no opportunity to achieve an adequate noise level in the entire park, a careful allocation of uses in the green space is important.
Adjoining building used for a self-protecting building
Source: WG 5, 2002, p. 32

The following recommendations can help to place different activities with respect to their noise sensitivity (Lrmkontor, BPW, konsalt, 2004, p. 11):

Road

areas for very noise-sensitive activities like reading or sunbathing should be placed as far as possible from the noise sources; areas foreseen especially for communication between visitors should be carefully protected from noise because communication is very easily disturbed by noise; rail trafc noise implies less subjective annoyance than road trafc noise; if no quiet areas are available, the noise-sensitive activities should be placed in vicinity of the railway rather than of the road; sporting activities are the least noise-sensitive and can be placed in the noisier areas of the park.

Walls Windows

Windows
Wing walls protect the building
Source: WG 5, 2002, p. 32

The noise reduction potential of balconies ranges from 5 to 14 dB depending on the width of the windows, the angle between the road and the window, the depth of the balcony and the height of the boundary wall. If balconies are located well above the street level, their underside should be designed to reect noise away from the faade or be covered with a noise absorbing material (ibid., p. 33).

Silence | page 65

Taking advantage of changes

This chapter wants to highlight (again) that not all efcient measures to abate noise necessarily cost (a lot of) extra human and/or nancial resources. The public eet including waste collection vehicles, public transport and all other vehicles used by the local authorities has to be renewed at some point anyway. Why not choose less noisy vehicles then? The same principle applies to road surfaces. They need to be replaced at some stage when they are old and worn anyway. Very effective and cost-efcient low-noise road surfaces are now available. Whenever a surface is to be replaced a low-noise alternative should be considered. Another issue is to make sure that the noise impact of new transport infrastructure is controlled. In many countries, for new infrastructure and other construction projects an environmental impact assessment has to be done. These evaluations should include impacts on the noise situation. When a future noise conict is detected during the planning phase, amendments can still be made that help to reduce the noise impact.
Photo: Jol Dozzi

Environmental permits in Brussels

The Brussels noise action plan mentions environmental permits (IBGE-BIM, 2000, p. 20). Since 2002, environmental permits for the design of public space have been more specically evaluated from an acoustic point of view, taking into account the specic context of the project (surroundings, residential or not, current annoyance levels, etc.) and formulating recommendations as to materials choice or processing, speed limits or trafc ow control. Special attention is paid to locations where public transport (tram or bus) is passing.

Silence | page 66

Promoting less noisy transport modes modal shift

Private cars are responsible for a great part of the noise annoyance in urban areas. Encouraging residents to use alternative transport modes is therefore highly advisable to reduce the noise level. As many inner-urban car rides are shorter than 3 km, walking, cycling, skating, and public transport are good alternatives. Measures to promote a modal shift in favour of these modes can include: more attractive public transport (clean and comfortable vehicles, good accessibility of stations, higher frequency, shorter travel times through separated bus lanes etc., easy ticketing system, ); high quality cycling facilities; integrated car parking policy, park & ride facilities; mobility management; awareness raising campaigns.
Photo: PORTAL project

Promoting modal shift

is a huge subject on its own and cannot be discussed here in more detail. A range of literature and practice examples are available. For example, the following websites present successful measures in the case study section: http://epommweb.org/index.phtml?Main_ID=816 and http://www.eltis.org/.

Photo: PORTAL project

Silence | page 67

Inuencing driver behaviour

}
Engine speed signicantly impacts on noise
Source: VVCR

32 cars driving at 2,000 RPM produce no more noise than one car driving at 4,000 RPM (stand-alone engines)

Driving styles have a high impact on the noise that is generated. Using low engine speeds and avoiding unnecessary high acceleration and vehicle speed values achieve a signicant reduction of the propulsion noise of a vehicle. There is a correlation between acceleration and noise for passenger cars. For low speeds of around 30 km/h, the average noise increase due to acceleration is 2 dB. For speeds around 50 to 60 km/h, the increase is 1 to 1.5 dB (Steven, 2005). It is possible to drive with very low engine speeds, if one does not use the full acceleration potential of the vehicle. The acceleration values that are necessary to follow the trafc ow are normally much lower than the full acceleration potential of the vehicle. Other sources mention even higher noise reduction potentials. Less aggressive or passive driving styles are believed to reduce the noise on average by approximately 5 dB for cars and commercial vehicles and 7 dB for motorcycles. Furthermore, they result in considerable fuel savings, improve trafc safety and reduce gas exhaust emissions (WG 5, 2002, p. 14).

probably is more convincing than health effects. So far, noise has not been a central aspect of ecodriving campaigns. However, ecodriving, i.e. driving in a mode that saves fuel and reduces air pollution, also reduces noise emissions. Ecodriving training and campaigns including additional information on the noise issue therefore can be used to raise awareness for noise as well. Examples can be found at www.ecodrive.org and at www.treatise.eu.com. The gure below gives an example of how to present the relationship between engine revolutions and noise: one vehicle travelling with 4000 rpm produces the same amount of noise as 32 vehicles travelling at the same speed with only 2000 rpm (http://www. ecodrive.org/Benets-of-ecodriving.277.0.html).

Such campaigns could be supported by in-vehicle systems assisting the driver in eco-driving, e.g. by giving advice to shift to a higher gear when the engine speeds reaches 2,000 rpm. To enforce less-noisy driving styles, a system of noise sensitive areas and vehicle based engine speed and acceleration limiters could be installed in the future. The cities would need to dene the noise sensitive zones and equip them with systems to send information to vehicles entering the zone. The limiters then could be activated by the monitoring system when the vehicle enters a noise sensitive area and could be deactivated when leaving this area.

These gures make clear that it is worth invest in inuencing driver behaviour.
Especially the fuel saving potential can be used as argument in campaigns to convince drivers of a more passive driving style. Saving fuel brings an immediate economic value for drivers, which

Silence | page 68

Complaint management

The systematic collection and analysis of citizens complaints about noise can provide useful information about noise annoyance. In this respect a clear strategy on where to collect complaints and which data to collect is necessary. This strategy needs to be disseminated to all agencies of the local authorities which might be addressed by complaining citizens. This will certainly include the local police, the environment department, any on-site departments like ofces for neighbourhood renewal, etc. Of course the strategy should not only refer to how to handle

the data but also how to go back to the citizens to explain what the local authorities will do about the problem.

However, it has to be mentioned that such data are not representative.

There are various target groups that typically dont complain towards public authorities, among them migrants, people with lower levels of education, children. Information gathered through complaint management can contribute to the detection and analysis of hot spots, but always needs to be accompanied by other types of data collection on noise.

Promoting Night time noise service in North Lanarkshire

Photo: Environmental Protection UK

Silence | page 69

Part 5: Tackling noise

This part presents a choice of measures that help to reduce noise levels in hot spot scenarios. Included are measures that (in general) can be implemented at the local level. Other measures, such as low-noise tyres or driver assistance systems also being investigated within the SILENCE project can contribute to noise abatement in urban areas as well. They however are usually not within the competence of local authorities and therefore not discussed here. The measures presented offer solutions to different types of noise problems. Based on the analysis of the hot spot, an informed choice can be made. There are no one-size-ts-all measures. Tailor-made solutions have to be developed for each hot spot, taking into account the local context and the impact of the measure on other policy objectives. This is particularly important when a bundle of measures is implemented that might have multiple effects on other policy elds. Only few measures for specic roads have no impact on parallel routes or the road network in general. In fact, most measures will lead to a shift of trafc to other roads. Impacts of measures therefore need to be considered for a larger area. This chapter is mainly based on ndings of the SILENCE project, thus focusing on rail and road transport noise; other research has been included where necessary. A range of recommendations on how to tackle aircraft noise can be found in literature (e.g. WG 5, 2002, p. 16ff.). The presentation of the measures includes a short description, benets in terms of noise reduction, rough estimations of the related costs, and comments on advantages and related problems; these also include remarks on effects on other policy elds such as air quality, road safety, congestion, and energy consumption. This is followed by more technical details for those interested in implementing the measure. The rst part of measures refers to the infrastructure, the second part to the rolling stock and the third part to trafc management.

Silence | page 70

Low-noise road surfaces

What is it about?
Road surfaces inuence the generation of noise by tyre/road interaction and the propagation of noise from the vehicle engine and transmission system. The relevant factors for noise emission are the texture of the surface, the texture pattern and the degree of porosity of the surface structure. Low-noise road surfaces today are either thin layer surfaces or porous asphalts with one or two layers. Thin layers are different bituminous layers with a maximum thickness of 3 cm and a small aggregate size (4-8mm as maximum chipping size). Porous asphalt has an open structure with about 20-25% air void inbuilt. As a result, it absorbs noise and drains water, thus increasing road safety. The noise reduction potential of porous asphalt is higher than for thin layers. However, for use in urban areas, the porous asphalt still shows signicant disadvantages in terms of costs, durability, winter maintenance, ravelling caused by shear forces, drainage systems and difcult repair after trenching for pipes and cables and after accidents. Thus, the use of porous asphalt is only recommended for higher speeds (>60km/h), homogenous trafc ow, roads with only few crossings / trafc lights and without sharp bends. There are also new, low-noise solutions for paving blocks that can be used as alternative to cobble stones, keeping a very pleasing and different (compared to asphalt) visual appearance. Paving stones normally cause increased noise levels of 3-5 dB because of their very uneven surface structure. In SILENCE, a special type of very smooth paving blocks has been developed and full scale tested. These paving blocks have about the same noise emission as ordinary pavements.

and heavy vehicles at low and high speed). In the SILENCE project, thin layers with an optimised surface texture for noise reduction have been developed and full scale tested in Denmark. An initial noise reduction of 4 dB was achieved. Single layer porous pavements have an average noise reduction of 3-4 dB on highways (in relation to dense asphalt concrete). Two-layer porous pavements have a noise reduction potential of around 4 dB or more (in relation to dense asphalt concrete). For porous asphalts, the noise reduction effect decreases by 0.4 dB per year for light vehicles at high speeds and by 0.9 dB at low speeds. For heavy vehicles, this amounts to 0.2 dB at high speeds. No effect is assumed for low speeds.

What does it cost?

The cost of thin layers normally is about the same as the price for ordinary pavements. The price is to some extent related to the condition of the old pavement on the road. In Denmark, it is expected that the lifetime of thin layers is around one year less than of ordinary pavements due to their open surface structure. Two-layer porous asphalt surfaces cost about 30 EUR/m more than conventional surfaces. Compared to other noise abatement measures (like barriers, sound proof windows), the costs for low-noise road surfaces remain relatively low.

Advantages
Noise reducing pavements can be used in the ongoing pavement maintenance process and thus be a cheap and simple noise abatement measure to implement. In the SILENCE project, procedures for the integration of noise in Pavement Management Systems were developed.

Benets in terms of noise reduction

For thin layer surfaces, an initial noise reduction of up to 3 dB in relation to dense asphalt concrete with 11mm maximum aggregate size has been measured. However, the noise reduction effect decreases in the order of 0.1 dB per year (for light

The replacement of road surfaces can be done on short notice. No compliance of drivers is required to make this measure fully efcient. In most cases, low-noise surfaces reduce the rolling resistance, thus they might decrease fuel consumption as well.

Silence | page 71

Problems
Good craftsmanship and accuracy in the laying process are important to achieve the best results. No special maintenance has to be performed on thin layers. For porous surfaces, cleaning is necessary on a regular basis. Once the surface is strongly clogged, cleaning has no more impact on the noise performance. Attention has to be paid to maintenance and repair. Discontinuities reduce the noise reduction effect, at least locally. The text is based on the ndings from SILENCE subproject F Road Surface.

With a smoother pavement structure, the generation of vibrations and noise is reduced. The vibration generated noise can also be reduced if the pavement is elastic. In the driving direction, the pavement surface and the curved structure of the tyre forms an acoustical horn which amplies the noise generated by the tyre/road interaction. If the pavement side of this horn is noise absorbing, the amplication by the horn is reduced.

The most effective low noise surfaces are currently porous asphalt and thin-layer asphalt. Thin layer surfaces either can be open graded asphalt concrete, stone mastic asphalt or a combination pavement. The noise reduction

Technical details
A number of mechanisms are responsible for the generation of noise from vehicles passing over a road surface (Sandberg, U.; Ejsmont, J. A., 2002). One noise source is the engine and transmission system where the most important frequencies typically are smaller than 1,000 Hz. This noise propagates from the vehicle directly, and as reected noise from the road surface. The surface structure is therefore important for the propagation and reection. If the surface absorbs to some degree, the total noise may be reduced.

potential is based upon a low aggregate size of the mixture (e.g. a maximum aggregate size of 6mm on urban roads and 8mm on highways).

The second main source is the tyre/ road interaction noise, which can be subdivided and described by different mechanisms:
The aerodynamic noise generated by air pumping, when air is forced out (and sucked in) between the rubber blocks of the tyre and the road surface as the tyre rolls by: this source is typically the most important in the frequency range between 1000 and 3000 Hz. If the road surface is porous with a high built-in air void, the air can be pumped down into the pavement structure, and the noise generated from air pumping will be reduced. If the pavement has an open but not porous surface structure, the air pumping noise will also be reduced to some extent. Noise from vibrations of the tyre surface: the aggregate at the top layer of the pavement forms the pavement texture. When the rubber blocks of the tyre hit these stones, vibration is generated in the tyre structure. These vibrations generate noise typically dominated by the frequency range between 300 and 2000 Hz.
Thin layer surface from Ellenborgsvgen in Malmo
Photo: Danish Road Institute

Porous asphalt reduces the noise generated by air forced out between the rubber blocks of the tyre and the road surface (air pumping effect) and reduces propagation of noise from the engine and transmission system of the vehicle (sound is not reected but absorbed by the porous layer). In the SILENCE project, it was found that for highways single layer surfaces achieve the best noise reduction with a maximum aggregate size of 8mm, a built-in air void of around 20-23%, and a thickness of 40mm. For urban roads, this single layer is not suitable because the porous layer is clogged with dust and the noise reducing effect disappears after around 2 years.

Silence | page 72

Next generation of surfaces available for use on medium-term

Within the SILENCE project, further research was carried out regarding existing and new road surfaces. The objective of the SILENCE work package New production technologies for surfaces on urban main roads was to develop and test concepts for new noise reducing thin pavements for urban roads, focussing especially on Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) pavements. Altogether, 8 different test sections have been constructed on Kastrupvej in Copenhagen.
Porous asphalt from Lyngbyvej in Copenhagen
Photo: Danish Road Institute

Samples of 4 SMA pavements were also acoustically tested at the drum test facilities of BASt (Federal Highway Research Institute, Germany). Full-scale acoustical testing was carried out in compliance with the SPB and the CPX methods. Initial noise reduction measured by the SPB method was in the range of 0.9 to 4.3 dB, relative to the reference surface DAC 0/11 for passenger cars at 50 km/h at 20 C. OGAC 0/6 yielded the best noise reduction, followed by a SMA 6+ /5/8 (Opt.) of 3.7 dB. Two SMA 6+ /5/8 yielded a just noticeable noise reduction of 0.9 and 1.3 dB. The SMA 0/6 and SMA 4+ /5/8 also yielded a promising initial noise reduction of 3.2 dB and 3.0 dB, respectively. Noise reduction relative to the reference DAC 0/11 at 50 km/h and 20C expressed in CPXI was in the range of 1.1 dB to 2.9 dB with SMA 0/6 as the best performing, followed by SMA 0/4 of 2.8 dB. At the other end of the scale, the SMA 6+ /5/8 yielded a 1.1 dB noise reduction. OGAC 0/6, SMA 4+ /5/8 and SMA 6+ /5/8 (Opt.) yielded the same noise reduction of 2.5 dB. Big variations in CPXI at the OGAC 0/6 were experienced indicating a non homogenous surface. 1/3-octave band SPB frequency analysis showed in general that below 800 Hz similar tendencies were seen, while above 800 Hz especially the SMA

For urban roads, two-layer porous surfaces have proved successful. The top layer should have an aggregate size of 8mm, the bottom layer of 16 to 22mm. The top layer reects the dust, but lets the sound pass, which is absorbed in the bottom layer. These surfaces need to be cleaned regularly using high pressure water (e.g. twice a year). In SILENCE, an experiment has been conducted in Copenhagen where an 8 year old and clogged top layer of a two-layer porous pavement has been milled off and replaced by a new porous top layer. This was done successfully. An initial noise reduction of around 6 dB was achieved. However, considering the disadvantages of porous asphalts for use in urban areas (as mentioned earlier), thin layer surfaces are normally to be preferred.

Principle of double-layer porous asphalt

Picture: Manfred Haider @ arsenal research

6+ /5/8 (Opt.) stood out yielding a signicant reduction in high frequencies (reduction in air pumping noise). Other surfaces that showed reduction in air pumping noise were SMA 4+ /5/8, SMA 0/6 and OGAC 0/6. Efforts were made in

Silence | page 73

comparisons of the shape of SPB and CPXI spectra, which for some pavements showed remarkable good resemblance. The statistical uncertainty of Lveh levels for passenger cars was in an acceptable range of 0.1 dB to 0.2 dB. Dual/multi-axle trucks/buses showed remarkably higher levels of uncertainty, which makes it difcult to draw any sensible conclusions. The standard deviation of CPXI ranged from 0.3 dB to 0.4 dB (except for the two inhomogeneous surfaces). Simulated CPX measurements of four optimized SMA surfaces at the drum test facilities were in good agreement with real life CPX measurements in Copenhagen, yielding the same ranking (least noisy to noisiest). Differences in absolute noise levels were in the range of 0.1 dB to 1.2 dB. Comparisons of CPB measurements at laboratory and real life SPB measurements yielded different ranking (least noisy to noisiest). Differences in absolute noise levels were in the range of 0.4 dB to 2.8 dB.

In principle, a prefabricated surface is glued to the GA layer during the production process, when the hot and liquid mortar appears after the screed (paver). The production principle is as follows: 1) Chippings are temporarily xed to a base (a carpet-like exible layer) by means of an adhesive layer. The chippings adjust themselves with a at side to the adhesive layer. 2) The base with its chippings is placed upsidedown on the hot GA layer. 3) After the GA has cooled down the base is removed and the chippings remain in the surface with a at top.

Conventional construction method

Combination Gussasphalt

Gussassphalt mixture

Screed (paver)

Road construction

A new production method for Combination Gussasphalt with at top chippings has been developed.
Compared to stone mastic asphalt and asphalt concrete (with a concave type of surface texture), the disadvantage of Gussasphalt in terms of noise is the convex (or positive) type of surface texture. An optimised texture is concave (or negative). This means that the surface should resemble plateaus with ravines after the road has been constructed (Beckenbauer et al. 2002). Small plateaus of the same height are located irregularly next to one another, so that interim spaces (ravines) are left, allowing the tyre prole to release a certain amount of air. This reduces the air-pumping effect of the tyre prole. The resultant surface is also smooth, which means that the tyre vibration excitement is as low as possible at least for small aggregate sizes. The idea behind Combination Gussasphalt with at top chippings is to combine the good properties of the construction material Gussasphalt (GA) (e.g. durability and water tightness) with the possibility to apply a concave type of texture above. The advantages of the Combination Gussasphalt could be: the Gussasphalt base and the surface layer are produced in one step; the surface is prefabricated under the best possible conditions, e.g. no inuence of the weather; the Gussasphalt base is watertight and can be laid in thin layers down to 2 cm; designing the texture of the surface with the help of a tyre-road model for low noise generation is possible;
Principle of Combination Gussasphalt
Picture: Oliver Ripke

Further research is necessary to transform the production process from the laboratory scale into large scale.

Dense asphalt with high content of polymer-modied binder

In the USA, mainly in Arizona, a type of dense asphalt with a high content of polymer-modied

Silence | page 74

Screed (paver)

Chippings

Prefabricated, e.g.rolled up surface

binder, Asphalt Rubber Friction Course (ARFC), has been developed and used. It appears that the ARFC is almost as effective in reducing noise as the best European porous asphalt surfaces, while showing a much longer durability. Current data suggest that the initial noise reduction is reduced at a rate of approximately 0.3 dB per year, which is a slower decay than typical for porous asphalt. ARFC surfaces differ from conventional surfaces in two major ways: the binder is mixed with crumb rubber (granules 0.5-2.0 mm) with a proportion of approx. 15% (by weight); the amount of binder (including the rubber) is typically about 10% of the total weight of the surface.

Thus, in total the amount of rubber in the surface is around 1.5% by weight. The surface texture has two rather distinct features: 1) aggregate of a medium size dominates; this should give a texture which is well optimised for low noise tyre/ road emission; 2) there is a substantial amount of binder covering the aggregate. It is believed that the noise reducing effect depends on the open but not porous surface texture minimising the air pumping effect, and the relatively smooth surface, making the impact between tyre tread elements and the road texture peaks somewhat damped.

A typical bore core of an Asphalt Rubber Friction Course (ARFC) produced by Arizona DoT
Photo: Ulf Sandberg

Silence | page 75

Road surface maintenance

What is it about?
Unevenness and discontinuities are a threat to the noise performance of all road surfaces. Thus, good maintenance is always required to keep noise levels as low as possible. When low-noise surfaces where chosen to reduce noise in hot spot areas, maintaining the low-noise features is even more important. Low-noise pavements on urban roads have the potential to provide a signicant noise reduction. However, these pavements often fail to keep this property over their working life. This means that their acoustic working life as an effective noise abatement measure is shorter than their existence as road pavements. Maintenance specialising in low-noise road surfaces has the goal of prolonging their acoustic service life. The rst step to ensure the low-noise performance, is a frequent and consistent monitoring of the road surface properties. Maintenance actions as the second step should always be carried out in view of remaining the low-noise features, and not with respect to speed and low costs. In order to secure the low-noise properties, the following rules apply: repairs should always be carried out with the same material as in the original construction and the surface structure should be maintained; porous surfaces require early enough cleaning (with high-pressure water) if the sound absorption performance is to be preserved. Reliance on self-cleaning effects is not justied in urban areas, with typical vehicle speeds at 50 km/h or even below; for two-layer surfaces, the replacement of the top layer can solve the problem of clogging and ravelling at once.

surface treatments including sealing: the sound-absorbing properties of porous surfaces would be completely removed, even though sealing of porous pavements can increase the lifetime of a porous layer.

Benets in terms of noise reduction

Accurate maintenance helps to keep the low-noise properties of road surfaces.

What does it cost?

Regular cleaning of porous surfaces, frequent monitoring and careful repairs might cause additional costs. However, compared to other noise abatement measures, the costs for lownoise road surfaces including good maintenance are relatively low. No special extra costs are related to maintaining noise reducing thin layers.

Advantages
The same advantages as for choosing low-noise surfaces apply: no compliance of drivers is required to make this measure fully efcient. In most cases, low-noise surfaces reduce the rolling resistance, thus decreasing fuel consumption as well.

Problems
Good craftsmanship and accuracy in the repair process are important to achieve the best results. The Text is based on the ndings from SILENCE subproject F Road Surface.

On the other hand, conventional maintenance actions should be avoided in order to maintain the low-noise performance: milling or grinding of the top layer: often applied when unevenness or skid resistance problems arise. The original surface texture is destroyed. Thus, the new surface will be louder than standard surfaces;
Bottom-layer after high pressure water cleaning and vacuum
Photo: Jrn Bank Andersen, NCC

Silence | page 76

Technical details
Low-noise road surfaces should exhibit the following properties: low level of unevenness and surfaces discontinuities; low excitation of tyre vibrations by surface texture; sufcient air ventilation under the tyre contact patch; high void content to achieve sound absorption; adapted dynamic stiffness (if applicable).

old uneven humps made of rough cobble stones or for severe bumps in a speed range of 30 to 50 km/h is high (8 to 10 dB(A)); tram crossings with an angle of less than 80 to the driving direction and with even surface in a speed range of 30 to 70 km/h is low (1-2 dB(A)) if in good condition, and moderate (2-5 dB(A)) if in bad condition; tram crossings with an orientation perpendicular to the driving direction but even surface in a speed range of 30 to 70 km/h is high (5-9 dB(A)); tram crossings with uneven surface made of rough cobble stones in a speed range of 30 to 70 km/h is high (8-12 dB(A)).

Regarding unevenness and surface discontinuities, singularities like manhole covers, humps and bumps, as well as tram crossings are relevant. Within the SILENCE project, measurements were carried out to identify the impact of these devices on the noise level. It was found that the difference in noise levels for smoothly textured and evenly built-in manhole covers in a speed range of 30 to 70 km/h is negligible (less than 1 dB(A)); roughly textured or unevenly built-in manhole covers in the same speed range is moderate (+ 3 dB(A)); modern even humps made of smooth concrete block stones with smooth ramps for a speed up to 40 km/h is negligible (less than 1 dB(A)) and for speeds between 40 and 50 km/h moderate (between 2 and 5 dB(A));

For the monitoring of low-noise road surfaces, regular SPB measurements only constitute the bare minimum. SPB and CPX measurements together with sound absorption/drainability measurements, and texture measurements combined with optical inspections provide a much more complete picture of the surface status.

Suitable indicators that can be used to judge the noise performance of road surfaces can be divided into two groups: direct acoustic parameters and indirect measures.
These are presented in the following table with an evaluation of their usefulness. When possible, direct acoustic parameters should always be analysed, while non-acoustic parameters are important for determining the causes of performance degradation.

Silence | page 77

Acoustic noise performance indicators for road surfaces Method Evaluation The SPB method is a standardised method with a low level of uncertainty. It is standardised by ISO. However, it is only an evaluation at one point of the road, timeconsuming and has severe restrictions as to the acoustic environment. If a representative location meeting the requirements can be found, it is the best method for the evaluation of maintenance operations (before/after comparison).

Statistical Pass By Method (SPB, ISO 11819-1[1])

Pass-by Noise and speed are measured for individual vehicles (100 cars, 80 trucks) at a specic location. The method is widely used and might be used for noise labelling of pavements.

SPB method with backing board

A modied version of the SPB method, especially suitable for urban environments. It works even with reecting objects behind the measurement position.

This variant retains the advantages of the SPB method while widening its applicability. It will be especially useful in the presence of noise barriers.

Controlled Pass By Method (CPB)

This variant of the SPB method uses the noise from a few selected test cars. [2]) The sound eld close to the tyre/road contact zone of a test tyre mounted in a trailer or especially designed vehicle is measured. Noise emission can be measured continuously along long distances. Two or four different tyres are normally used for measurements.

CPB is less time consuming, but also less representative of real trafc. It allows more control over the test setup and is especially suited for dedicated test sites.

The Close Proximity Method (CPX, ISO/CD 11819-2 This method can be easily used even in normal trafc
ow. It is very exible and not dependent on the acoustic environment. It is very well suited for fast and frequent evaluation of complete construction or maintenance sections. However, it only measures the tyre/road noise component of vehicle noise emission. Moreover, it only partially represents the effects found with truck tyres and sound-absorbing road surfaces. This method is only relevant for porous pavements and yields information on their sound absorption. It can be used to monitor the effect of clogging on absorption to trigger maintenance actions like pore cleaning (de-clogging).

Acoustic absorption
Several methods are developed where the noise absorption of a pavement can be measured on site by portable equipment. (Kundts tube [3] [4], extended surface method according to ISO 13472-1 [5])

Non-acoustic noise performance indicators for road surfaces

Pavement texture
Texture is measured with mobile laser prolometers. Results can be presented as Mean Prole Depth (MPD) or as a texture spectrum (ISO 13473-1 to -5 [6] [7] [8] [9] [10])

Texture measurements can be performed relatively fast over longer road sections. Models for predicting noise emission based on texture spectra are under development. Repaving with different materials can alter the vibration excitation due to pavement texture. While these parameters are mainly relevant for ride comfort, sufciently affected older pavements can also exhibit a rise in noise emission, especially with high crack densities and many patch repairs.

Pavement unevenness and discontinuities

Traditionally these parameters were monitored by visual inspection or simple mechanical means. Currently, unevenness and crack detection are moving towards automated laser or camera based methods.

Permeability
The permeability of pavements can be measured by the Becker method (EN 12697-40, see [27]). An open tube is placed on the pavement and water is poured into the tube. The time it takes for the water to run out through the pavement structure is used as an expression of the permeability of a given pavement. Permeability can also be measured by the use of air under pressure instead of water.

Permeability is mainly used as a measure of the remaining porosity of sound-absorbing surfaces. It is a proxy measurement for direct sound absorption measurements and shows the state of clogging.

Elastic properties
Measurement methods for the dynamic stiffness with regard to noise generation are being developed.

These methods will only be important for poro-elastic road surfaces. They will likely rely on spot checks.

Silence | page 78

International Standardization Organization - Sources

[1] ISO 11819-1, First Edition, 1997-09-15, Acoustics Measurement of the inuence of road surfaces on trafc noise Part 1: Statistical Pass-By method. International Standardization Organization [2] ISO/CD 11819-2, 2000-12-13, Acoustics Measurement of the inuence of road surfaces on trafc noise Part 2: The close-proximity method, Draft Standard of working group ISO TC43/SC1/WG33 [3] ISO 10534-1, 1996-12-15, Acoustics - Determination of sound absorption coefcient and impedance in impedance tubes - Method using standing wave ratio, International Organization for Standardization [4] ISO 10534-2, 1998-11-15, Acoustics - Determination of sound absorption coefcient and impedance in impedance tubes - Transfer-function method, International Organization for Standardization [5] ISO 13472-1, 2002-06-15, Acoustics - Measurement of sound absorption properties of road surfaces in situ - Extended surface method, International Organization for Standardization [6] EN ISO 13473-1, 2004-07-01, Characterization of pavement texture by use of surface proles Part 1: Determination of Mean Prole Depth, International Organization for Standardization and European Committee for Standardization [7] ISO 13473-2, 2002-09-15, Characterization of pavement texture by use of surface proles Part 2: Terminology and basic requirements related to pavement texture prole analysis, International Organization for Standardization [8] ISO 13473-3, 2002-11-01, Characterization of pavement texture by use of surface proles Part 3: Specication and classication and of prolometers, International Organization for Standardization [9] ISO/DTS 13473-4, 2006-09-15, Characterization of pavement texture by use of surface proles Part 4: Spectral analysis of surface proles, International Organization for Standardization [10] ISO/CD 13473-5, 2005-06-06, Characterization of pavement texture by use of surface proles Part 5: Measurement of Megatexture, International Organization for Standardization

Silence | page 79

Low-noise tracks for trams

What is it about?
Rolling noise is the most prominent noise source for trams during running. Within the SILENCE subproject Rail Infrastructure & Operation it was identied that noise hotspots exist where oating slab tracks are used in street tracks in order to reduce ground-borne noise transmission to neighbouring buildings. Although the oating slab track is necessary to reduce ground-borne noise inside the buildings, it gives rise to a distinctive low-frequency rumbling noise radiated from the slab itself. Unlike normal tram rolling noise, this very high level of low-frequency noise stands out in the urban soundscape as a source of acute annoyance. The project therefore has developed a new track form and a new oating slab, which are specically designed to reduce ground-borne noise without leading to the high level of lowfrequency noise. A general problem in terms of noise emission is the roughness of the tracks (and wheels). Where the track becomes corrugated (rapid periodic wear of the rail-head that occurs in certain track, curving and traction conditions that are difcult to control), the rolling noise can be up to 20 dB higher than in normal conditions. Regular grinding helps to keep noise levels down. A way to further reduce noise in the line of propagation is lawn tracks. Filling elements covered with lawn are inserted between the two rails. The top of the lawn should be in line with the rail top. Other noise reduction options include rail dampers, reducing vibration noise at bridges, and reducing curve squeal. The latter can for example be reduced by lubrication.

higher frequencies is a necessary consequence of the design, but this is normally masked in the frequency range. The noise level in dB(A) remains the same, but the annoying rumbling is eliminated. (In the case study it was reduced with about 15 dB. Thus it is insignicant in the spectrum of noise.) The difference between severely corrugated and regularly ground tracks is up to 20 dB. Lawn tracks are in general believed to reduce the noise by about 2 dB(A), depending on the layout before. Measurements in Dresden - Germany, concluded a noise reduction of about 5 dB for their lawn tracks.

What does it cost?

A conventional oating slab installation in an urban environment is a very costly and complicated solution. In addition, experience has shown that it is indeed very difcult for contractors to properly execute its construction. The solution developed within SILENCE is expected to cost about a quarter of that of a oating slab with similar performance, and its design guarantees a properly working solution after completion.

Advantages
Lawn tracks tend to accumulate rainwater and they have a potential to reduce particulate matter, thus locally improving air quality. They can also improve the urban environment visually, especially in inner-city areas.

The text is based on the ndings from SILENCE subproject G Rail Infrastructure & Operation. More information on the example from Dresden can be found at http://www.eltis.org/study_sheet. phtml?study_id=1339&lang1=en.

Benets in terms of noise reduction

The pre-compressed and sealed base plate track design eliminates the low-frequency rumbling noise (as was shown by calculations using the TWINS model). A small increase in rolling noise at

Silence | page 80

Tram on lawn tracks in Dresden, Germany

Photo: DVB AG

Technical details
The new solution developed within SILENCE consists of a pre-compressed soft base plate track design with all but the rail-head sealed under the road, thus reducing the noise radiation at low frequency signicantly. The rails themselves are also completely isolated from the roadbed in which they are embedded to enable them to move freely during vehicle passage. The embedding material minimises the exposed surface of the rail to the top of the railhead, thus ensuring that the noise created by the vibrating rail is negligible.

Silence | page 81

Railway and tram depots

What is it about?
Depots are often located close to residential areas, which makes them a factor of noise annoyance. Local authorities trying to reduce the annoyance need to cooperate with the parties responsible for the depot, which will be the operator, the infrastructure manager and/or the depot runner. The rst step will be to clarify the concrete distribution of responsibilities between these stakeholders. The operation of the depot generates different types of noise which all cause a different kind of annoyance. Within the SILENCE subproject Rail Infrastructure & Operation, 9 relevant types of noise were studied and compared by means of subjective listening tests: 1. Coupling noise 2. Curve squeal 3. Noise of train rolling through switches 4. Rolling noise 5. Stationary diesel noise 6. Fan electric loco 7. Air pressure release

Usually, the processes at a depot have developed throughout the years and the lay-out of the tracks and switches is used in a practical way. Houses often appear to be close to the shunting tracks, curves, switches etc. and many tracks and switches in a depot are not used or not necessary for use. Choosing intelligent locations for static source types like washing plants, cleaning, refuelling, can yield a major improvement of the noise situation at a depot. Putting the static activities in-line would reduce the number of shunting movements and reduce the noise levels and noise events even further. Besides re-allocating the activities, reduction measures at the source (e.g. reducing roughness of tracks, lubrication of tracks in curves) and the reduction of the number of movements in the depot can contribute to noise reduction.

8. Compressor noise 9. Braking noise The annoyance caused by each source varies with the noise level. An annoyance study carried out within the SILENCE subproject Noise Perception and Annoyance indicates that sources like rolling noise, air pressure release and brake noise can have much higher sound pressure levels than for example rolling through switches and stationary diesel and can still be less annoying. Thus, the rst step to reduce annoyance is to clarify which noise sources are most relevant in the local situation. This can be done by surveying the perception and annoyance of residents or by transferring ndings from other studies to the depot under discussion.
Noise map of the railway depot in Genoa
Picture: SNCF

Silence | page 82

Recommendations
The following suggestions for noise abatement concerning the lay-out, the processes and the behaviour of users can be given.

Behaviour of users
Dont use horns if not necessary Apply minimum power when running or idling Accelerate gradually Keep train speeds slow Teach less noisy ways to handle materials Dont use loud voices outdoors Keep speeds of car driving low Establish rules for car idling Education of delivery drivers: dont use horns, turn off engine, dont use loud voice during night hours

Lay-out
Keep sources far from residents Build buildings around the depot which then function as barriers Locate signals for entering the depot far from the houses Keep crossings and switches away from living areas Minimise the number of paths and the number of switches where possible Make welded joints where possible Remove unused switches

Even with these noise mitigation measures in place, the depot will still emit noise. Therefore it is advisable to establish a communication process with the residents. It has been found that understanding of the necessity of activities can improve the acceptance and reduce the annoyance experienced by the residents. The communication strategy could include information sessions to explain the activities at the depot and planned measures to reduce the noise; a survey on noise perception and annoyance; invitation of residents to visit the depot (open day).

Processes
Reduce the number of movements for shunting Find alternatives for horns like separate low level devices (whistle or electric device). Electric devices like broad band warning horns have been developed for road vehicle reversing alarms. These are less disturbing than beeps Apply less noisy coupling Keep delivery of equipment far from houses Delivery of equipment preferably during day hours In-line processes

The text is based on ndings from SILENCE subproject G Rail Infrastructure & Operation: SILENCE G.D9: Beuving, M., 2008. Annoyance of depot noise Guidelines for best practice. Lay-out, processes, communication. The report is available on the CD-Rom attached.

Silence | page 83

Noise screens and tunnels

What is it about?
Noise barriers or screens are an effective, but very costly measure to reduce noise propagation alongside roads or railway lines. The main requirement is that the barrier should be sufciently high and long enough. For the construction of barriers, a range of materials with different characteristics regarding absorption and reection of sound is used. Besides walls and parapets, also buildings or vegetation can be used. Another possibility is to cover the road / railway line partially or completely (tunnel).

benet ratio has to be assessed for the site studied, as it highly depends on the population density, the allocation of buildings and the type of barrier to be built. Tunnels are the most effective means of noise screening, but the most expensive as well. They are hardly ever used for specic noise abatement purposes.

Advantages
Noise screens can have signicant impact on noise abatement. Contrary to sound insulated windows, they also offer noise protection for outside areas like balconies and gardens. Tunnels

Benets in terms of noise reduction

In theory, noise screens could reduce noise levels by up to 15 db(A). However, in practice, when the buildings are relatively close to the road (and the screen), the reduction is between 5 and 10 db(A). At greater distances, the screening potential may be substantially lower. In some extreme cases, the sound level far from the screen may even be higher with the barrier than without, due to a phenomenon called refraction, i.e. if the noise source is lower than the surrounding terrain and if the screen is relatively small. Tunnels allow removing trafc noise from the surface.

may also locally improve air quality.

Problems
Noise screens affect the visual scene of the area and in particular the view of the residents and cause or increase difculty of crossing the road. Both might lead to resistance from residents. Noise barriers can block important air ow, which might impact negatively on local air quality.

Open questions
Depending on their shape and the material used, barriers offer different levels of noise reduction. For some types, data on the acoustic performance

What does it cost?

With about 300 EUR per m, the construction costs of noise screens are quite high. A barrier of 4m height and 500m length at both sides of the street costs about 1,200,000 EUR. The cost

are not yet sufciently available to allow predicting the impact on noise for specic local settings. The text is based on WG 5, 2002, p. 24ff.; Witteveen+Bos, 2004.

Silence | page 84

Technical details
Noise screens can be constructed with a range of materials. These include earth mounds, wood, steel, aluminium, concrete, masonry bloc, acrylic sheeting and rubber mats. Widely used are absorbing barriers of different constructions, as absorptive facing on the trafc side reduces reected sound. This is believed to improve the positive impact of the screen.

covering barriers: for example as a grid set over a road in a cutting or as a complete cover on both sides of and above the road. Such complete covers are quite expensive, but offer very signicant noise reduction (WG 5, 2002, p. 24f.).

The following types of barriers are promising in noise protection

but their performance needs to be tested further:

barriers with different height along their length (Longitudinal proled barriers): their shape is designed to create destructive interference effects on the road side that reduce noise on the other side; Double barriers: two simple barriers installed in parallel rows along one side of the road. Trafc noise is thought to be diffracted over the edges of both barriers. This kind of barrier is used very rarely. Their effectiveness has so far only been shown by theoretical models.

The following barriers may show improved performance over simple reecting barriers and should therefore be the rst choice when considering setting up a noise screen:
absorbing barriers: barriers with absorbing elements on the trafc side, which absorb part of the incident sound and thereby reduce sound reection, which is part of the overall noise. Such barriers are commonly used, but relatively expensive compared to simple barriers; capped barriers: barriers with a specially shaped top section which is meant to reduce sound waves over the top of the barrier; angled and dispersive barriers: barriers which reect the sound upwards or in other direction away from the sensitive area through tilted walls or contoured surfaces. These kinds of barriers should be considered as an alternative to absorbing barriers, especially when built on both sides of the road; embankments and earth mounds: can be used in addition to other barriers;

Vegetation is often used as noise screen.

To be really efcient, however, vegetation needs to be very high, dense and large
(approximately 1 dB(A) reduction per 10 m depth of planting). Its impact is therefore more psychological and esthetical: If people cannot see the noise source (e.g. a highway), this fact can also reduce their awareness of the sound level and thereby their annoyance. (WG 5, 2002, p. 28)

Earth berm

Supported berm

Berm and screen

Vegetation and screen

Screen
Examples of Noise Barriers
Source: WG 5, 2002, p. 26

House as barrier

Road in cutting

Tunnel

Silence | page 85

Building insulation

What is it about?
Sound insulation of dwellings, i.e. of the windows and outer walls of a building, is the last, but necessary option if other measures to reduce noise at the source or to abate its propagation fail to be sufcient. The main solution are sound insulated windows. They, however, reduce noise only sufciently when closed. To solve this problem, other solutions have been developed, such as double pane windows with a special ventilation system or additional glass faades with separate ventilation that allows for opening the windows behind the faade. Building insulation today is widely considered as necessary when outdoor sound levels exceed 55 dB during the day and 45 dB L Aeq at night.
Fresh air supply behind a closed glass faade at Fredensgade, Copenhagen
Source: Green Noise, 2005, p.7

Fresh air Court side

Glass facade in front of windows

Road side

Technical details
In situations with high outdoor sound levels during the night, sufcient ventilation for bedrooms should be foreseen without the need to open the window. Mechanical ventilation systems or air conditioning systems might be necessary. Their air vents or inlets should be placed at the less noisy side of the building or be equipped with silencers to avoid noise transmission (Working Group 5, 2002, p. 30). An example of such a ventilation system has been installed in Fredensgade in Copenhagen. The building has been tted with an additional glass faade behind which fresh air circulates coming through pipes from the quiet back side of the house. The sound improvement with closed windows was 11 dB at the ground oor and 7 dB at the second oor. With a small window open, the improvement was 17 dB at the ground oor and 15 dB at the second oor compared to the situation before (small window open, no glass faade) (Rasmussen 2008; more details can be obtained in Danish from Green Noise, 2005). If fresh air is to be taken in from the noisy side, one possible solution is sound shutters installed in

Benets in terms of noise reduction

Modern windows with double panes achieve a sound reduction of around 30 dB. Solid well-tting doors achieve 25-30 dB. Special windows are available that reach up to 40 dB sound reduction. However, the overall noise level in the dwelling depends on the insulation characteristics of the wall and the share of windows and doors.

What does it cost?

Costs per dwelling are very high compared to other measures that reduce noise at source or in line of propagation. However, for new buildings with high thermal insulation standards, additional costs will be low.

Advantages
A high noise reduction can be achieved exactly where needed with building sound insulation. Sound insulation can be linked to thermal insulation, which reduces energy consumption for heating.

Problems
Sound insulated windows only have an impact when closed. Building insulation only protects the inside from noise; outside areas like balconies and gardens remain unprotected. Retrotting of outer walls might be difcult or very expensive.
Silence | page 86

front of the windows. These shutters allow the fresh air owing in, while reducing the indoor noise level signicantly compared to the open window situation (Rasmussen 2008). The text is based on WG 5, 2002, p. 29f.

Low-noise trams

What is it about?
Noise emission from modern tram and metro vehicles is much lower than for older rolling stock. The renewal of the existing tram eet can therefore contribute signicantly to the reduction of noise exposure. The main noise sources from trams are: curve squeal noise due to sharp bends, rolling noise due to poorly maintained wheels and tracks, noise from ventilation and climate systems, noise from driving system (electric equipment and motors). When new trams are ordered, low-oor trams are usually chosen. The T3000 tram from Bombardier, part of the Flexity Outlook product family, is a modern low-oor tram and well representative for the state-of-the-art in terms of noise performance of trams today. It has resilient wheels to reduce noise and ground-borne vibrations. The wheels are prepared with xing holes on the rim to allow additional noise absorbers to be mounted if considered necessary to reduce curve squeal and rolling noise. Bogie sides are completely covered with skirts for aesthetic and noise reasons. Traction motors and gears are mounted in compact units. The traction motor noise and the rolling noise are the two most prominent noise sources during running, with an overweight for the latter. The rolling noise is mainly caused by the roughness of the tracks and the wheels. It is dominated by the

track noise, which is about 10 dB higher than the wheel noise. To keep the noise level low, good maintenance of both tracks and wheels is necessary.

Benets in terms of noise reduction

Compared to older tram vehicles (an average lifetime of trams of 30 years can be considered), the noise emission from these kinds of modern trams is at least 10 dB less.

What does it cost?

If the tram eet is to be renewed anyway, there are no additional costs for low-noise trams.

Advantages
Investing in low-noise trams, allows for reducing the noise level along the complete tram network in a city. In particular for city centres with a dense network and a high frequency of trams, the use of low-noise trams is highly advisable. These trams can also help to improve the attitude of citizens towards public transport, thus supporting approaches towards a modal shift in favour of public transport. In addition, modern trams reduce energy consumption (e.g. by less braking resistance, more efcient use of energy, and recovery of energy) and improve road safety. The vehicle

Bombardier T3000 tram as used in Brussels, Belgium

Photo: Bombardier Transportation

Silence | page 87

Silence | page 88

Renewal of public transport eet

Photo: Polis

What is it about?
Modern tram and bus vehicles in general emit much less noise than the older stock (see example on low-noise trams above). Renewing the eet therefore can signicantly contribute to noise abatement. If the local authorities are not the owner of the eet, they can conclude agreements with the transport operators to tackle the noise issue and can include noise criteria in tenders. Those criteria could refer to the complete eet, single vehicles or only to new vehicles and dene requirements to be achieved in different time periods. Such requirements for buses could be for example: 3 years after signing the contract, 80% of the eet must comply with the limit value of 77 dB(A); the other 20% must not exceed 80 dB(A). New vehicles must comply with the limit value of 77 dB(A). Buses running at night-time must comply with the 77 dB(A) limit. All vehicles must run with low-noise tyres. (Bund-Lnder Arbeitsgemeinschaft fr Immissionsschutz, 2007, p.24).

What does it cost?

The eet must be renewed anyway.

Advantages
In general, modern vehicles are also of benet in terms of air pollutant emissions, energy consumption and road safety.

Tram bonus
Within the frame of the SILENCE subproject Noise Perception and Annoyance, experiments were carried out to investigate the annoyance caused by the passage of one tram and one bus. These psychoacoustic listening tests have shown that the tram was equally annoying as the bus with a 3 dB lower sound pressure level (Griefhahn, Gjestland, Preis, 2007, p. 29; this report SILENCE A.D7 is available on the enclosed CD-Rom). This tram bonus could be taken into consideration when decisions on the long-term development of the public transport system are taken.

Benets in terms of noise reduction

For example for trams, the noise emission of modern vehicles is about 10 dB(A) less than for older vehicles (about 30 years old). Even with a (realistic) gradual exchange of the eet a signicant noise reduction can be obtained.

Silence | page 89

Agreements with transport providers in Brussels

73% of the inhabitants of the Brussels-Capital region consider that noise is one of the most distracting harmful environmental effects in their city. The noise action plan 2000-2005 therefore asked for agreements between the Region and the Belgian Railways National Company (SNCB) and between the Region and the Brussels Intercommunal Transport Company (STIB). the drivers awareness of a less noisy driving; establishment of a black spots improvement plan; common complaints management; the realisation of a land register of the trammetro transport noise (in progress); the conclusion of a specic bus noise and vibration convention. To evaluate and steer the progress, biannual meetings between the Region and SNCB respectively STIB are held. Responsible agencies and co-operation partners Belgian Railways National Company (SNCB) Brussels Inter-communal Transport Company (STIB) Brussels-Capital Region (MRBC) and more precisely Brussels Environment (IBGE-BIM) Why is it regarded as good example? Such a voluntary partnership between a public transport company and a public authority allows dening objectives on which the parties agree to progress quickly. A good convention (with the intention to succeed across the various parties) is better than a bad law. Tips for copying Such a convention must be fully discussed between the partners before arriving at an agreement. It is important to understand the expectations and reserves of each party. For more details contact Jean-Laurent Simons Brussels Environment Noise Department +32 (2) 775.78.33 [email protected] http://www.ibgebim.be

Within this context, two environmental conventions relating to noise and vibrations were signed between the Brussels-Capital Region and the transport providers. The convention with SNCB was signed on January 24, 2001. The convention with STIB is specic to the metro and tram modes of transport and was signed on June 25, 2004. The convention with SNCB envisages in particular: the analysis of a list of acoustic black spots (done); the realisation of a land register of the railroads noise (in progress); the installation of two permanent measuring sites (done); a bilateral follow-up of the complaints (done); a study on the noise generated by the SNCB work sites (done); a reection on the habitat in edge of the railway tracks; the signing of specic conventions for all infrastructure works completed by SNCB. The convention with STIB envisages in particular: the purchase of efcient rolling stock and infrastructures; the respect of reference values of the airborne noise for the vibrations of the metro and the new trams - infrastructures;

Silence | page 90

Low-noise waste collection vehicles

What is it about?
Compared to conventional vehicles, new waste collection vehicles designed to reduce noise emissions can contribute signicantly to a lower noise level. This is particularly important, as waste collection in many cities is carried out during evening or early morning hours in order to reduce congestion. RENOVA, responsible for waste management in Gothenburg - Sweden, has used gas-electric hybrid vehicles for waste collection in the city centre since 2004. The engine works on gas. When the vehicle stops for waste collection the engine stops automatically after 30 seconds. The waste collection system works on electricity from batteries.

Technical details
The waste collection vehicles combine engines working on gas, a hydraulic system for emptying the waste bins and pressing the waste inside the vehicle working on electricity from batteries, with an effective catalyst converter. The engine works on natural gas or biogas. It automatically recognises the gas quality and adapts to it. The gas tank contains 480 litres. Filling can be done during the night or using a faster procedure during the day. The engine turns off automatically after 30 seconds when the vehicles stops for waste collection. The catalyst converter works with signicantly higher temperatures than conventional converters do. Thus, 80% of marsh gas is reduced. The engine complies with the EURO 4-standard for emissions.

Benets in terms of noise reduction

A reduction of up to 25 dB(A) has been observed compared to conventional vehicles.

Five hours of working need 50% of the batteries capacity for the hydraulic engine. At the same time, 25% of the capacity is reloaded. After 10 hours of working, 50% of the capacity needs to be

What does it cost?

The vehicles cost about 22,000 to 32,000 EUR more than conventional vehicles. Maintenance is only slightly more expensive. During the lifetime of the vehicle of about 10 years, the batteries needs to be exchanged at least once. This costs about 8,000 EUR in addition.

reloaded. The vehicles have been in use since 2004. It is expected that the batteries have a lifetime of 4.5 to 5 years. Thus, this year it will become clear how the batteries work and if one exchange during the lifetime of the vehicle of 10 years will be enough.

Advantages
Noise from waste collection in residential areas can be reduced signicantly. Air pollution is reduced as well.

Problems
The trial in Gothenburg started in 2004. Until now the lifetime of the batteries remains unclear. If they need to be changed sooner than after 5 years, the aim for vehicle operation time of 10 years cannot be reached without another change of batteries.
Quiet waste collection with gas-electric hybrid vehicles

The text is based on www.renova.se; www.krets.goteborg.se.

Photo: RENOVA

Silence | page 91

Check on noisy vehicles

Example of a pass-by roadside enforcement test

Photo: BASt

Check on noisy mopeds in the UK

Photo: Environmental Protection UK

What is it about?
Excessive noise emissions can be produced by vehicles equipped with illegal silencers, especially for motorcycles. In-service controls are necessary to achieve a reduction of the noise impact. The in-service controls are currently based on a stationary noise test close to the exhaust pipes. The efciency of this test is rather poor however. Field studies show that only one third of the illegal systems can be detected by means of this test. A drive-by test similar to the type approval test would be much more efcient. From questionnaire surveys on road vehicle noise among roadside residents in Japan, it is known that 30% of the motorcycles and 6% of the cars are equipped with replacement silencers, most of them being illegal and much noisier than the original equipment. The percentage for trucks is less than 1%. The mentioned percentages are daily averages; the percentages during the night time period are signicantly higher than those for the day time period. It can be expected that the situation in EU member states is similar or even worse. Two main conclusions can be drawn from the survey results: in-service control can be an effective noise reduction measure but it can be restricted to motorcycles and cars.

Benets in terms of noise reduction

Roadside enforcement checks are especially efcient for motorcycles. Measures to reduce the use of illegal silencers could reduce the noise caused by motorcycles with about 5-10 dB(A) (EffNoise 2004).

Advantages
Besides the contribution to the overall noise level, motorcycles raise (additional) annoyance because of the generated noise peaks. Reducing the noise level of these noise peaks not only decreases overall sound levels, but will probably especially reduce annoyance.

Problems
Roadside enforcement checks often fail due to costs and experienced staff as a precondition for high effectiveness (and efciency).

Turn-off the engine scheme

The City of Norwich has set up a Low Emission Zone which includes an engine switch off scheme. Taxi and bus drivers have to turn their engines off while waiting. Non-compliance faces an on-thespot ne of about 80 EUR.

The text is based on ndings from SILENCE subproject H Road Trafc Flow. Further information can be obtained from the report H.D3 Practicalities of enforcing noise controls at the roadside or on vehicles, which can be found on the enclosed CD-Rom.

Silence | page 92

Low-noise night time delivery

Night time delivery in Barcelona

Photo: City of Barcelona

What is it about?
Delivery vehicles parking on the road during unloading can cause congestion during daytime. To avoid such congestion problems, delivery during nighttime can therefore be desirable. Furthermore, nighttime delivery can improve the delivery scheme of shops, in particular of grocery stores with daily fresh products. Using low-noise vehicles and (un)loading equipment and training the staff for quiet operation can make the delivery quiet, thus tolerable during the night. Low-noise vehicles and unloading equipment (e.g. fork lifts) can be provided for by the shop owners (see Barcelona example below) or by the city. An example of this is the City of Vicenza, Italy, which organises a central warehouse where deliveries for single shops are compiled and then distributed with quiet vehicles.

What does it cost?

Re-tting of the existing (un)loading equipment or purchase of new material causes costs. However, the example from Barcelona (see below) shows that the nancial advantages for shop owners compensate for these investments after a few years.

Advantages
Quiet night-time delivery is of advantage for the delivery scheme of shops, reducing congestion caused by parking delivery vehicles during the day.

Problems
Good communication between shop owners, the municipality and the residents is necessary when introducing night-time delivery schemes.

Benets in terms of noise reduction

By using adequate equipment and training the staff on low-noise operation, a signicant noise reduction compared to conventional loading procedures can be reached. The Dutch PIEK project suggests a realistic maximum sound equivalent level (LAeq) of 60 dB(A) for deliveries during the night.

Further information about the Dutch PIEK project can be obtained from www.piek.org.

Silence | page 93

Quiet Night-time Deliveries in Barcelona

Previous experiments involving Barcelona Municipalitys Mobility Services had led to a supermarket operator being allowed to use an adapted 40T truck to make quiet night-time deliveries1. SILENCE has embedded this experimentation in a collaborative programme involving the Municipal Mobility Services, the Municipal Noise Unit and (to date) 5 of the citys 10 districts, as well as 3 private transport operators. Together, they have made trials comprising 14 noise measurements2 at 11 sites in the period March 06 to May 07, with consultancy support from Altran DSD, of Altran Technologies Espaa. This programme enables goods operators to gain exemption from the trafc regulations that limit on-street un/loading (08.00 20.00) provided that they can demonstrate that this activity does not exceed the ambient noise conditions. The operators - Mercadona, Condis and Lidl participate because they save money delivering at night (time and operating transport costs) and because this enables them to ensure to have fresh foodstuffs in stores for the next morning. The local authority costs for setting up this type of programme include the minor works for pavement modications, ramps etc. (Mobility Services: approx. 20,000 per site), plus the costs of noise measurements (Noise Unit sub-contract: 30,000), plus a considerable amount of staff time (especially during set-up, but also for residents consultation). The operators are not charged for these services, but it is the operator who assumes the investment in vehicles, and decides which noise-reducing techniques to implement (insulated carpets, quiet refrigeration units and lifts, plastied roll-containers, etc.). For the 16T and 40T truck trials, the nancial rate of return for the operators ranges from 18 to 36 months. Responsible agencies and cooperation partners Local authorities: Mobility Services, Noise unit; operators Why is it regarded as good example? The collaborative programme involves transport operators participating in the Mobility Servicesled Mobility Pact, but it goes further by involving the environmental compliance of supermarket outlets and the residents noise complaints databases, which the Noise Unit consults before proposing (to Mobility Services) to investigate a specic site. It is a collaboration where operators are invited to innovate, and where residents are consulted as part of the programme process. This measure is cost-effective both from the local authority and the operators points of view. The programme has generated improved knowledge; it shows that operators are only partially successful (in 45% of cases) in unloading within the ambient noise conditions; it also identies which are the most important noise sources (truck arrival in 62% of cases, goods unloading in 15% of cases). Working together, the actors integrate their specialist skills (of noise measurement, trafc management and vehicle operations) and thus achieve a meaningful result. Tips for copying This type of initiative can be led by a municipal Mobility Department which is engaged in on-going dialogue with goods operators, but the quality of the programme result is improved when the authoritys specialist Noise Unit is integrated into the process. In deciding whether or not to grant exemptions, the difculties of achieving the necessary noise reductions need to be assessed against residents acceptance as well as the longer-term potential that such programmes can achieve. The focus now aims to involve vehicle manufacturers, since the noise levels of general vehicle movements are of as much concern as the correct organisation and execution of unloading activities.3 For more details contact Simon Hayes at [email protected]

1 2

MIRACLES project, see www.civitas.org

L Aeq and L Amax for truck arrival, unloading set-up (opening of vehicle and shop doors, etc.), unloading goods, closure and vehicle departure.

3 The 15th noise measurement will be realised in Feb.08, involving the Condis operator trialling a Renault 12T Midlum truck with a low-noise mode of operation see FIDEUS project.

Silence | page 94

Trafc management: Basic trafc noise relations

This chapter is based on ndings from SILENCE subproject H Road Trafc Flow, in particular on report H.D2 Noise Reduction in Urban Areas from Trafc and Driver Management A toolkit for city authorities and report H.D1 Effectiveness and Benets of Trafc Flow Measures on Noise Control. The full reports can be found on the enclosed CD-Rom. and driving patterns are unchanged, the logarithmic nature of the dB scale means that a 50% reduction of the trafc volume results in a 3 dB reduction in noise levels, regardless of the absolute number of vehicles. Reduction in trafc volume 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 75 % Reduction in noise (L Aeq) 0.5 dB 1.0 dB 1.6 dB 2.2 dB 3.0 dB 6.0 dB

Most of the trafc ow measures presented here have not been subject to surveys aimed at assessing their effects on noise emissions. Therefore, the possible impacts of these measures are based on the effects of trafc volume, trafc composition, speed and driving pattern on noise emissions. This chapter gives an overview of these effects. The trafc-noise relations can also be used to assess the effects of various trafc management measures for which the impact on trafc ow and therefore on noise is so dependent on local conditions that it cannot be generally presented here. One example of this, could be improvements in public transportation or conditions for cyclists, which may lead to a shift in peoples choice of transport modes and thereby to a decrease in car trafc.

A reduction in the trafc volumes on a road will often lead to increases in speed because the remaining vehicles can drive more freely, unless measures are taken to keep the speed down.
Increased speed will work against the reductions in noise caused by the reduced trafc level. If trafc ows more freely, this is also a change in driving pattern. Decreases in the number of accelerations and decelerations are likely to result in lower noise levels. However, more room for driving may also lead to harder accelerations, which will increase the noise emissions. The reduction of trafc volumes is a measure which is mainly applicable on minor roads or for certain (smaller) areas, where a variety of measures may be used to move the trafc onto major roads.

Trafc volume
Changing the trafc volume affects the noise levels. Given that the trafc composition, speed
95

average Lmax in dB(A)

80 cars 75 LDV public transport bus 70 HDV <= 3 axles HDV > 3 axles 65 motorcycles mopeds 60 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 vehicle speed in km/h

Average LAmax values for different vehicle categories and free owing trafc
Source: Steven 2005 LDV is light duty vehicle (a van), HDV is heavy duty vehicle (a truck)

Silence | page 95

On major roads, it is hardly ever realistic to reduce trafc to an extent that it will signicantly reduce noise levels.
Some reduction may be achieved through long-term town and trafc planning which aims at moving people from cars to other modes of transport.

In reality, the effect of heavy vehicles is usually not as important as these gures suggest.
On most urban roads, heavy vehicles only account for a small percentage of the total trafc. In combination with the often higher speed of the light vehicles, the effect is that the light vehicles usually dominate the noise emissions. On most high-speed roads, especially on motorways, the speed of the light vehicles is considerably higher, and they therefore also dominate the noise emission in these situations even though the percentages of heavy vehicles often are fairly high. Only in cases with very high percentages of heavy vehicles and/or small or no differences in the speed of light and heavy vehicles, the heavy vehicles will dominate the L Aeq levels of a road. Although heavy vehicles usually do not dominate the noise emissions given as L Aeq, they represent peaks in the emitted noise, which may annoy and disturb those living, working or walking along the road.

Trafc composition
The composition of the trafc in terms of vehicle categories is important for the noise levels. The gure below shows German results of noise emission as L Amax from various categories of road vehicles in free owing trafc. There are clear differences in noise levels depending on the size of the vehicles. At 60 km/h for instance, the L Amax level from a truck with more than three axles is 83 dB, from a truck with up to three axles it is 80 dB, for a public transport bus it is 79 dB, for vans it is 75 dB, for motorcycles 74 dB and for passenger cars it is 73 dB. This means that a public transport bus at 60 km/h makes as much noise as 4 passenger cars, a truck with up to three axles as much as 5 cars and a truck with more than three axles as much as 10 passenger cars.

At night, the peak levels caused by heavy vehicles represent noise events that may wake up or cause alterations in sleep depth to people living along the road.

Awakening frequency
increases with the number of noise events exceeding a certain L Amax level up to a certain number of events per night (35 events in the gure) (Griefahn 1985; Griefahn 1992). An event is dened by Griefahn as a maximum noise level (L Amax), which exceeds the equivalent sound pressure (L Aeq) by 10 dB. Both awakenings and alterations in sleep depth depend on the actual level of the events, the number of events and on individual differences such as age. Alterations in sleep depth occur at lower noise levels than awakenings.

Number of awakenings (y-axis) as a function of the number of noise events per night (x-axis)
Source: Griefhahn 1985

Silence | page 96

A number of trafc ow measures may lead to changes in the trafc composition.

For example: trafc calming schemes may cause heavy vehicles to choose other routes; night-time bans on heavy vehicles and perhaps on twowheelers will reduce the number at night but may lead to increased numbers during the day; and city logistics may reduce the overall number of trucks entering central city areas as well as the distance travelled by trucks within the areas. The effect of these types of initiatives will have to be assessed individually for each location in which they are implemented, as this depends on local road and trafc conditions.

The effect of changes in speed is derived by Andersen (2003) from measurements of more than 4,000 vehicles carried out in 1999 and 2000. The effect of speed changes (driving with constant speed) is given in 10 km/h intervals in the table. The effect of speed reductions on noise Reduction in actual driving speed (km/h) 130 to 120 120 to 110 110 to 100 100 to 90 90 to 80 80 to 70 70 to 60 60 to 50 50 to 40 40 to 30 Noise reduction (LAE, dB) light vehicles 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.3 2.8 3.6 Noise reduction (LAE, dB) heavy vehicles 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.7

Speed
The gure below shows the emissions of a single vehicle a compact car during acceleration. The propulsion noise (L prop) increases with increasing engine revolutions. That is, it increases with increasing speed within the same gear, but drops when the driver shifts to a higher gear. There is, however, also an overall tendency towards increasing noise levels at higher gears, and thereby at higher speed.

Driving pattern
The effect of the driving pattern on noise is important to take into account when evaluating the noise effect of various trafc management measures. Installing road humps, changing the layout of road sections and intersections, setting up signs of speed reduction, etc. are all initiatives which may change the way people drive. This may

85 compact car, 81 kW, average driving behaviour 80

200 180 160

full load

Lmax in dB(A)

120 100

65 Lroll Lprop constant speed 55 Lprop_wot Ltot, ave Ltot_wot, ave v, ave 20 25 30

80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 time in s

Contribution of vehicle noise sources during acceleration, exemplied by a compact car

Source: Steven 2005 The dotted lines are the noise from the accelerating car. The fully drawn lines show the noise level as it would be at the given speed without acceleration. The line labeled v, ave shows the vehicle speed.

vehicle speed in km/h

Silence | page 97

140

cause an increase or decrease in the number and intensity of accelerations and decelerations. There is a correlation between acceleration and noise for passenger cars. For low speeds around 30 km/h, the average noise increase due to acceleration is 2 dB. For normal urban speeds around 50 to 60 km/h, the increase due to acceleration is 1 to 1.5 dB. At high speeds, the increase is marginal. In each individual case the noise increase depends on the level of acceleration.

The effect of individual trafc management measures on noise levels is often small, and the main effect is usually due to changes in speed.

However, even when noise is reduced due to reduced speed, annoyance to those living along the road may increase because the measures also result in uneven driving patterns with accelerations and decelerations.
These do not necessarily change the L Aeq level very much, but where the noise without the measures may have been a steady sound, the accelerations and decelerations cause the sound pattern to shift, thus making it more noticeable. This is important to consider when implementing trafc management measures.

Correlation between acceleration and noise. Lmax values versus vehicle speed for cars in free owing trafc and during acceleration
Source: Steven 2005 The measurements have been done on actual trafc.

Similar relations are drawn by Steven (2005) for light goods vehicles (LGV), heavy goods vehicles (HGV) with power ratings below 75 kW, between 75 and 150 kW, between 150 and 250 kW and higher than 250 kW. The same tendency to an increase in noise during acceleration is seen for all these vehicle categories. The differences at 30 and 50 km/h are shown in the table.

Differences in noise emissions (Lmax) between accelerating vehicles and vehicles driving at steady speed at 30 and 50 km/h Vehicle category Car LGV HGV, Pn < 75 kW HGV, 75 kW Pn < 150 kW HGV, 150 kW Pn < 250 kW HGV, Pn 250 kW
Steven 2005

At 30 km/h 2.0 3.5 4.4 4.4 3.5 3.5

At 50 km/h 1.4 2.3 3.5 3.6 3.0 2.7

Silence | page 98

Reducing and enforcing speed limits

Static speed limit sign

Photo: Hans Bendtsen, DRI

Interactive speed limit sign

Photo: Hans Bendtsen, DRI

What is it about?
As reductions in driving speed have substantial effects on trafc noise emissions, especially at urban speeds, lowering speed limits appears to be a feasible approach to reducing noise emissions from road trafc. Possible are speed reductions on certain roads or for complete areas. Common are 30 km/h zones. Another concept for residential areas are home zones where priority is given to non-motorised users. Speed limits are well below 30 km/h, sometimes as low as walking speed, which is about 3 to 5 km/h. However, experience shows that reducing speed limits by for instance 10 km/h (only) through posting new or changing existing static speed limit signs has little or no effect on actual driving speeds. The use of variable signs for posting speed limits or informing drivers of their speed is more effective than static signs when it comes to reducing driving speed. The speed reductions vary from location to location, and therefore effects on noise will also vary. Reductions of up to 3 dB L Aeq can be expected. The results regarding variable speed signs indicate that the signs increase driver awareness of speed limits and/or actual driving speed. Therefore, the effect of such signs may decrease if the signs are more widely used and the individual signs therefore become less noticeable to drivers.

A way to make particularly static speed limit signs noise effective is by massive police enforcement or automatic trafc control (ATC). The noise effect of implementing ATC depends on the speed effect. However, with xed roadside cameras there may be a tendency towards speed increasing between cameras. This may lead to increased noise and/or annoyance due to accelerations and decelerations. New radar systems based on automatic recognition of the number plate calculate the speed between two measurement points. If known by drivers, such systems can avoid the effect of acceleration and deceleration between cameras. Results of noise measurements along the Nantes Ring Road, undertaken within the SILENCE project before and after implementing ATC, shows, that there is no effect on daytime noise levels. This is explained by the fact that the density of the trafc in itself keeps speeds down, so that there is little effect of implementing ATC. Night-time noise levels, when the trafc levels allow drivers to drive freely, are reduced by more than 2 dB at the locations of the ATC (Brengier & Picaut 2008, SILENCE report H.R2; the full report can be obtained from the CD-Rom attached).

Silence | page 99

Benets in terms of noise reduction

Reducing actual driving speed can result in signicant noise reduction. For example, reducing the driving speed (not only the speed limit!) from 50 to 40 km/h leads for passenger cars to a decrease of noise by 2.8 dB(A). However, static speed limit signs tend to have no impact on the actual speed. Variable signs and those informing drivers of their speed can bring up to 3 dB L Aeq. The benets of ATC depend very much on local conditions.

Advantages
In general, reducing the speed will also contribute to road safety and improved air quality.

Problems
A speed reduction measure should lead to a sufcient decrease of speed without drivers changing to a lower gear, which could increase noise levels. Another problem is to make drivers comply with the speed reduction measures.

What does it cost?

Static signs are comparably cheap (costs about 300 EUR per sign, (Lrmkontor GmbH, et al., 2004, Annex 8, p. 3)), whereas variable signs are quite cost-intensive. Installation of an ATC system is comparably expensive, but costs can be covered with the nes after implementation.

The text is based on the ndings from SILENCE subproject H Road Trafc Flow, more precisely on the reports H.D1 Effectiveness and Benets of Trafc Flow Measures and Noise Control and H.D.2 Noise Reduction in Urban Areas from Trafc and Driver Management - A toolkit for city authorities. Both reports provide further details and can be obtained from the attached CD-Rom.

In Gleisdorf, Austria, an interactive system has been implemented, which reduces speed limits when noise limits are exceeded. Under normal conditions, the speed limit for passenger cars and heavy vehicles is 130 km/h. At a rst stage of exceeded noise limits, the speed limits are reduced to 100 km/h for passenger cars and 80 km/h for heavy vehicles. This leads to a noise reduction of 1 to 2 dB(A). In a next step, the speed limit for heavy vehicles is reduced to 60 km/h. This limit however is only accepted by 10% of the heavy vehicles. Thus, further noise reduction is not observable (Bendtsen et al. 2004).

Interactive speed limit system from Gleisdorf, Austria

Source: Bendtsen, 2005, p. 67 (1) Immission noise measurement. (2) Emission noise measurement. (3) Noise reducing pavement. (4) Central noise barrier. (5) Noise barrier with photovoltaic cells. The sign reads: I want to sleep. Quiet please!

Silence | page 100

Urban motorway speed limits - Bristol

A study was carried out as part of the SILENCE subproject Road Trafc Flow into the effect of reducing the speed limits of trafc on Bristols urban motorway, the M32. This indicated that reductions of up to 3.5 dB(A) as Lden could be achieved at the faade of nearby residential properties, if average speed was reduced from 70 mph to 40 mph (from 113 to 65 kph). The study was expanded to examine the effect of speed reduction on CO emissions and on a key pollutant for local air quality, nitrogen dioxide. This work is now feeding into a study being undertaken on a proposal within the Joint Local Transport Plan for greater Bristol. The proposal is for the Greater Bristol Bus Network (GBBN), which includes speed limits on the motorway and a dedicated bus lane. This includes assessment of options for the elevated section of the motorway, which passes very close to houses and causes noise and air quality problems for residents. Bristol City Council are lobbying the Highways agency for noise reducing infrastructure to be installed as part of the refurbishment programme and it should be possible to show the potential benets of this through a noise mapping / modelling study. However this will depend on resources for noise management. Bristol City Council are ensuring that the environmental impacts and potential mitigation measures are being considered in the options for GBBN and the M32 through dissemination of the SILENCE studies and liaison with the consultants contracted to assess the options. Unfortunately, the Highways Agency recently stated that they no longer intended to consider handing control of the M32 to the local authority. This means that Bristol will not be able to directly set the speed limits on the motorway and will need to negotiate with the Highways Agency on this matter. Consultation with partners is ongoing (November 2007). Responsible agencies and cooperation partners Bristol City Council (Planning, Transport and Sustainable Development departments), Highways Agency, Interroute (Consultants) Why is it regarded as good example? It is too early to say whether this can be considered a good example as there is not yet any agreement on mitigation for noise. To some extent we are pre-empting the development of noise action plans. This is because we have a golden opportunity to inuence design of the urban motorway due to the work on GBBN. There is a high potential for noise reduction through speed limit reduction, and also though implementing physical changes on the road, such as low-noise surfacing and noise barriers. Ideally, we will be able to demonstrate a benet to residents through pre and post mitigation monitoring of perception of road noise and road noise itself. This monitoring will obviously depend on whether we can agree mitigation measures. The long-term success of this initiative will also depend on the level of involvement of Bristol City Council in noise action planning, as so far in the UK the central government is the sole responsible body. Bristol City Council and the UK government department for noise action planning (DEFRA) are currently discussing the way forward for noise action planning in Bristol. Tips for copying early involvement with stakeholders (transport planners); support from road owner/manager; local authority should have responsibility for noise action planning; use other impacts to make the argument (air quality, CO2 emissions); incorporate Noise, Air Quality and Climate Change in the Local Transport Plan; plan pre and post monitoring; be able to show potential benets with modelling tools e.g. noise map; include detailed information on impacts, e.g. number of people exposed to noise levels = health impacts. For more details contact Steve Crawshaw, [email protected], www.bristol.gov.uk/noisemap

Silence | page 101

Humps and cushions

Round top humps

Photo: Melanie Kloth, Polis

Narrow cushions
Photo: Lars Ellebjerg, DRI

What is it about?
An effective and widely used means of speed reduction is vertical deections in the form of humps or cushions. Both the design of and the spacing between the humps and cushions inuence trafc noise emissions. Proper spacing is important to maintain a steady driving pattern. If the distance between humps is too large, drivers tend to accelerate and decelerate rather than maintain a steady speed at and between the humps. This may increase noise levels and cause shifts in the sound pattern, which makes the noise more noticeable and increases annoyance.

Technical details
The design of humps and cushions is of little importance to noise emissions from light vehicles as long as the design matches the desired speed. Studies show that noise emissions from light vehicles are determined by the driving speed regardless of the type of hump or cushion.

For heavy vehicles, on the other hand, round-top humps and narrow cushions (up to 1700 mm wide) are to be preferred.
If round-top humps are selected, it should be ensured that heavy vehicles do not pass the humps at speeds exceeding 25 km/h, even when

Benets in terms of noise reduction

The noise reduction effect of humps and cushions depends on the speed reduction achieved.

there is no other trafc to keep speeds down. At higher speeds, L Aeq levels may increase by up to 8 dB. Flat-top humps and wide cushions should be avoided on residential roads with heavy vehicles as they may lead to signicant increases (up to 10 dB) in both L Aeq and L Amax levels from heavy vehicles. At a desired speed level of 30 km/h, a distance between cushions of 50 meters is to be preferred. 30 km/h corresponds to a driving time between humps of 6 seconds. Assuming that it is the driving time between humps, which determines the incentive for drivers to accelerate, the preferable distances between cushions at speeds of 40 and 50 km/h are likely to be 67 and 83 meters respectively. This, however, needs to be veried. Similar distances seem appropriate for humps, in order to keep driving patterns even. This also needs verication.

Advantages
Besides keeping speeds down, humps and cushions may lead to a reduction in trafc levels on a road if the obstacles cause the preference of drivers to shift towards other routes.

Problems
The design of humps and cushions needs to be chosen carefully. Cushions should be designed in a way that HGV can pass with their wheels. However, experience shows that drivers do not always care, which will increase the noise level.

Silence | page 102

Chicanes

What is it about?
Chicanes reduce the width of a street in order to make drivers slow down. Single lane working chicanes reduce the street to one lane. Drivers have to slow down to be able to check for oncoming trafc before driving into the chicane area. If vehicles are approaching from both sides at the same time, one or both of them need to stop entirely. The more trafc there is on a road with such chicanes, the more often vehicles will have to decelerate and accelerate. This may increase noise levels and will certainly cause shifts in the sound pattern which are likely to make the noise more noticeable and annoying to the neighbours. Two-way working chicanes only reduce the width of the lanes. Light vehicles still can pass each other. Generally, single lane working chicanes can be expected to cause braking and accelerating because vehicles have to wait for oncoming trafc to pass. Both single lane and two-way working chicanes have a greater speed reducing effect for heavy vehicles than for cars. It is therefore likely that chicanes which cause cars to drive evenly at a desirable speed will cause large vehicles to brake and accelerate, which may cause annoyance to the neighbours. For the largest trucks, such chicanes are even likely to be impassable so that overrun areas are necessary. These, however, are also likely to cause unwanted shifts in noise levels and/or patterns, so that annoyance to the road neighbours is increased. A study carried out as part of SILENCE (Brengier, Picaut 2008; report H.R2, see attached CD-Rom) indicates that chicanes may increase noise levels from individual passenger cars by more than 3 dB due to accelerations after passing a chicane. These results need to be veried.

Benets in terms of noise reduction

The effect in terms of noise levels depends on the achieved average speed and the change in driving pattern. Depending on trafc volumes and trafc composition, effects have to be calculated for each scenario before implementing chicanes. However, a negative impact on the noise level and/or annoyance is likely.

What does it cost?

The design of chicanes can vary greatly. Thus, also costs will vary. For redesigning streets, the EffNoise study mentions 2,000 EUR/m as mean value (Lrmkontor GmbH, et al., 2004, Annex 8, p. 4).

Advantages
Chicanes can give additional space, for example for trees or bicycle parking.

Problems
Further surveys are necessary to gather knowledge on the noise and annoyance effects of chicane and road narrowing schemes. Thus, from a noise perspective these measures should be used with some caution, especially on roads carrying many heavy vehicles.

Chicanes force drivers to reduce speed

Photo: Laboratoire Rgional des Ponts et Chausses de Blois

Silence | page 103

Redesign of street space

What is it about?
Urban roads are usually designed to give priority to motorised trafc modes and to allow for speeds of 50 km/h. Efforts to reduce the speed on these roads often face the problem that drivers dont comply with the new speed limit. One possibility to increase drivers compliance is massive police enforcement or automatic trafc control (as discussed above). Another possibility is to change the street design in such a way that it induces drivers to slow down intuitively. Drivers usually adapt their driving speed to the local context, where the clarity of the situation is one important factor. Clarity for the driver is for example inuenced by the possibility to oversee a long part of the street, the street width, the space given to different trafc modes (e.g. by attributing part of the lane to cyclists), the right of way, pedestrian crossings, etc.

Benets in terms of noise reduction

The effect in terms of noise levels depends on the achieved average speed and possible changes in the driving pattern. Depending on trafc volumes and trafc composition, effects have to be calculated for each scenario prior to implementing any measures. Besides reducing the noise level, redesigning the street space can reduce the annoyance caused by noise. Experiences from German towns conrmed that for residential roads, the reduction in noise disturbance achieved by slowing vehicles down and thus lessening the dangers posed by car trafc, improving the surroundings by planting trees, bushes and owers, and giving pedestrians more space by reducing the space allocated to motor trafc will be far greater than may have been expected based on the reduction in average sound level (SMILE, n.d., p. 11).

What does it cost?

The EffNoise study mentions 2,000 EUR/m as mean value for redesigning streets (Lrmkontor GmbH, et al., 2004, Annex 8, p. 4).

Advantages
Against this background, a range of measures is available to give drivers the impression not to be privileged compared to cyclists and pedestrians, thus making them reducing speed. Potential measures include narrowing the lanes by giving more space to pedestrians, cyclists or parking, planting trees to create the impression of a narrow road (without necessarily reducing the lane width in reality), narrowing lanes at junctions, improving the surroundings to highlight that the street space serves other uses than (car) trafc as well, reducing the strict separation between lanes, cycle lanes and foot paths, etc. Redesigning street space supports compliance with speed limits, can improve the visual impression of the street, and can support less noisy transport modes by attributing more space to pedestrians and cyclists. Road safety will most likely improve as well.

Silence | page 104

Junction design

Round about
Photo: Hans Bendtsen, DRI

Mini-roundabouts
Photo: Hans Bendtsen, DRI

What is it about?
The design of a junction roundabouts, ordinary intersections with or without trafc lights - has inuence on the trafc noise emissions. A number of European surveys have documented the effect of replacing ordinary intersections with or without signalisation by roundabouts. Any reductions at roundabouts compared with crossings are likely to depend upon the trafc and the layout of both the intersection and the roundabout. How these parameters inuence the noise generated is unclear. Mini-roundabouts small paved or painted circles in the centre of intersections are used as trafc calming measures to reduce speed. The little evidence found on the noise effects of miniroundabouts indicate that these, when properly designed, may lead to noise reductions due to reductions in speed as well as to more even driving patterns. Based on this, the potential seems to be a noise reduction (L Aeq) of up to 4 dB.

What does it cost?

The EffNoise study mentions 7,500 EUR for the construction of mini-roundabouts and 2,000 EUR/ m as mean value for redesigning streets (Lrmkontor GmbH, et al., 2004, Annex 8, p. 3f.).

Advantages
If roundabouts create a steadier driving pattern than ordinary intersections, this might contribute to the objectives of air quality protection.

Problems
There is a need for further studies to clarify which factors explain the better performance of roundabouts before roundabouts can be fully utilised as a measure to reduce road trafc noise. Roundabouts with smaller diameters are often built with overrun areas with paving stones at the centre in order to allow large trucks to pass the roundabout. If cars use these areas to drive through the roundabouts at high speed, this may

Benets in terms of noise reduction

Results from surveys indicate that roundabouts without overrun areas may reduce noise levels (L Aeq) by 1-4 dB compared with ordinary intersections, signalised or non-signalised. An Australian study refers to the benet of roundabouts in terms of annoyance. Noise from roundabouts appears to create less community annoyance than other trafc calming devices. (Austroads, 2005, p. 43) This needs further validation.

generate high impulsive-like noise levels, which may increase the annoyance experienced by those living next to the roundabout. For mini-roundabouts, the effect on noise from heavy vehicles needs to be studied further. The inuence of the roundabout design on the noise emission also needs further clarication.

Silence | page 105

Technical details
Experiments in Trondheim, Norway carried out by SINTEF as part of the SILENCE project indicate that L Amax levels from individual vehicles driven in an economic, normal or aggressive manner do not differ between various types of junctions (Berge 2007). At all intersection layouts (4 different T- and X-crossings, with and without signalisation) and roundabouts (three different sizes and layouts), maximum engine speed and thereby L Amax levels from aggressively driven vehicles are 1,000 rpm/6 dB higher than from normally driven vehicles, which in turn are 5-600 rpm/3 dB higher than from economically driven vehicles.

This indicates that the differences in noise levels between crossings and roundabouts, which are reported in the literature, may be fully or partially ascribed to drivers behaving less aggressively at roundabouts than at crossings.
Based on the driving patterns recorded by SINTEF, TUEV Nord has calculated L Aeq levels for sections of road between 50 m before and 50 m after the junctions. These calculations indicate that the posted speed limit on the roads to and from the junctions inuences noise levels. If 30 km/h is posted, this leads to 1 dB lower noise levels compared to when 50 km/h is posted, even if the average driving speed is the same. The calculations also show that crossings with trafc lights lead to 1-2 dB higher noise levels than roundabouts at the same average speed. This difference may, however, disappear if a roundabout leads to higher average speeds.

Silence | page 106

Calming green waves

What is it about?
Green waves coordinated signalisation at a number of intersections in order to allow trafc in a direction to ow without having to stop at red lights cause smoother driving and therefore most likely also lower noise emissions. Simulations done as part of the SILENCE project, comparing a road with signals coordinated in a green wave with the same road without coordination (red wave), indicate that L Aeq levels may go down by 4 dB at intersections, but also that levels may increase by as much as 3 dB between intersections due to higher speed and increased trafc ow (Brengier & Picaut 2008). These gures are indications based on simulations and should be subject to further studies for verication. The concept of calming green waves as presented by Ellenberg and Bedeaux (1999), aims at designing the green wave schemes in such a way that it is avoided that drivers speed in order to catch up one signalisation cycle between two intersections. By changing the design parameters of a green wave scheme (reducing design speed, cycle time and green time), Ellenberg and Bedeaux achieve a reduction of the average speed by 10 to 15 km/h. This corresponds to a noise reduction of 2.5 to 3 dB.

Benets in terms of noise reduction

The potential of this measure is highly dependent on local road network conditions and the design of existing green wave schemes.

Silence | page 107

Reducing trafc volume

What is it about?
Reducing the trafc volume can contribute to noise reduction. However, as explained above, a high decrease of trafc volumes is necessary to decrease the noise level signicantly (e.g. 50% reduction for a decrease of 3 dB). Thus, reducing trafc volumes to reduce noise levels can be a solution for minor roads or smaller areas. A range of measures is at hand to reduce trafc volumes: giving priority to public transport and rerouting private vehicles, banning through trafc by signs or by cutting roads, turning lanes into bus lanes, implementing low-emission zones or limitedaccess zones based on other criteria (e.g. access only for residents), constructing new bypass roads, etc. However, most measures only reduce the trafc volume slightly and should be considered as complementary within a whole package of measures.

not necessarily lead to higher noise levels, because increasing the trafc volume on an already heavily used road might not or only slightly increase the noise level there. This, however, does not apply to newly built bypass roads. Their effect on reducing trafc volumes should not be overestimated as experiences show the share of urban trafc that might use the new route is usually less than 40% (SMILE, n.d., p. 12).

What does it cost?

The costs vary greatly with the concrete measure and local situation. Signs, for example, for banning through trafc cost about 300 EUR each, whereas the costs for new bypass roads amount to about 10,000,000 EUR/km (Lrmkontor GmbH, et al., 2004, Annex 8, p. 3f.).

Advantages
Most measures mentioned usually serve other objectives as well, such as promoting public transport, improving road safety, etc.

Benets in terms of noise reduction

The benets in terms of noise levels depend on the achieved reduction in trafc volume, the trafc composition, the average speed, and the driving pattern. Thus, effects have to be calculated for each scenario. Reducing trafc volumes on one road often implies increasing the volume on other routes. This does

Problems
As mentioned earlier, a reduction in the trafc volume is only effective in terms of noise reduction if speeds are kept low and driving patterns dont change in a negative way.

Congestion charging no positive impact on noise

Congestion charging has also proven to reduce the trafc volume and is therefore often believed to reduce noise levels. However, noise reductions due to reductions in trafc volumes are likely to be counteracted by increases in speed. This is what occurred in the congestion charging areas of London and Stockholm, where noise levels were unchanged in spite of decreases in trafc volumes. Thus, congestion charging and other measures which reduce trafc volumes cannot be expected to reduce noise levels if reduced congestion leads to an increase in vehicle speed.

Congestion charge system in Oslo

Photo: Hans Bendtsen, DRI

Silence | page 108

Implementation of the Urban Trafc Plan in the city centre of Genoa promoting public transport and reducing noise
The measures taken in both areas resulted in a signicant decrease in private trafc ows crossing the city centre, resulting in an increase of trafc ows on the road network outside the city centre. This led to a signicant noise reduction as presented in the following table: Measure Via xx Settembre Piazza Verdi LeqA ex-ante [dB] 77 74 LeqA ex-post [dB] 73 61

In general, the implementation of the PUT has led to a better distribution of trafc ows over the city centre network, even if some crucial points havent been regulated in the best way yet. Responsible agencies and cooperation partners Municipality of Genoa Public Transport Companies (bus and railway) Municipal Police Department Consultants District Organisations of citizens, shop owners, etc. Why is it regarded as a good example? From the design and implementation point of view, the PUT represents a good example of cooperation between public ofces, transport companies and the public. In spite of the usual administrative problems, the implementation of the plan has reached all the main objectives xed in the design phase. At the beginning, some of the proposed measures (pedestrian zone, decrease in parking places, change of lane direction) were not well accepted by the public, in particular by certain groups such as shop owners. This opposition has been mitigated however, thanks to the evident benets coming from the implementation of the plan. The area around one of the main squares of Genoa, Piazza De Ferrari, has been completely renovated. Changes in trafc circulation were followed by architectural and environmental redesign, which increased the interest for this area both from tourists and citizens. Tips for copying To implement a complex trafc plan such as a PUT in a successful way, one of the most important steps is the information campaign both at political/organisational level as well as at citizens involvement level. Each step of the plan must be very intensively explained, showing the potential benet coming from its implementation. From the technical point of view, it is necessary to create a core working group with all the necessary stakeholders (public and private) who are useful for the planning and implementation phases. For more details contact Roberta Caero at [email protected]; www.comune.genova.it

Reducing trafc volume around Piazza Verdi in Genoa

Source: Comune di Genova

In 1995, the rst Urban Trafc Plan (PUT) for the centre of the City of Genoa was carried out and in 2000 it was reviewed. The main objectives of the plan were to: decrease trafc ows crossing the city centre; redesign the city centre from an architectural and environmental point of view; redistribute the internal trafc ows. There were two implementation phases for the city centre between 2000 and 2004. In the meantime, other Urban Trafc Plans for specic areas of the city have been developed. The following step should be a new comprehensive review of the PUT, covering the complete municipal territory. Various measures implemented in the frame of the PUT for the city centre also had positive impacts on the noise levels. For two locations, the changes in noise levels were explicitly monitored and the results are presented here. Via XX Settembre, a main road in the city centre: one lane for private vehicles was turned into a bus lane and the circulation direction on the remaining lane was reversed; Piazza Verdi - Railway station Genova Brignole: change of direction of circulation around the square in front of the station. Access restricted to public bus eet. Some parking facilities around the station were eliminated, to use the space for the new bus station. Two parking areas near the station were reallocated to two-wheelers and to short stops. Several parking facilities are available for longer stops (park&ride) in the vicinity of the station. This way, the area has become one of the most important intermodal interchanges of the city. The area has been improved from an environmental and urban point of view. However, the road network around the station still shows some critical aspects during peak hours.

Silence | page 109

Bans on trucks
City logistics
Reductions in the number of heavy vehicles in central urban areas may be achieved through city logistics. Such schemes, where goods for delivery in an area are reloaded at a terminal, and distributed by trucks with high load factors and following optimised routes, are unlikely to affect L Aeq levels but likely to reduce the number of high peaks and thus disturbance and annoyance.

The sign bans HGVs between 11am and 7am. Only low-noise HGVs with ofcial administrative authorisation are allowed 24 hours per day.
Photo: Hans Bendtsen, DRI

What is it about?
A ban on trucks (all day, night-time, or 11.00 to 7.00, thus allowing un/loading only in the morning hours) on specic roads or in larger areas will in most cases have little effect on L Aeq levels, but it is likely to reduce the number of noise peaks and thus may mitigate sleep disturbances and annoyance to those living along the roads. If the effect is to shift trafc to less vulnerable roads, reductions in night-time peaks and perhaps L Aeq levels may be the only effect. If, on the contrary, a night-time ban forces delivery trucks and others to drive during day-time instead, increases in the number of peaks, and perhaps in L Aeq levels and annoyance may be an adverse effect of such a ban.

What does it cost?

To implement bans for specic roads, signs are needed (costs about 300 EUR per sign, (Lrmkontor GmbH, et al., 2004, Annex 8, p. 3)). If the ban is to be implemented for larger areas, additional measures certainly will be necessary (e.g. for informing HGV drivers, upgrading roads designated for HGV, etc.).

Advantages
Reducing the share of HGV in general improves air quality and road safety as well.

Problems
The main drawback of night-time bans is a large increase in HGV trafc in the early morning at the end of the restriction period (Bendtsen et al. 2004).

Benets in terms of noise reduction

Both night and day-time effects depend on local trafc conditions. Night-time bans on trucks have been implemented in several places in Austria and Switzerland. Austrian surveys have shown effects on night-time (22-05) L Aeq levels as high as 7.2 dB (Bendtsen et al. 2004). As part of SILENCE, the City of Bristol modelled the effects on noise of a ban on trucks on a specic road (the A4 Portway). In this case, reductions in L den levels of around 6 dB are achieved. These results are based on scenarios, where all trafc drives at the speed limit. In reality light vehicles will in most cases drive somewhat faster than heavy goods vehicles. This will reduce the potential effect somewhat, but not by 6 dB.

HGV ban in Munich without signicant noise reduction

Within the frame of SILENCE, the City of Munich calculated the noise reducing effect of banning HGVs from crossing the innercity. The ban concerns HGVs above 3.5 tons with exemptions for deliveries to premises in the inner-city and is in force 24 hours. Violation of the ban will be punished with a ne of 20 EUR. Compliance is controlled by the police. Calculations of the number of HGVs and the resulting noise effects were carried out for a certain part of the inner-city. They resulted in a reduction with about 1,200 HGVs a day in this part of the city, spread over various roads. In terms of noise levels on single roads no signicant reduction could be found.

Silence | page 110

The HGV strategy and HGV ban for Dublin city

View of the South Bound Entrance of the Dublin Port Tunnel

Photo: Answers.com

The Dublin Canal Cordon which outlines the area for the HGV ban within the city
Picture: Dublin City Council

The HGV strategy was implemented in conjunction with the Dublin Port Tunnel and the M50 C-ring motorway around Dublin city. The HGV strategy bans all vehicles with 5 or more axles from entering the canal cordon area around Dublin city centre between 07:00 and 19:00, seven days a week. Vehicles who must gain access may apply for a permit. The aim of the strategy is to remove all vehicles with 5 or more axles from transiting Dublin city centre within the canal cordon. This reduces trafc within the city centre region, therefore reducing pollution, congestion and improving the quality of life for residents, cyclists, motorists and pedestrians within the city. An OECD report detailing challenges to urban goods transport (OECD, 2003) points to the fact that although trucks account for only 10 percent of all transport operations in urban areas, they produce over 40 percent of the pollution and noise caused by local trafc. From the view of logistics, it will reduce the time it takes for a HGV to get to the M50 motorway to about 6 minutes as this would be a dramatic increase on the standard time without the tunnel. It was also hoped to reduce the number of accidents involving HGVs (over a 42 month period ending April 2006 there were 19 fatalities within the city centre due to accidents involving HGVs). A fundamental aim of the strategy is to reduce the number of permits issued over time to an absolute minimum and therefore the amount of HGVs within the city. The permits are issued by the Dublin city council and enforcement of the single use permit system is carried out by the police. The premises receiving deliveries by HGVs are obliged to submit mitigation plans to show how they intend to reduce the number of deliveries using ve axle vehicles. The tunnel was part of the Dublin Transport Initiative in 1993 and the planning process commenced circa 1993; work on site started in June 2001. The tunnel was opened in December 2006 with the HGV strategy operational from February 2007. In the future, it is intended that the ban will also cover vehicles with 4 or more axles. The cost of the Dublin Port Tunnel was in the region of 700 million. The M50, M1 and other

adjoining motorways were not part of the cost of the Dublin Port Tunnel. Responsible agencies and cooperation partners Dublin City Council, National Roads Authority (NRA), An Gardai Siochana (police), a consortium of consultants and sub-contractors. Why is it regarded as good example? Residents that may be affected by the construction work of the Dublin Port Tunnel were consulted and regular meetings at various stages of the process were held. The Irish Road Haulage Association (IHRA) was consulted on the best possible solution to the permitting issues. Since the introduction of the HGV ban and opening of the Dublin Port Tunnel, there has been an average daily reduction of 36% of PM10 values, journey times to and from Dublin port to the M50 have been reduced to 6 minutes. The quantity of HGVs entering the canal cordon is closely monitored on a monthly basis. The routes that the HGVs can use with a permit are restricted, which further helps to reduce trafc within the canal cordon. Tips for copying In discussions with the Irish Road Haulage Association it was concluded that the permitting system must be possible to apply for a permit 24 hours per day. This led to the creation of the permitting website www.hgv.ie which is multilingual, requires no paperwork, enforceable and the whole transaction can be completed on-line. This means that for a HGV arriving in Dublin port, no paperwork is required to be submitted other than the on-line application. In order to stop transiting through the city with HGVs using a false delivery address, the premise must be registered for receiving deliveries and the route to and from the premises must also be submitted. Particular roads saw a reduction of HGV trafc of between 33% and 90%. By 2012, it is hoped that 5-Axle HGVs will be removed entirely from the city streets or only used whenever a smaller vehicle will not sufce. For more details contact The HGV permitting service: www.hgv.ie Dublin City Council: www.dublincity.ie Dublin Port Tunnel: www.dublinporttunnel.ie
Silence | page 111

Part 6: Annex

where the sources are summarised and illustrating material on the soundscape approach can be found.

Silence | page 112

Sources

ANDERSEN, B. 2003. Stjudsendelse fra biler p vejnettet. Danmarks Transport Forskning, Lyngby. AUSTROADS, 2005. Modelling, Measuring and Mitigating Road Trafc Noise. Sydney: Austroads Incorporated. Austroads Research Report AP-R277/05. BABISCH, W., 2004. Die NaRoMI-Studie (Noise and Risk of Myocardial Infarction). Auswertung, Bewertung und vertiefende Analysen zum Verkehrslrm. http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/2621.pdf BABISCH, W., 2006. Transportation Noise and Cardiovascular Risk. Review and Synthesis of Epidemiological Studies, Dose-effect Curve and Risk Estimation. http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/2997.pdf BECKENBAUER, ET AL., 2002. Einuss der Fahrbahntextur auf das Reifen-Fahrbahn-Gerusch. Forschung Straenbau und Straenverkehrstechnik, Heft 847, Hrsg. BMVBW (Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing). BEUVING, M., 2008. Annoyance of depot noise - Guidelines for best practice. Lay-out, processes, communication. SILENCE project, deliverable G.D9. http://www.silence-ip.org BERGLUND, B., LINDVALL, T., SCHWELA, D. H., 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1999/a68672.pdf BENDTSEN, H., ET AL., 2004. Trafc management and noise reducing pavements. Road Directorate, Danish Road Institute. Roskilde. BRENGIER, M., PICAUT, J., 2008. Methods for noise control by trafc management: Impact of speed reducing equipments. SILENCE project, deliverable H.R2. http://www.silence-ip.org BERGE, T. 2007. Measurement of driving patterns in crossings and roundabouts. SILENCE project deliverable. BUND/LNDERARBEITSGEMEINSCHAFT FR IMMISSIONSSCHUTZ, 2007. LAI-Hinweise zur Lrmaktionsplanung. http://www.umwelt.sachsen.de/lfug/documents/LAI-Hinweise_Aktionsplanung_endversion.pdf CE DELFT, 2007a. Trafc noise reduction in Europe. Health effects, social costs and technical and policy options to reduce road and rail trafc noise. Delft. http://www.transportenvironment.org/docs/Publications/2008/2008-02_trafc_noise_ce_delft_report.pdf CE DELFT, 2007b. Handbook on estimation of external cost in the transport sector. Delft. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/costs/handbook/doc/2008_01_15_handbook_external_cost_en.pdf COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 2002. Position paper on dose response relationships between transportation noise and annoyance. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/pdf/noise_expert_network.pdf COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 2004. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment. Brussels: European Commission. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/urban/thematic_strategy.htm#language_versions Directive 2002/49/CE (European Environmental Noise Directive) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/directive.htm ELLEBJERG LARSEN, L., BENDTSEN, H., 2006. Noise abatement handling a common problem with limited resources. Paper for EURONOISE 2006, Tampere, Finland. ELLEBJERG, L., 2007. Effectiveness and Benets of Trafc Flow Measures on Noise Control. SILENCE project, deliverable H.D1. http://www.silence-ip.org ELLENBERG, M., BEDEAUX, J.-F, 1999. Calming waves for safety. A time to rethink green waves. Trafc Technology International, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 55-58.

Silence | page 113

FIELDS, J.M., 1993. Effects of personal and situational variables on noise annoyance in residential areas. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1993: 2753-2763. GREEN NOISE (Green Noise Building renovation in noise exposed dwellings), 2005. Published by the Danish Ministry for Welfare (in Danish, Grn stj - Bygningsrenovering i stjbelastede boliger). http://www.social.dk/netpublikationer/2005/p10renovering1907/pdf/publikation.pdf GRIEFAHN, B., 1985. Schlafverhalten und Gerusche. Feld- und Laboruntersuchungen ber Strassenverkehr, EEG-Analyse. Literaturauswertung Ferdinand Enke, Stuttgart. Griefahn, B., 1992. Noise Control During the Night. Acoustics Australia, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 43-47. GRIEFHAHN, B., GJESTLAND, T., PREIS, A., 2007. Report to partners: Annoyance of residents living in urban areas. http://www.silence-ip.org/site/leadmin/SP_A/SILENCE_AD5.pdf GRIEFHAHN, B., GJESTLAND, T., PREIS, A., 2008. Transfer of evaluation of noise attenuation measures developed within the IP. http://www.silence-ip.org/site/leadmin/SP_A/A-D7.pdf IGBE BIM, Institut bruxellois pour la gestion de lenvironnement, 2000. La lutte contre le bruit en milieu urbain dans la rgion de Bruxelles-Capitale. http://www.ibgebim.be/uploadedFiles/Site/Particuliers/Theme_-_Bruit/Plan_bruit_2000_FR.pdf?langtype=2060 INFRAS/IWW, 2004. External costs of Transport. Update study. Zrich, Karlsruhe. IPG, 2007. Innovatieprogramma Geluid (Noise Innovation Programme (in Dutch)). http://www.innovatieprogrammageluid.nl JABBEN, J., POTMA, C., LUTTER, S., 2007. Baten van geluidmaatregelen. Een inventarisatie voor weg- en railverkeer in Nederland. RIVM rapport 680300002. http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/680300002.html KROPP, W. ET AL., 2007. Reduction potential of road trafc noise. A Pilot Study. Applied Acoustics. Chalmers University of Technology. http://www.iva.se/upload/seminarier/Final1.pdf LRMKONTOR GMBH, et al., 2004. EffNoise. Study on the effectiveness of noise mitigation measures. LRMKONTOR GMBH, BPW HAMBURG, KONSALT GMBH, 2004. PULS-Praxisorientierter Umgang mit Lrm in der rumlichen Planung und im Stdtebau. Handbuch zum Forschungs- und Entwicklungsvorhaben des Umweltbundesamtes Minderung des Lrms und seiner Auswirkungen in der raumbezogenen Planung und im Stdtebau. Hamburg. http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/3028.pdf LINK, H., ET AL., 2000. The accounts approach. UNITE (UNIcation of accounts and marginal costs for Transport Efciency). Leeds. MIEDEMA, H. M. E., VOS, H., 1998. Exposure-response relationships for transportation noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104 (6). MILJSTYRELSEN, MILJMINISTERIET, 2003. Hvad koster stj? vrdistning af vejstj ved brug af husprismetoden. Mijprojekt Nr. 795 2003. http://www2.mst.dk/common/Udgivramme/Frame.asp?pg=http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publikationer/2003/87-7972-568-6/html/ MORGAN, P. (ed.), 2006. Guidance manual for the implementation of low-noise road surfaces. FEHRLReport 2006/02. Brussels. http://www.trl.co.uk/silvia/silvia/pdf/silvia_guidance_manual.pdf OECD/INFRAS/HERRY, 2002. External costs of transport in Eastern Europe. Zrch, Vienna. OECD, 2003. Delivering the Goods, 21st Century Challenges to Urban Goods Transport. Working Group on Urban Freight Logistics. PLANUNGSBUERO RICHTER-RICHARD, n.d.-a. Lrmminderungsplanung und kommunale Verkehrsentwicklungsplanung. Empfehlungen fr den Planungs- und Umsetzungsprozess. Kurzbericht. http://www.prr.de/download/LMP-VEP%20Kurzbericht.pdf PLANUNGSBUERO RICHTER-RICHARD, n.d.-b. Lrmaktionsplan Ballungsraum Hamburg. http://www.prr.de/index.htm

Silence | page 114

PLANUNGSBUERO RICHTER-RICHARD, 2006. Lrmminderungsplanung Norderstedt. Lrmaktionsplan. http://www.norderstedt.de/static/de/8_0/8_179/8_4556/8_5359/8_5372/20205.pdf PROBST, W. J., 2006. Noise perception and scoring of noise exposure. ICSV 13 Vienna. http://cadnaa.01db.it/CadnaA/papers/icsv13Final00505.pdf RASMUSSEN, B., 2008. Experiences, pitfallsand best practices with acoustic insulation of housesExperiences, houses. Presentation given at Noise in the City conference, 14 March 2008. www.noiseinthecity.eu. SANDBERG, U., EJSMONT, J.A., 2002. Tire/Road Noise Reference Book. Informex, SE-59040 Kisa, Sweden (www.informex.se) SCHMEDDING, D. ET AL., 2005. A cost effectiveness analysis for urban noise reduction measures. Karlsruhe. In: Urban Transport XI, Urban Transport and the Environment in the 21st century. 2005, p. 499-509. SCHULTE-FORTKAMP, B., BROCKS, B., BRAY, W., 2007. Soundscape: Wahrnehmung und Wissen neuer Experten bestimmen die Vorgehensweise in der Postmoderne des Community Noise. In: Lrmbekmpfung, volume 2, no. 6. SEMIDOR, C., 2007a. Soundscape approach as a tool for urban design. Second part: Frequentation, use and sound environment perception in four cities in Europe: Barcelona; Bristol, Brussels and Genoa. SILENCE project deliverable I.D5. http://www.silence-ip.org/site/leadmin/SP_J/SILENCE_I.D5_GRECAU-POLIS_15.01.2007.pdf SEMIDOR, C., 2007b. Recommendations for soundscape design. SILENCE project deliverable I.D6. http://www.silence-ip.org/site/leadmin/SP_J/SILENCE_I.D6_GRECAU_08.02.2007-1.pdf SENATOR FR BAU, UMWELT UND VERKEHR, BREMEN, 2007. Strategische Lrmkarte Strassenverkehr / Schallimmissionsplan Lden 2005 (Strategic noise map Road trafc / Noise exposure Lden 2004). Author: Lrmkontor GmbH. http://www.umwelt.bremen.de/buisy05/sixcms/media.php/13/Anlage%204a%20-%20LK%20-%20L%E4rmkarte%20Stra%DFenverkehr%20DEN.pdf SMILE (Sustainable Mobility Initiatives for Local Environment), n.d. Guidelines for Road Trafc Noise Abatement. http://www.smile-europe.org/PDF/guidelines_noise_en.pdf STADT KLN, 2003. Das Wanderungsgeschehen in Kln. Auswertung der Wanderungsmotivuntersuchung 2002 und aktueller Wanderungsstatistiken im Rahmen des Wohnungsgesamtplans 2003. Klner Statistische Nachrichten 2003 Nr. 9. http://www.demograe-und-raum.nrw.de/download/wmu-koeln-2003.pdf STEVEN, H. 2005. Investigations on Noise Emission of Motor Vehicles in Road Trafc. RWTUEV Fahrzeug GmbH. Wuerselen. VAN DEN ELSHOUT, S., 2006. Communicating air quality. A guidebook on communication with the public about air quality. http://citeair.rec.org/downloads/Products/CommunicatingAirQuality.pdf WG 5 (Working group 5, Abatement), 2002. Inventory of noise mitigation methods. European Commission. WG-AEN (European Commission Working Group Assessment of Exposure to Noise), 2006. Good Practice Guide for Strategic Noise Mapping and the Production of Associated Data on Noise Exposure. Position Paper. Final draft. Version 2. 13th January 2006. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/pdf/wg_aen.pdf WG-AEN (European Commission Working Group Assessment of Exposure to Noise), 2008. Presenting Noise Mapping Information to the Public. Position Paper. http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/noise_map/library?l=/wg-aen_001_2008doc/_EN_1.0_&a=d WG-HEALTH (European Commission Working Group on health and socio-economic aspects), 2003. Valuation of Noise. Position Paper. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/pdf/valuatio_nal_12_2003.pdf WITTEVEEN+BOS, 2004. Project IPG4.3 Schermpositie - fase 1: verkenning oplossingsrichtingen, fase 2: akoestische effecten en kosten (Barrier positioning - phase 1: possible solutions, phase 2: acoustic effects and costs (in Dutch)). Deventer

Silence | page 115

Soundscape approach Example from Barcelona

Below the results of the soundscape analysis for Barcelona are presented. The analysis was carried out by GRECAU, Bordeaux France. The conclusions and recommendations represent the view of GRECAU. The City of Barcelona does not necessarily agree. The municipality particularly disagrees with the recommendation to remove the trafc lights (in order to generate a steadier trafc pattern) because of road safety reasons for pedestrians.

Silence | page 116

Silence | page 117

Silence | page 118

Silence | page 119

Silence | page 120

Silence | page 121

Questionnaire to survey citizens perception

The questionnaire below has been developed by GRECAU, Bordeaux France, within the SILENCE subproject City Planning. The questionnaire was used for surveying the perception of passers-by in the centre of Bristol.

Silence | page 122

Silence | page 123

Silence | page 124

SILENCE Quieter Surface Transport in Urban Areas

This practitioner handbook was written in the framework of the SILENCE project on Quieter Surface Transport in Urban Areas. SILENCE is an integrated research project, co-funded for 3 years by the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Commission. The SILENCE project provides relevant and world leading methodologies and technologies for the efcient control of noise caused by urban road and rail transport, and innovative strategies for action plans on urban transport noise abatement and practical tools for their implementation. SILENCE includes research in the elds of road surfaces, tyres, and road vehicles, rail infrastructure and rail vehicles, as well as road trafc ow.

The SILENCE team

SILENCE involved the right mix of European expertise to develop appropriate solutions. The project gathered city authorities, public transport operators, research and engineering institutes, European associations, vehicle manufacturers, equipment, systems and technology suppliers, and specialised SMEs. It was co-ordinated by AVL List GmbH (Austria).

SILENCE partners: AMU, ALSTOM Transport, Altran DSD, AnsaldoBreda, Autostrade, AVL, Bombardier Transportation, Bristol City Council, BKSV, Bruitparif, Brussels Mobility, CNRS, Centro Richerche Fiat, Chalmers Tekniska Hgskola, City of Munich, Comune di Genova, Continental, Corus, D2S, DeltaRail, Deutsche Bahn, DIT, FEHRL, Uni Hannover, IfADo, INSA Lyon, Kungliga Tekniska Hgskolan, Lucchini, M+P, Polis, RATP, Renault, Rieter Automotive, TUEV Nord, SINTEF, Skanska Sweden, SNCF, STIB, TU Berlin, TRENITALIA, Universit Politecnica delle Marche, ISVR, VIBRATEC, Volkswagen, Volvo Technology.

For more information on the project, contact the SILENCE coordination at: AVL List GmbH Alexander Holleis Phone: +43 316 787 2920 [email protected] or visit the project website:

www.silence-ip.org
Authors: Melanie Kloth ([email protected]), Karen Vancluysen ([email protected]) and Florent Clement, Polis Lars Ellebjerg, DRI (for trafc management measures) With contributions from: Rolf Annecke (City of Munich), Mlaine Bossat (Bruitparif), Roisin Byrne (DIT), Roberta Caero (City of Genoa), Steve Crawshaw (BCC Bristol), John Grimes (DIT), Simon Hayes (Altran DSD), Hermann Heich (Heich Consult), Chris Jones (ISVR), Pierre Schmitz (AED-DTS Brussels), Jean-Laurent Simons (IBGE-BIM Brussels), Andr Van Leuven (D2S), and other SILENCE partners.

To receive a copy of this handbook please contact: [email protected] Cover photo: PORTAL project

This document has been prepared by the authors in the framework of a project co-funded by the European Commission, DG Research. It does however not necessarily reect the views of the European Commission.

T&R - Office Acoustics - Ebook
No ratings yet
T&R - Office Acoustics - Ebook
42 pages
Classroom Acoustics
100% (1)
Classroom Acoustics
21 pages
Kenneth Kaliski Slides 6.7.11
No ratings yet
Kenneth Kaliski Slides 6.7.11
21 pages
Acoustics in Open Office
No ratings yet
Acoustics in Open Office
14 pages
Noise Abatement Approaches FB17 en
0% (1)
Noise Abatement Approaches FB17 en
28 pages
C008 - Quiet Revolution Noise Statement 20100803v1
No ratings yet
C008 - Quiet Revolution Noise Statement 20100803v1
15 pages
HVAC Acoustical Guidelines
No ratings yet
HVAC Acoustical Guidelines
17 pages
Quiet Areas Soundscaping Urban Sound Planning
No ratings yet
Quiet Areas Soundscaping Urban Sound Planning
71 pages
Achieving A Quieter Environment With McQuay® Indoor Vertical Self-Contained Systems, Application Guide AG 31-001, McQuay International (2001)
No ratings yet
Achieving A Quieter Environment With McQuay® Indoor Vertical Self-Contained Systems, Application Guide AG 31-001, McQuay International (2001)
11 pages
An Introduction To Sound and Wind Turbines: Mark Bastasch, PE
No ratings yet
An Introduction To Sound and Wind Turbines: Mark Bastasch, PE
23 pages
Ger 4248 Acoustic Terms Definitions General Information
No ratings yet
Ger 4248 Acoustic Terms Definitions General Information
14 pages
Noise Guidelines for Planners
No ratings yet
Noise Guidelines for Planners
30 pages
EGSA Silencer Rating Guide Final
No ratings yet
EGSA Silencer Rating Guide Final
15 pages
Noise Classification Road Pavements (Technical)
No ratings yet
Noise Classification Road Pavements (Technical)
58 pages
Request 15 Noise
No ratings yet
Request 15 Noise
28 pages
Acoustic Emissions From Wind Turbine Blades
No ratings yet
Acoustic Emissions From Wind Turbine Blades
14 pages
Passive Noise Control in Buildings
No ratings yet
Passive Noise Control in Buildings
12 pages
Defining Sound Fields
No ratings yet
Defining Sound Fields
10 pages
Urban Sound Planning
100% (1)
Urban Sound Planning
120 pages
Case Study: National Renewable Energy Laboratory Testing Wind Turbine Power Generators Using PULSE
No ratings yet
Case Study: National Renewable Energy Laboratory Testing Wind Turbine Power Generators Using PULSE
5 pages
Noise: Unwanted Sound
100% (1)
Noise: Unwanted Sound
84 pages
Interpreting Spinorama Charts PDF
No ratings yet
Interpreting Spinorama Charts PDF
25 pages
Acoustic TODAY
No ratings yet
Acoustic TODAY
72 pages
Loudspeaker Installation Guide
No ratings yet
Loudspeaker Installation Guide
3 pages
Kinetics Silencer Specification
No ratings yet
Kinetics Silencer Specification
4 pages
Acoustics for Physics Students
No ratings yet
Acoustics for Physics Students
172 pages
Noise Control: Determining The Best Option
No ratings yet
Noise Control: Determining The Best Option
5 pages
EWEA Noise Workshop Oxford 2012-1-1 Stefan Oerlemans
No ratings yet
EWEA Noise Workshop Oxford 2012-1-1 Stefan Oerlemans
23 pages
Sysnoise PDF
No ratings yet
Sysnoise PDF
74 pages
Discussion 13 - Acoustical Control
No ratings yet
Discussion 13 - Acoustical Control
25 pages
Chapter12 Noise Vibration PDF
No ratings yet
Chapter12 Noise Vibration PDF
16 pages
Acoustic - Sound Transmission Coefficiency
No ratings yet
Acoustic - Sound Transmission Coefficiency
9 pages
MyRoom Design-White Paper
No ratings yet
MyRoom Design-White Paper
17 pages
School Acoustic Design Guide
No ratings yet
School Acoustic Design Guide
2 pages
Small Scale Noise Mapping of Industrial Plants
100% (1)
Small Scale Noise Mapping of Industrial Plants
4 pages
Acoustic Testing of Calmer Tech
No ratings yet
Acoustic Testing of Calmer Tech
39 pages
Preliminary Results of Cincinnati Music Hall-FC Cincinnati Noise Pollution Study
No ratings yet
Preliminary Results of Cincinnati Music Hall-FC Cincinnati Noise Pollution Study
19 pages
Sound Attenuators Catalog
No ratings yet
Sound Attenuators Catalog
16 pages
Reverberation Time Formular
100% (1)
Reverberation Time Formular
33 pages
Engineering Acoustics Lecture 6
No ratings yet
Engineering Acoustics Lecture 6
25 pages
INM 7.0 User's Guide
No ratings yet
INM 7.0 User's Guide
449 pages
Unit I Introduction To Acoustics (12 Hours) : Characteristics of Sound
No ratings yet
Unit I Introduction To Acoustics (12 Hours) : Characteristics of Sound
12 pages
Unit I Architectural Acoustics
No ratings yet
Unit I Architectural Acoustics
36 pages
Acoustic Concepts for Engineers
No ratings yet
Acoustic Concepts for Engineers
3 pages
HP Sound Power App Note
No ratings yet
HP Sound Power App Note
40 pages
KepMenLH48 (1996) - Decree of The Minister of State For The Environment No.48 Yr 1996 Concerning Noise Level Standard
No ratings yet
KepMenLH48 (1996) - Decree of The Minister of State For The Environment No.48 Yr 1996 Concerning Noise Level Standard
7 pages
Diffuser Design Prof. Trevor Cox 0.0 Aims: C C C C C
No ratings yet
Diffuser Design Prof. Trevor Cox 0.0 Aims: C C C C C
8 pages
Sound Transformation: Architectural Acoustic
No ratings yet
Sound Transformation: Architectural Acoustic
30 pages
Cities Cannot Solve Their Noise Problems Solitarily
No ratings yet
Cities Cannot Solve Their Noise Problems Solitarily
3 pages
Noise Abatement PDF
No ratings yet
Noise Abatement PDF
9 pages
Urban Noise Challenges in Europe
No ratings yet
Urban Noise Challenges in Europe
23 pages
Transporte y Ruido Mejores Prácticas
No ratings yet
Transporte y Ruido Mejores Prácticas
222 pages
Paper Congres European Strategies For Noise Reductions and Noise Management in Cities, Florence 2009
100% (4)
Paper Congres European Strategies For Noise Reductions and Noise Management in Cities, Florence 2009
13 pages
Urban Noise Control Strategies
No ratings yet
Urban Noise Control Strategies
25 pages
11 Noise
No ratings yet
11 Noise
51 pages
Noise Pollution
No ratings yet
Noise Pollution
4 pages
CE 453 Lecture 7: Noise Analysis
No ratings yet
CE 453 Lecture 7: Noise Analysis
51 pages
EU Strategic Noise Mapping Guide
No ratings yet
EU Strategic Noise Mapping Guide
36 pages
Applied Acoustics: Editorial
No ratings yet
Applied Acoustics: Editorial
2 pages
Recycling Guidelines
No ratings yet
Recycling Guidelines
25 pages
Wrap Dowt B
No ratings yet
Wrap Dowt B
42 pages
Product Category Rules For Type III Environmental Product Declaration of Construction Products To EN 15804:2012
No ratings yet
Product Category Rules For Type III Environmental Product Declaration of Construction Products To EN 15804:2012
44 pages
PH Certification Criteria
No ratings yet
PH Certification Criteria
7 pages
Belgrade Info Guide 3
No ratings yet
Belgrade Info Guide 3
27 pages
Hotel Wellness Spa Design Guide
100% (2)
Hotel Wellness Spa Design Guide
15 pages
Wellness Centers
100% (1)
Wellness Centers
10 pages
Moen Vertical Spa Design Guide
No ratings yet
Moen Vertical Spa Design Guide
36 pages
Local Noise Action Plans Guide
No ratings yet
Local Noise Action Plans Guide
128 pages