behaviourswww.vtigu.com

ReportDelft,August2007Authors:L.
C.
(Eelco)denBoerA.
(Arno)SchrotenTrafficnoisereductioninEuropeHealtheffects,socialcostsandtechnicalandpolicyoptionstoreduceroadandrailtrafficnoiseOudeDelft1802611HHDelftTheNetherlandstel:+31152150150fax:+31152150151e-mail:ce@ce.
nlwebsite:www.
ce.
nlKvK27251086PublicationDataBibliographicaldata:L.
C.
(Eelco)denBoer,A.
(Arno)SchrotenTrafficnoisereductioninEuropeCEDelft,March2007Traffic/Noise/Reduction/Health/Effects/Costs/Technology/Policy/Road/Railways/Publicationcode:07.
4451.
27CEDelftpublicationsareavailablefromwww.
ce.
nlCommissionedby:T&EBrusselsForfurtherinformationonthisstudy,contactEelcodenBoeratCE.
copyright,CE,DelftThisreportisprintedon100%recycledpaper.
CEDelftSolutionsforenvironment,economyandtechnologyCEDelftisanindependentresearchandconsultancyorganisationspecialisedindevelopingstructuralandinnovativesolutionstoenvironmentalproblems.
CEDelftssolutionsarecharacterisedinbeingpoliticallyfea-sible,technologicallysound,economicallyprudentandsociallyequitable.
PrefaceMillionsofpeopleinEuropeareaffectedbytransportnoise.
Transportnoisean-noyspeople,causesstressandillnessandmaysometimesevenhaveafatalimpact.
Asaresult,noiseisverycostlytosociety.
Therearenumerouscheapandrelativelyeasywaystoreducetransportnoisesignificantly.
Firstofall,noiseshouldbetakenasseriouslyasotherformsofpol-lution,asitissimilarlydamagingtohumanhealth.
Thisyear,2007,isanimpor-tantoneforthefutureofnoisepolicy.
TheEuropeanCommissionispresentingaproposalfortighteningcartyrenoiseemissionlimits,andinJune2007thefirstnoisemapsoflargeagglomerations,mainroadsandrailwaysweretobesubmit-tedtotheCommissionunderthetermsoftheEnvironmentalnoisedirective.
Thisreportsdescribesthehealtheffectsofrailandroadtransportnoiseandpre-sentsanumberofrecommendationsastohowtoaddressthem.
Wewouldliketokindlythankthepeoplewhoreviewedthisreportfortheircontri-butions.
ThecommentsofRokhoKimoftheWHOandTorKihlmanoftheChalmersInstituteofTechnologywereespeciallyhelpfulinimprovingtheoverallqualityofthereport.
WealsothankNigelHarleforhiscarefuleditingoftheEng-lish.
EelcodenBoerArnoSchrotenContentsSummary11Introduction32Thehealtheffectsoftrafficnoise52.
1WHOCommunityNoiseGuidelines52.
2Therelationbetweennoiseandhumanhealth62.
3Reviewofhealtheffects72.
3.
1Annoyance72.
3.
2Sleepdisturbance82.
3.
3Impairedcognitivefunctioning92.
3.
4Cardiovasculardisease102.
3.
5Mentalillness112.
4Trafficnoiseespeciallyharmfultovulnerablegroups112.
5Over210millioninEU25exposedtoharmfultrafficnoise122.
6HealthofmillionsofEuropeansaffectedbytrafficnoise132.
7Effectsonanimalsandecosystems193Thesocialcostsoftrafficnoise213.
1Valuingthehealtheffectsoftrafficnoise213.
2SocialcostoftrafficnoiseinEU22over40billionayear213.
3Passengercarsandlorriesresponsibleforbulkofcosts233.
4Benefitsofnoisereduction234Noisereductionoptions254.
1At-sourceversusend-ofpipemeasures254.
2Transportnoiseregulation:thelegalframework284.
3Vehiclenoiseregulationfailed294.
4Tyrenoiselimitstoohightobeeffective324.
5Low-noiseroadpavements354.
6Speedreductionandtrafficmanagement364.
7Anti-propagationmeasures(noisebarriers,insulation)374.
8Railtransportnoise384.
9Two-wheeledvehiclenoise405Recommendationsforaction43Literature45AExposuretotrafficnoise57BSocialcostsfortrafficnoise61CVehiclenoiseemissiontrends634.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust20071SummaryThemainconclusionsofthisreportareasfollows:HealtheffectsandsocialcostsTrafficnoisehasavarietyofadverseimpactsonhumanhealth.
Communitynoise,includingtrafficnoise,isalreadyrecognisedasaseriouspublichealthproblembytheWorldHealthOrganization,WHO.
Ofalltheadverseeffectsoftrafficnoisethemostwidespreadissimplyan-noyance.
Thereisalsosubstantialevidencefortrafficnoisedisturbingsleeppatterns,affectingcognitivefunctioning(especiallyinchildren)andcontributingtocer-taincardiovasculardiseases.
Forraisedbloodpressure,theevidenceisin-creasing.
Formentalillness,however,theevidenceisstillonlylimited.
Thehealtheffectsofnoisearenotdistributeduniformlyacrosssociety,withvulnerablegroupslikechildren,theelderly,thesickandthepoorsufferingmost.
In2000,morethan44%oftheEU251population(about210millionpeople)wereregularlyexposedtoover55dBofroadtrafficnoise,alevelpotentiallydangeroustohealth.
Inaddition,35millionpeopleintheEU25(about7%)areexposedtorailtrafficnoiseabove55dB.
Millionsofpeopleindeedex-periencehealtheffectsduetotrafficnoise.
Forexample,about57millionpeopleareannoyedbyroadtrafficnoise,42%ofthemseriously.
Apreliminaryanalysisshowsthateachyearover245,000peopleintheEU25areaffectedbycardiovasculardiseasesthatcanbetracedtotrafficnoise.
About20%ofthesepeople(almost50,000)sufferalethalheartattack,therebydyingprematurely.
Theannualhealthlossduetotrafficnoiseincreasedbetween1980and2000andisexpectedtoincreaseupto2020.
Incontrast,trafficsafetyhasim-proved,followingimplementationofavarietyofpolicymeasures.
Ataconservativeestimate,thesocialcostsoftrafficnoiseintheEU222amounttoatleast40billionperyear(0.
4%oftotalGDP).
Thebulkofthesecosts(about90%)arecausedbypassengercarsandlorries.
NoisereductionoptionsIfnoise-relatedproblemsaretobealleviated,theymustbethesubjectofgreaterpoliticalfocus.
Vehiclenoiseemissionlimitshavenotbeentechnol-ogy-forcingsincetheirintroductionandwerelasttightenedin1995.
Thismeanstheselimitshavenotbeenupdatedfortwelveyears,instarkcontrasttovehicleairpollutionemissionstandards,whichhavebeentightenedthreetimesoverthesameperiod.
Consequently,therehasbeennoreductionincommunityexposuretonoise.
ThisisduetothelaxlimitsintheEUMotorvehiclesoundemissiondirective1EU25referstoEU27exceptCyprusandMalta.
2EU22referstoEU27exceptCyprus,Estonia,Latvia,LithuaniaandMalta.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust20072andtheTyre/roaddirective,thefactthatchangesintestconditionshaveinpracticeledtoevenweakerlimits,andincreasedtrafficvolumes.
Thereisplentyofscopeforreducingambientnoiselevelsbyatleast3-4dB(A)intheshorttermusingcurrentlyavailabletechnology.
Beyond2012,year-on-yearimprovementtargets(xdB(A)everyyyears)shouldbeintro-duced,outlinedwellinadvancetogiveindustrytimetoadapt.
Inthecaseofbothroadandrailtraffic,therearealreadyvehicles/rollingstockavailablethatarewellwithincurrentnoisestandards.
Besidesthevehiclesthemselves,examplesofsilenttyres/wheelsandroadpavements/tracksshowalsoroomfornoisereduction.
Atnoise'hotspots'additional,localmeasurescanbeimplemented.
Themostcost-effectivemeasuresarethoseaddressingthenoiseat-source.
Thisincludesnoisefromtheengine,exhaust,mechanicalsystemsandcon-tactbetweentyresandroad,orwheelsandtrack.
Theassociatedcostsaregenerallylimited,forvehiclesandtyresatleast.
Therearesignsthatuseofcompositebrakeblocksonrailwagonsalsocomesatamodestcost.
Althoughanoptimalnoisecontrolregimewillalwaysbeamixoflocalandat-sourcemeasures,theCommissionshouldtakeresponsibilityforensuringthatthenoiseemissionsofcars,tyresandrailwaysarereducedsignificantly.
Thesearethemostcost-effectivemeasuresandtheirimpactwillbefeltacrossEurope.
Whenitcomestotighteningnoisestandardsandimprovingtestprocedures,prolongeddiscussionsandpoliticalproceduresarecostingEuropedearly.
IftheEUdoesnotcomeupwithbetterpoliciessoon,localmeasureswillneedtobetaken,whichareconsiderablymoreexpensivethanmeasurestakenacrosstheEU.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200731IntroductionNoisepollutionconsistentlyrankshighonthelistofcitizens'concerns.
Itisesti-matedthatoverhalfofEurope'spopulationisexposedtounacceptablenoiselev-els.
Noisefromroadtransportisthemajorsource,followedbyaircraftandrail-waynoise.
Inits6thEnvironmentalActionProgramme(2002-2012)theEUhassetitselftheobjectiveofsubstantiallyreducingthenumberofpeopleregularlyaffectedbylong-termaveragelevelsofnoise.
Theaimofreducingnoiseexpo-suretoacceptablelevelshasbeenrepeatedintherenewedSustainableDevel-opmentStrategyaswellasinthetransportWhitepaperanditsmid-termreview.
Despitealleffortsinthisdirection,however,EUpolicydoesnotseemtorecog-nisethatnoiseisfirstandforemostamajorenvironmentalhealthissue.
Vehiclenoiseregulationisimportant,especiallyinlightofgrowingtrafficvolumesandtheproximitybetweentransportinfrastructureandresidentialandlivingar-eas.
Everydoublingoftransportintensityincreasesnoiselevelsby3dB(A).
Ve-hiclenoiseregulationgoesbacktothe1970s,withtyre/roadnoiseregulationaddedin2001andthereafter.
Intheirpresentform,however,bothsetsoflegisla-tionaretooliberaltohavehadanysignificanteffectandthenumberofpeopleexposedtoambientnoisehasconsequentlyincreasedratherthandeclined.
Thisreporthighlightsthescaleandscopeofthetrafficnoiseproblem,whichaf-fectsaverysubstantialproportionoftheEuropeanpopulace.
ItservesasabackgroundreporttoaT&Ebrochureandisbasedonathoroughliteraturere-view.
Thereportcovershealtheffectsandsocialcosts,andreviewsnoisereduc-tionpoliciesandmeasurestoreducenoiseexposure.
Inconclusion,anumberofrecommendationsforactionaregiven.
Thereportfocusesonroadandrailtrans-port.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200744.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200752ThehealtheffectsoftrafficnoiseInthischapterwefirstdiscussthehealthimpactoftrafficnoise,describingthevariouseffectssignalledanddiscussingthescientificevidenceforeach.
Wethenreportonthenumberofpeopleexposedtotrafficnoiseandthenumberlikelytobeaffectedbytherespectivehealtheffects.
Finally,webrieflyreviewtheevi-dencefortrafficnoisehavinganimpactonanimalsandecosystems.
2.
1WHOCommunityNoiseGuidelinesTrafficisthemostwidespreadsourceofenvironmentalnoise.
Exposuretotrafficnoiseisassociatedwithawiderangeofeffectsonhumanhealthandwell-being.
TheWorldHealthOrganisation(WHO)recognisescommunitynoise,includingtrafficnoise,asaseriouspublichealthproblem,promptingittopublishguidelinesoncommunitynoisein1999(Berglundetal.
,1999).
Theseguidelinespresentnoiselevelsabovewhichasignificantimpactonhumanhealthand/orwell-beingistobeexpected.
In2007anextensionoftheguidelineswaspublished(WHO,2007),focusingonthehealthimpactsofnight-timenoise.
Table1presentstherelevantguidelinevaluesforspecificenvironments.
Whenmultipleadversehealtheffectsareidentifiedforagivenenvironment,theguidelinevaluesaresetatthelevelofthelowestadversehealtheffect(the'criticalhealtheffect').
Table1SelectedvaluesfromtheWHOCommunityNoiseGuidelinesandWHONightNoiseGuidelinesSpecificenvironmentCriticalhealtheffectDay:LAeq(dB(A))Night:Lnight(dB(A))Timebase(hours)Day-timeandeveningnoiseOutdoorlivingareaSeriousannoyance,daytimeandeveningModerateannoyance,daytimeandeve-ning55501616Dwellings,indoorSpeechintelligibilityandmoderateannoy-ance,daytimeandevening3516Schoolclassrooms,andpre-schools,indoorsSpeechintelligibility,disturbanceofinfor-mationextraction,messagecommunica-tion35DuringclassSchoolplayground,outdoorAnnoyance55DuringplayHospitalwardrooms,indoorsSleepdisturbance,daytimeandevenings3016Hospital,treatmentrooms,indoorsInterferencewithrestandrecoveryaNight-timenoiseAtthefaade,out-sideBodymovements,awakening,self-reportedsleepdisturbance30DuringthenightaAslowaspossible.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200762.
2TherelationbetweennoiseandhumanhealthTrafficnoisefrequentlyexceedstheguidelinevaluespublishedbytheWHOandthoseexposedtotrafficnoiseconsequentlysufferanarrayofadversehealthef-fects.
Theseincludesocio-psychologicalresponseslikeannoyanceandsleepdisturbance,andphysiologicaleffectssuchascardiovasculardiseases(heartandcirculatoryproblems)andimpactsonmentalhealth(RIVM,2004).
Inaddi-tion,trafficnoisemayalsoaffectchildren'slearningprogress.
Finally,prolonged,cumulativeexposuretonoiselevelsabove70dB(A),commonalongmajorroads,mayleadtoirreversiblelossofhearing(Rosenhalletal.
,1990).
Figure1summarisesthepotentialmechanismsofnoise-inducedhealtheffectsandtheirinteractions.
Inthefirstplace,noiseexposurecanleadtodisturbanceofsleepanddailyactivities,toannoyanceandtostress.
Thisstresscaninturntrig-gertheproductionofcertainhormones(e.
g.
cortisol,noradrenalinandadrena-line),whichmayleadtoavarietyofintermediateeffects,includingincreasedbloodpressure.
Overaprolongedperiodofexposuretheseeffectsmayintheirturnincreasetheriskofcardiovasculardiseaseandpsychiatricdisorders.
Thedegreetowhichnoiseleadstodisturbance,annoyanceandstressdependspartlyonindividualcharacteristics,inparticularaperson'sattitudeandsensitivitytonoise.
Finally,therelationbetweennoiseandpersonalhealthandwell-beingisalsoinfluencedbyexternalfactorslikephysicalandsocialenvironmentandlife-style.
Figure1Themechanismsofnoise-inducedhealtheffectsSource:HCN(HealthCounciloftheNetherlands),1999.
ExposuretosoundOtherdetermi-nantsof:PhysicalenvironmentSocialenvironmentLifestyleProcessingbytheorganismGeneticandacquiredcharacteristics(atti-tude,sensitivity,cop-ingstyle,etc.
)Disturbanceofsleep,activities,performance,concentration.
AnnoyanceandstressBiologicalriskfactors(blooddynamics,hormones)Cardiovasculardiseases,psychiatricdisordersAppraisalasnoiseVegetativeresponseEnvironmentHealtheffects4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200772.
3ReviewofhealtheffectsFromFigure1andthediscussionthusfarwecanidentifythefollowingpotentialhealtheffectsduetoexposuretotrafficnoise:Annoyance.
Sleepdisturbance.
Disturbedcognitivefunctioning(learningandunderstanding).
Cardiovasculardisease.
Adverseeffectsonmentalhealth.
2.
3.
1AnnoyanceThemostwidespreadproblemcreatedbynoiseisquitesimplyannoyance.
An-noyancecanbedefinedasageneralfeelingofdispleasureoradversereactiontriggeredbythenoise.
Amongthewaysitcanexpressitselfarefear,uncertaintyandmildanger(Stansfeld&Matheson,2003;RIVM,2005).
Inthehumanenvi-ronment(whichalsoincludesneighbours,industry,etc.
)trafficisthesinglemostimportantsourceofnoiseannoyance(Niemann&Maschke,2004;RIVM,2004).
AsFigure2shows,aircraftnoiseisperceivedasmoreannoyingthanroadandrailtrafficnoiseatthesamevolume.
Atanoiselevelof55dB(A),theguidelinelimitsetbytheWHO,approximately30%ofthoseexposedareannoyedbyair-craftnoise,about20%byroadtrafficnoiseandabout10%byrailtrafficnoise.
Somepeoplebegintoexperienceannoyanceattrafficnoisefromnoiselevelsof40dB(A)upwards.
Figure2Percentageofpeopleannoyedasafunctionofnoiseexposureofdwellings(LdenindB(A))Source:Miedema&Oudshoorn(2001).
Thedegreeofannoyancetriggeredbytrafficnoiseisdeterminedfirstofallbythenoiselevel.
Thehigherthelevel,themorepeopleareannoyedandthegreatertheseverityofperceivedannoyance(EllebjergLarsenetal.
,2002;RIVM,2005).
010203040506070804045505560657075Lden%annoyedroadrailaviationWHOguideline4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust20078Thedegreeofannoyancedependsonothernoisecharacteristics,too(LondonHealthCommission,2003).
Thehigherthepitchofthenoise,thegreaterthean-noyance.
Durationandintermittencyalsoinfluencethedegreeofannoyance.
However,trafficnoise-inducedannoyanceisgovernedbymorethanjustacousticfactors,withpersonalandsituationalfactorsalsocomingintoplay,aswellasaperson'srelationshiptothesourceofthenoise.
Inafamiliarillustration,amos-quitomaynotmakemuchofanoise,butduringthenightitcancauseconsider-ableannoyance.
Feelingsofannoyancedependinthefirstplaceonanindivid-ual'ssensitivitytonoise(Ouis,2001;RIVM,2004).
Thefactthatnoiseisaformofharmthatcanbeavoidedcontributestopeople'sperceptionofnoiseasannoy-ance(LondonHealthCommission,2003).
Anotherimportantdeterminantofper-ceivedannoyanceisfearofthenoise'ssource(RIVM,2004).
Peoplewhofeeltheyhavenocontroloverthesituation,orbelieveauthoritiesarefailingtocontrolit,arelikelytoexperienceagreaterlevelofannoyance.
Annoyanceatnoisede-pendsalsoonhowthenoiseinterfereswitheverydaylife(LondonHealthCom-mission,2003;Stansfeld&Matheson,2003).
Peoplewillbemoreannoyedwhennoiseaffectsactivitiesthatinvolvetalkingandlistening,suchasconversations,listeningtomusic,watchingtelevisionandsoon.
Finally,noiseinsituationswhereitisexpectedislessannoyingthannoiseincircumstancesanticipatedtobequiet.
Forthisreasonnoiseatnight-time(thebuzzingofamosquito,ascited,butalsotrafficnoise)ismoreannoyingthanduringtheday.
Tosomeextent,peoplefrequentlyexposedtotrafficnoisedevelopstrategiesofadaptingandcopingwiththeproblem(LondonHealthCommission,2003).
Theproblemstillremains,however:subconsciousphysicalreactions,suchasraisedbloodpressure,andlevelsofannoyanceduetochronicnoisewillnotdiminishovertimeunlessthenoiseitselfisabated.
2.
3.
2SleepdisturbanceTrafficnoiseisthemaincauseofsleepdisturbance(Niemann&Maschke,2004).
Thiseffectofnoiseonsleephasimportanthealtheffects,sinceuninterruptedsleepisknowntobeaprerequisiteforproperphysiologicalandmentalfunction-inginhealthypeople(WHO,2007).
Threetypesofeffectsofnoiseonsleepcanbedistinguished:effectsonsleepingbehaviour(primaryeffects),effectsonper-formanceandmoodthroughthefollowingday(secondaryeffects)andlong-termeffectsonwell-beingandhealth:Sleepingbehaviour.
Night-timenoisecanincreasethearousalofthehumanbody,i.
e.
leadtoactivationofthenervoussystem,whichmayresultinaper-sonawakeningorpreventthemfromfallingasleep(Isingetal.
,2004;TNOIn-ro,2002;WHO,2007).
However,thisarousalresponsetonoiseisoftenmoresubtlethanmereawakeningandmayinvolveachangefromadeepertolightersleep,anincreaseinbodymovements,atemporaryincreaseinheartrateandchangesin(stress)hormonelevels(RVIM,2003;HCN,2004;WHO,2007).
Finally,thereisalsosomeevidencethatbloodpressureisaffectedbytrafficnoiseduringsleep(WHO,2007).
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust20079Effectsonperformanceandmoodthroughthefollowingday.
Thesecondaryeffectsofsleepdisturbanceincludereducedperceivedsleepqualityandin-creaseddrowsiness,tirednessandirritability(HCN,2004).
Whilethereareal-soindicationsofothereffectssuchasdepressedmoodanddecreasedper-formance(Ouis,2001),theavailableevidenceisstillinconclusive(HCN,2004;WHO,2007).
Long-termeffectsonwell-being.
Inthelong-term,night-timenoisecanleadtoinsomniaandincreasedmedicationuse(HCN,2004;WHO,2007).
Itmayalsoresultinchronicannoyance(Berglundetal.
,1999;RIVM,2004).
Fur-thermore,anincreasedriskofcardiovasculardiseaseduetonight-timenoiseisplausible,althoughthereisonlylimitedevidenceforthiseffect(TNOInro,2002;WHO,2007).
Finally,therearecertainindicationsthatnight-timenoisecancontributetomentalillness(WHO,2007)Theeffectsofnight-timetrafficnoiseonsleepdisturbancebeginatfairlylowvol-umesandbecomemorelikelyastheintensityofthenoiseincreases.
Changesbetweensleepstages,increasedbodymovementsandheart-rateaccelerationstartatnoiselevelsaround32-42dB(A)(WHO,2007).
Inaddition,reportedsleepqualityislikelytobeaffectedatnoiselevelsabove40dB(A)(RIVM,2004;Isingetal.
,2004;WHO,2007).
Night-timeawakeningsalsostartatlevelsabove40dB(A)(WHO,2007).
However,sleepdisturbanceisinfluencedbyothernoisecharacteristics,too.
Peoplearefarmoresensitivetointermittentnoisethancon-tinuousnoise(Prasher,2003).
Forexample,anacceleratingcarwilldisturbaperson'ssleepmorethanacontinuoustrafficflow.
Inaddition,thealarmfunctionofthesenseofhearingmayleadtoawakeningifthenoisecontainsinformationperceivedtobeofrelevance,evenifthenoiselevelislow.
Thismeansthatun-familiarnoisesarefarmorelikelytodisturbsleepthanfamiliar,regularpatternsofnoise.
Finally,personalcharacteristicslikenoisesensitivityinfluencetherelationbetweennight-timenoiseandsleepdisturbances(Ouis,2001).
Peoplearegoodatadaptingtonocturnalnoise.
However,thereisnevercom-pletehabituation,particularlywithrespecttoheart-rateacceleration(Stansfeld&Matheson,2003;WHO,2007).
2.
3.
3ImpairedcognitivefunctioningExposuretotrafficnoisecanimpairanadult'scognitivefunctioning(informationprocessing,understandingandlearning)(Stansfeld&Matheson,2003).
Tohavethiseffect,though,noiselevelsmustbehigh,orthetaskcomplexorcognitivelydemanding(Prasher,2003).
Repetitiveandsimpletasksareunaffectedby(traf-fic)noise.
Theinfluenceofnoiseoncognitivefunctioningdependsonaperson'sperceivedcontrolofthenoiseanditspredictability.
Intheliteraturethereisaprominentfocusontheinfluenceoftrafficnoiseonthecognitivefunctioningofchildren.
Althoughmostofthestudiesareconcernedwiththeimpactofaircraftnoiseinthisrespect,someofthemconsiderroadandrailtrafficnoise,too.
AccordingtoBistrupetal.
(2001),theadverseeffectsofroadtrafficnoiseexceedthoseofrailtrafficnoise.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200710Ingeneral,thefollowingeffectshavebeenfoundforchildrenexposedtohighlevelsoftrafficnoise(Bistrupetal.
,2001;Clarketal.
,2005;RIVM,2005):Difficultysustainingattention.
Difficultyconcentrating.
Poorerdiscriminationbetweensoundsandpoorerperceptionofspeech.
Difficultyremembering,especiallycomplexissues.
Poorerreadingabilityandschoolperformance.
Ahypothesisfrequentlystatedtoexplaintheimpactofchronicexposuretonoiseonthecognitivedevelopmentofchildrenisthatnoiseaffectstheintelligibilityofspeechcommunication(Bistrupetal.
,2001;RIVM,2005).
Ambientnoiseleadstoalossinthecontentofateacher'sinstruction,andconsequentlychildrenmayhaveproblemswithspeechperceptionandlanguageacquisition.
This,inturn,canleadtoimpairmentofchildren'sreadingskillsandvocabulary,andeventuallytodifficultieswithother,higher-levelprocesses,suchaslong-termmemoryforcomplexissues.
Closelyrelatedtothisprocessistheso-called'tuningout're-sponse:toadapttonoiseinterferencesduringactivities,childrenfilterouttheunwantednoisestimuli(RIVM,2005).
However,researcherssuggestthatchil-drengeneralisethisstrategytoothersituationswherenoiseisnotpresent,withadverseeffectsontheirunderstandingandlearningperformance.
Althoughtherehasbeenlittleresearchintotheimpactofnoisereductioninthiscontext,thereisevidencethatreducednoiselevelscanrelievecognitiveprob-lemswithinaboutayear(LondonHealthCommission,2003).
2.
3.
4CardiovasculardiseaseExposuretotrafficnoiseisassociatedwithchangesinbloodpressureandin-creasedriskofvarioustypesofheartdisease(e.
g.
ischemicheartdiseases,an-ginapectoris,myocardialinfraction).
Noise-inducedcardiovasculardiseasesareconsideredtobetheconsequenceofstress(Babisch,2006;Isingetal.
,2004;Prasher,2003;RIVM,2004).
Exposuretonoisetriggerstheproductionof(stress)hormoneslikecortisol,noradrenalineandadrenaline.
Itdoessobothdirectlyandindirectly,throughdisturbanceofactivities.
Thesehormonesmaycausechangesinthevaluesofanumberofbiologicalriskfactors,suchashypertension(highbloodpressure),bloodlipids(e.
g.
cholesterol)andbloodglucose.
Theseriskfac-torscanincreasetheriskofcardiovasculardisease(Babisch,2006;Isingetal.
,2004).
Persistentexposuretoenvironmentalnoisecouldthereforeresultinper-manentchangestothevascularsystem,withelevatedbloodpressureandheartdiseasesaspotentialoutcomes.
Themagnitudeoftheseeffectswillbepartlyde-terminedbyindividualcharacteristics,lifestylebehavioursandenvironmentalconditions(Berglundetal.
,1999).
Sufficientevidencecanbefoundintheliteraturefortherelationbetweentrafficnoiseandheartdiseaseslikemyocardialinfarctionandischemicheartdiseases(Babisch,2006;Babischetal.
,2005;Isingetal.
,2004;Prasher,2003).
Higherrisksofheartdiseasearefoundforthoselivinginstreetswithaveragenoiselev-elsabove65-70dB(A).
Forthesepeopletheriskofheartdiseaseisapproxi-mately20%higherthanforthoselivinginquieterareas(Babisch,2006).
Thisrisk4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200711increaseswithnoiselevel.
Again,theriskisalsoinfluencedbypersonalcharac-teristics.
Forexample,Babischetal.
(2005)foundthatonlymenareathigherriskofheartattackduetotrafficnoise.
Thisriskisalsodependentonthenumberofyearsofexposuretothetrafficnoise,moreover.
Thelongerpeopleareexposedtoahighleveloftrafficnoise,thegreaterthelikelihoodofithavinganimpactandincreasingtheriskofaheartattack.
Thereisagrowingbodyofevidenceforahigherriskofhypertensioninpeopleexposedtohighlevelsoftrafficnoise(Babisch,2006).
Forexample,arecentstudybyBluhmetal.
(2006)suggeststheexistenceofarelationbetweenresi-dentialexposuretoroadtrafficnoiseandhypertension.
However,earlierstudies(e.
g.
Babisch,1998;RIVM,2005)showlessevidenceforthisrelationship,andaccordingtoBabisch(2006)thesestudiescannotbeneglectedintheoveralljudgementprocess.
Hencemoreresearchintotherelationbetweentrafficnoiseandhypertensionisneeded.
Therehasbeenhardlyanyresearchintotheimpactofnight-timenoiseexposureoncardiovascularhealthoutcomes(Babisch,2006).
OneexceptionisUBA(2003),whoshowedthatnight-timenoiseexposurewasmorestronglyassoci-atedwithmedicaltreatmentforhypertensionthanday-timenoiseexposure.
Incontrasttothesubjectiveperceptionofnoise,whichadaptswithinafewdaysthroughhabituation(seeparagraph2.
3.
1),noneofthecardiovasculardiseasesshowhabituationtonoiseafterprolongedexposure(WHO,2007).
2.
3.
5MentalillnessAsmallnumberofstudieshavepresentedlimitedevidenceforalinkbetweentrafficnoiseandmentalillness(Prasher,2003;Stansfeld&Matheson,2003;WHO,2007).
Theclearassociationbetweennoiseandannoyancedoesnotnec-essarilytranslateintoamoreseriousrelationshipwithmentalhealth(LondonHealthCommission,2003).
However,noisemaywellaccelerateandintensifythedevelopmentoflatentmentaldisorder.
Evenso,peoplealreadysufferingmentalproblemsarelikelytobemoresensitivetobeingannoyedordisturbedbytrafficnoisethanthegeneralpopulation.
2.
4TrafficnoiseespeciallyharmfultovulnerablegroupsThehealtheffectsofroadandrailtrafficnoisearenotdistributeduniformlyacrosssociety,withvulnerablegroupslikechildren,theelderlyandthesickaf-fectedmost.
Inaddition,poorerpeoplearemorelikelytosufferthehealtheffectsoftransportnoisethanthebetteroff.
Thismightbeexplainedbylowerqualityhousingwithpoornoiseinsulationandtheproximityofhousingforlowerincomegroupstonoisytransportinfrastructure.
Childrenarelikelytobeagroupthatisparticularlyvulnerabletothehealthef-fectsofnoise.
Theyhavelesscognitivecapacitytounderstandandanticipateitandlackwell-developedcopingstrategies(Stansfeld&Matheson,2003).
As4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200712childrenarestilldevelopingbothphysicallyandcognitively,moreover,inthisgroupthereisapotentialriskofchronicnoisehavingirreversiblenegativecon-sequences.
Theimpactoftrafficnoiseonchildren'scognitivedevelopmenthasalreadybeenbrieflydiscussed.
Noisemayalsopossiblyaffectfoetaldevelop-ment,bywayof(stress)effectsonexpectantmothers(EPA,1978).
However,amorerecentstudyquestionsthisimpactonfoetaldevelopment,althoughsucheffectsarenotcompletelyruledout(Bistrupetal.
,2001).
Additionally,childrendonotappeartobeatparticularriskwithrespecttocardiovasculardisease,espe-ciallythroughhighbloodpressure(Babisch,2006).
Atthesametime,though,trafficnoiseexposurefromanearlyagemayhavecumulativehealtheffectsinlaterlife,whichoncemoreincludecardiovasculardisease.
Thisalsoholdsforthenegativeeffectsofsleepdisturbance.
Intheshortterm,however,childrenarelessseverelyaffectedbysleepdisturbancethanadults(RIVM,2004),asevi-dencedbyfewerawakeningsandchangesbetweensleepstages.
Withrespecttoannoyanceduetotrafficnoise,finally,childrendonotdifferfromadults.
Theelderlyandthesickaretwoothergroupsthatmaybeespeciallyvulnerabletotheeffectsoftrafficnoise.
Therehasnotbeenmuchresearchintothisarea,however.
Oneoftherarefindingsisthatboththeelderlyandthosealreadyillaremoreaffectedbysleepdisturbance-especiallyawakenings-thanthegeneralpopulation(HCN,2004;Ouis,2001).
Also,thosealreadysufferingfromsleepdis-turbancearemoreseverelyaffectedbytrafficnoise.
Withregardtocardiovascu-lardisease,Babisch(2006)showsthatpeoplewithprevalentchronicdiseaseshaveaslightlyhigherprobabilityofcontractingcertainheartdiseasesasaresultoftrafficnoisethanthosewithout.
Fortheelderly,thereisnoconsistentevidencethattheeffectoftrafficnoiseoncardiovasculardiseasesisgreaterthanforyoungerpeople.
Finally,trafficnoisemayaggravatethepsychologicalproblemsofpeoplewithexistinghealthproblems(LondonHealthCommission,2003).
Thepriceofhousesexposedtohighlevelsoftrafficnoisewillbelowerthanthatofsimilarhousesinquieterareas(Soguel,1994;Theebe,2004).
Thoselivingonlowerhouseholdincomesarethereforemorelikelytobeexposedtotrafficnoisethanthosewithhigherincomes,andwillhencehavemorenoise-relatedhealthproblems.
FortheDutchregion'Rijnmond'thisrelationshipbetweenhouseholdincomeandexposuretonoisewasconfirmedbyRIVM(2004).
2.
5Over210millioninEU25exposedtoharmfultrafficnoiseIntheyear2000about44%ofthepopulationoftheEU253(over210millionpeo-ple)wereexposedtoroadtrafficnoiselevelsabove55dB(A).
ThisistheWHOguidelinevalueforoutdoornoiselevelsandthethresholdfor'seriousannoy-ance'.
Morethan54millionpeoplewereexposedtoroadtrafficnoiselevelsover65dB(A),whichistentimeslouderthantheWHOguidelinevalue.
Railtrafficnoiseisaburdentofewerpeople.
Nonetheless,35millionpeopleintheEU25(about7%)wereexposedtorailtrafficnoiseabove55dBin2000,with7millionofthemexposedtonoiseover65dBfromthissource.
3EU27exceptCyprusandMalta.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200713InmostEuropeancountriesthenumberofpeopleexposedtonoiselevelsbelow55dBarenotreportedon.
Asalreadydiscussed,though,noisebelow55dBmaystilltriggeradverseeffectslikeannoyance,sleepdisturbanceandreducedcogni-tiveability.
TheactualnumberofpeopleexposedtolevelsoftrafficnoisethatarepotentiallydangeroustotheirhealthwillthusbehigherthanthefigurespresentedinFigure3.
Thedatainthisfigurearefortheyear2000.
Giventrafficgrowthandthefactthatlegislationandstandardshavehardlychangedinthemeantime,theseexposurefiguresprobablyunderestimatethetrueextentoftheproblem.
Figure3Numberofpeopleexposedtoroadandrailtrafficnoisein25EUcountriesin20000408012016020055-65dB65-70dB>70dBmillionsofpeopleexposedroadrailNote:ThisfigurecoverstheEU27exceptCyprusandMalta.
Source:INFRAS/IWW(2004),OECD/INFRAS/Herry(2002),calculationsbyCEDelft(forEstionia,Latvia,Lithuania).
ThesefiguresforthenumberofpeopleexposedtotrafficnoisearebasedmainlyondatafromINFRAS/IWW(2004)(WestEuropeancountries)andOECD/INFRAS/Herry(2002)(EastEuropeancountries).
Link(2000)alsopre-sentsestimatesforthenumberofpeopleexposedtotrafficnoiseincertainWestEuropeancountries.
Althoughinsomecasestheresultsforindividualcountries(includingtheNetherlands)differconsiderablybetweenthefirstandlastofthesestudies,theaggregatenumbersarecomparable,withadifferenceofonlyabout3%betweenthetwo.
SinceINFRAS/IWW(2004)coversmorecountriesandusesmoreup-to-datedata,wechosetopresentthesefigureshere.
ThereliabilityofthesedatasetsisdiscussedinappendixA.
2.
6HealthofmillionsofEuropeansaffectedbytrafficnoiseAlthoughnotallpeopleexposedtoroadorrailnoisewillexperiencehealthef-fects(seealsoappendixA),asignificantfractionwill.
Beyondinvestigationsoftheabsolutenumberofpeoplesufferingfromvarioushealtheffectsduetotrafficnoise,however,notmuchresearchhasbeenundertakeninthisarea.
Inthissec-4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200714tion,therefore,wecannotdomuchmorethanprovideanestimateofthenumberofpeopleaffectedbycardiovasculardisease.
Inaddition,figuresonthenumberofpeopleexperiencingannoyanceattrafficnoiseinEuropearepresented.
Fi-nally,thehealthimpactoftrafficnoiseiscomparedtothehealthimpactoftwoothersocialproblems:airpollutionandtrafficaccidents.
FatalheartattackandischemicheartdiseasesTheannualcountofpeoplesufferinga(fatal)heartattackduetotrafficnoiseisknownforthreecountriesonly(seeTable2).
Fortwoofthese,DenmarkandGermany,theannualcountforischemicheartdiseases(IHD)isalsoknown.
Table2NumberofpeopleaffectedbyheartdiseasesandtheprobabilityofheartdiseasesduetotrafficnoiseinthreeEuropeancountriesCountryAnnualcountofpeoplesufferingalethalheartattackAnnualcountofpeopleaffectedbyIHDProbabilityofalethalheartattackforpeopleexposedto>60dBProbabilityofIHDforpeopleexposedto>60dBDenmark200-500800-22000.
00026-0.
000650.
001-0.
003Germany4,28927,3660.
000170.
001Netherlands300-1000-0.
00016-0.
00053-Sources:Babish,2006;Danish,2003;RIVM,2005;probabilitiescalculatedbyCEDelft.
Basedonthesefiguresandthenumberofpeopleexposedtonoiselevelsabove60dB(A)intherelevantcountries,weestimatedtheprobabilityofafatalheartattackorischemicheartdiseaseandusedtheseprobabilitiestoestimatethenumberofpeoplelikelytobeaffectedbythesediseasesintheEU25annually.
Tothisend,foreachcountrywemultipliedthenumberofpeopleexposedtonoiselevelsover60dB(A)bytherespectiveprobabilitiesoftheheartdiseases.
TheaggregateresultsofthisestimationprocedureareshowninFigure4.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200715Figure4IndicationofnumberofpeopleaffectedbyanischemicheartdiseaseorsufferingalethalheartattackduetotrafficnoiseintheEU25(2000)050100150200250300350400roadrail#ofpeopleaffectedperyear(x1000)lethalheartattackischemicheartdiseaseNote:ThisfigurecoverstheEU27exceptCyprusandMalta.
Toestimatethenumberofpeopleaffectedbyheartdiseasestheaverageoftheprobabili-tiesfromTable2wereused,withtheupperandlowerboundsofthebandwidthestimatedusingthehighestandlowestprobability,respectively.
Wecanconcludethatover245,000peopleintheEU25areaffectedbyanischemicheartdiseaseduetotrafficnoiseannually,ofwhom94%(approx.
231,000)duetoroadtrafficnoise.
About20%(almost50,000)ofthesepeoplesufferfatalheartattacks.
Roadandrailtrafficnoisearethusresponsibleforaround50,000prematuredeathsperyearinEurope.
AnnoyanceToestimatethenumberofpeopleexperiencingannoyanceattrafficnoise,weusedexposure-responserelationships.
Miedema&Oudshoorn(2001)haveesti-matedthepercentageofpeopleannoyedasafunctionofbothroadandrailtraf-fic.
Theirexposure-responsefunctionshavealreadybeenpresentedinpara-graph2.
3.
1.
Theseresearchersderivedexposure-responsefunctionsforbothsevereannoyanceandannoyanceandthesecurveshavebeenrecommendedforuseinEUlegislationonnoise(EC,2001).
Figure5showsthenumberofpeo-pleexperiencing(severe)annoyanceatroadandrailtrafficnoiseintheEU25.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200716Figure5Numberofpeopleaffectedby(severe)annoyanceduetoroadandrailtrafficnoiseintheEU25in2000010203040506070roadrailmillionsofpeopleaffectedsevereannoyanceannoyanceNote:ThisfigurecoverstheEU27exceptCyprusandMalta.
Toestimatethenumberofpeopleaffectedby(severe)annoyance,theexposuredatafromparagraph2.
5wereused.
TheseexposuredataarerelatedtoLAeqnoiselevels,whiletheexposure-responsefunctionsofMiedema&OudshoornaredefinedforLdennoiselev-els.
Forthisreasontheexposuredataweretranslatedusingaruleofthumb:noiselevelsexpressedinLdenareapproximately2dB(A)lowerthanthoseexpressedinLAeq.
Toex-presstheuncertaintyintheestimatesabandwidthfortheresultsisshown.
Theupperandlowerboundofthisbandwidthwereestimatedbyvaryingtheexposurefiguresby2dB(A).
Around57millionpeopleintheEU25areannoyedbyroadtrafficnoise,42%ofwhom(approximately24million)areseverelyannoyed.
Thismeansthatabout12%oftheEuropeanpopulationsuffersannoyanceduetoroadtrafficnoise.
Railtrafficnoisecausesannoyancetoabout5.
5millionEuropeans(about1%ofthetotalEuropeanpopulation),ofwhomabout2millionareseverelyannoyed.
ComparisonwithhealthimpactofotherenvironmentalproblemsDisability-adjustedlifeyears(DALY)isameasureusedtoquantifytheoverall'burdenofdisease'onapopulation.
Itdoessobycombiningtheimpactofprema-turedeath(mortality;lifeyearslost)anddisability(morbidity;lifeyearslivedwithdisabilityordisease)intoasingle,comparablemeasure.
DALYsrepresentthetotalnumberofyearsoflifelostduetoprematuredeathandofyearslivedwithareducedlevelofhealth,weightedbytheseriousnessofthehealthimpairmentsuffered(SAEFL,2003).
Below,weuseDALYstosummarisethehealthimpactofanexternalenvironmentalinfluence,trafficnoise.
Byusingthisconceptitispossibletocomparethetotalimpactofseveralhealtheffectsoftrafficnoiseand,moreover,tocomparethemagnitudeoftheseeffectswiththatofotherproblemsaffectingsociety,suchasairpollutionandtrafficaccidents.
TheWHOiscurrentlyworkingonanestimateofDALYsfortrafficnoiseforEurope.
Todate,however,thereisonlycountryforwhichsuchanestimateispubliclyavailable:theNetherlands.
Forthiscountry,RIVM(2005)presentDALYsforseveralenvironmentalvectorsofdisease:seeFigure6.
TheDALYsfortraffic4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200717noisetakethefollowinghealtheffectsintoaccount:mortality(throughstress,hy-pertensionandcardiovasculardiseases),severeannoyanceandseveresleepdisturbance.
ThesehealtheffectsarethemajordeterminantsofDALYscausedbytrafficnoise.
Includingotherhealtheffects,suchastheadverseimpactoncognitivefunctioningandhearingimpairment,willnotsignificantlychangetheor-derofmagnitudeofDALYsrelatedtotrafficnoise.
Figure6BurdenofdiseaseduetoseveralproblemsintheNetherlandsin2000,inDALYs050100150200250RoadtrafficaccidentsTrafficnoiseUVnumberofDALY's(x1000)Note:The90%predictionintervalsaroundtherespectiveDALYvaluesareindicatedbyabandwidth.
Thefiguresfortrafficnoiseincluderoad,railandairtrafficnoise.
Source:RIVM,2005.
Theannualhealthlossassociatedwithtrafficnoiseisapproximatelyhalfthehealthlossduetotrafficaccidents.
ThenumberofDALYsrelatedtotrafficnoisepresentedinFigure6alsoincludesthenoiseofairtraffic.
Thelatterisonlyaveryminorsourceofhealthloss(seeFigure8),asairportnoiseaffectsonlyrelativelyfewpeople.
However,theexpo-sureofthesepeopleislikelytobesevere,andsowilltheirhealthloss.
RIVM(2005)alsopresenttrendsintheenvironmentalburdenofdiseaseintheNetherlandsfortheperiod1980-2020.
Figure7presentstrendsinDALYsduetothreeenvironmentalproblems.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200718Figure7TrendsinDALYspermillionpeopleintheNetherlandsfortheperiod1980-2020Source:RIVM,2005.
Incontrasttoproblemsliketrafficaccidents,thenumberofDALYsduetotrafficnoiserosebetween1980and2000.
Withpolicyasitstandstoday,thisdiseaseburdenwillcontinuetogrowinthecomingyears,whilethatoftrafficaccidentswillcontinuetofall.
RIVM(2005)alsoreportonthepotentialdecreaseindiseaseburdenifnoiselevelsarereducedbyaround5dB(A)foreverysourceby2020.
Suchareductioncouldalmosthalvethenumberofannoyanceandsleepdistur-bance-relatedDALYs(seeFigure8).
Figure8DALYspermillioncausedbysevereannoyanceandseveresleepdisturbanceduetoraod,trainandairtrafficnoise,for1980,2000and2020,includinganalternativescenariofor2020(with5dB(A)noiseexposurereductionforroadandrailtraffic)Source:RIVM(2005).
InChapter4wedemonstratethata3-4dB(A)reductionofroadandrailwaynoiseiseasilyfeasibleintheshorttermusingcurrentlyavailabletechnologies.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust2007192.
7EffectsonanimalsandecosystemsItisnotonlyhumansbutalsoanimalsthatareaffectedbytrafficnoise.
Whenex-posedtoman-madenoisetheymaysufferbothphysiologicalandbehaviouraleffects(KaselooandTyson,2004).
Withregardtotheformer,ananimal'sre-sponsemayrangefrommildannoyancetopanicandescapebehaviour.
Theseresponsesaremanifestationsofstress,whichmayharmananimal'shealth,growthandreproductivefitness.
Forexample,energylossesduetoescapeandpanicresponsescouldresultinimpairedgrowthandhealth.
Forsomeanimals,trafficnoisealsointerfereswithcommunication(Kaseloo,2005).
Bats,forexam-ple,aspeciesgrouptotallyreliantonecholocation,areunabletofindfoodifnoiselevelsaretoohigh.
Intermsofbehaviour,animalsmayavoidplaceswithhighlevelsoftrafficnoise.
Inthecaseofbirdsithasbeenfoundthatsoundlevelsabove40-45dB(A)in-fluencespeciesdistribution;asthenoiselevelatagivenspotincreases,fewerbirdswillvisitthespot(Kaseloo,2005;RIVM,2002).
Foranimalslikethemoun-taingoatandwhite-taileddeer,too,evidencehasbeenfoundfortheavoidanceofnoisyareasaroundbusyroads(Kaseloo&Tyson,2004).
Theeffectsoftrafficnoiseonanimalsvarymarkedlyamongaswellaswithinspecies,owingtoavarietyoffactors(suchasage,sex,priorexposure,etc.
).
Itisthereforehardtodrawanygeneralconclusionsabouttheeffectsoftrafficnoiseonanimals.
Furtherresearchonthistopiciscertainlyneeded.
Nevertheless,fromtheevidencepresentedhereitisreasonabletosaythattrafficnoiseinterfereswithanimals'feeding,huntingandbreedingbehaviourandperformance.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust2007204.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust2007213Thesocialcostsoftrafficnoise3.
1ValuingthehealtheffectsoftrafficnoiseThelossofwell-beingduetoexposuretotrafficnoisecanbeexpressedinmone-taryterms.
Theamountofmoneypeoplearewillingtopaytoavoidtrafficnoiseprovidesagoodestimateofthelossofwell-beingpeopleexperience.
Insomeinstancesthemarketwillprovidereliableestimatesofpeople'swillingnesstopay(WTP).
Forexample,thepriceofsleepingpillsprovidesanestimateoftheWTPtofallasleepandavoidnight-timeawakenings.
Formanyofthehealtheffectsofnoise,however,therearenosuchmarketprices.
ToestimatetheWTPtoavoidtheseeffectsvariousmethodsareavail-able.
Generallyspeaking,therearetworelevantvaluationmethods:hedonicpric-ingandcontingentvaluation.
Thehedonicpricingmethodexaminesvariationsinhousingpricesduetotrafficnoise.
ThesedifferencescanbeseenastheWTPtoavoidtheadverseeffects(especiallyannoyance)ofnoise.
Thecontingentvalua-tionmethod,ontheotherhand,involvesaskingpeopledirectlyinasurveyhowmuchtheywouldbewillingtopaytoavoidcertainhealtheffectsassociatedwithnoise.
Bothmethodsareusedforplacingavalueontheeffectsoftrafficnoise.
Tovaluemortalityduetotrafficnoisemeansassigningamonetaryvaluetoahumanlife.
Inthefieldofenvironmentalvaluationthishasalwaysbeenacontro-versialtopic,fortheWTPtoavoidthelossofone'slifeisinfinite,isitnotNone-theless,intheireverydaylivespeoplemakeplentyofchoicesthatinfluencetheirriskofmortality.
Forexample,wemaychoosetodriveamotorcycledespitebeingawarethatthisinvolvesagreaterriskoflethalaccidentthandrivingacar.
Withtheaidofthiskindofinformationonriskbehaviouravaluecanbedeterminedforastatisticalhumanlife.
AdditionalinformationonattributingamonetaryvaluetotrafficnoiseisprovidedinappendixB.
3.
2SocialcostoftrafficnoiseinEU22over40billionayearThesocialcostofroadtrafficnoiseintheEU224isestimatedtobeatleast38(30-46)billionperyear,whichisapproximately0.
4%oftotalGDPintheEU22.
Forrail,estimatesofsocialcostsduetonoiseareabout2.
4(2.
3-2.
5)billionperyear(about0.
02%oftotalEU22GDP).
Itshouldbenotedthatthistakesintoaccountonlyeffectsrelatedtonoiselevelsabove55dB(A),whilepeoplemayalsobeadverselyaffectedbynoisebelowthislevel.
Hence,thesocialcostesti-matespresentedhereprobablyunderestimatetheactualcosts.
ThesocialcostsofroadtrafficnoiseintheEU22arealmostone-thirdofthoseassociatedwithroadtrafficaccidents;seeFigure9.
Inthecaseofrailtraffic,4EU27exceptCyprus,Estonia,Latvia,LithuaniaandMalta.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200722though,thesocialcostsofnoiseareapproximatelyseventimesthoseofacci-dents.
Figure9SocialcostsoftrafficnoiseintheEU22comparedtothoseoftrafficaccidents(2006pricelevel)RoadRail050100150200250noisetrafficaccidentsbillioneuro0123noisetrafficaccidentsbillioneuroNote:ThisfigurecoverstheEU27exceptCyprus,Estonia,Latvia,LithuaniaandMaltaandhencecovers98.
4%oftheEU27'spopulation.
Sources:INFRAS/IWW(2004),OECD/INFRAS/Herry(2002),Link(2000).
ThesesocialcostestimatesarebasedonvaluationstudiesbyINFRAS/IWW(2004),OECD/INFRAS/Herry(2002)andLink(2000).
INFRAS/IWWandLinkprovidecostestimatesforWestEuropeancountries,whilecostestimatesforEastEuropeancountriesareprovidedbyOECD/INFRAS/Herry.
INFRAS/IWWandLinkcoverpartlythesamecountries,withthetwostudiespresentingsome-whatdifferentestimatesforsomeofthem.
Abriefexplanationforthesediffer-encesisgiveninappendixB.
Asitisnotclearwhichofthestudiespresentsthemostreliableestimates,incalculatingtotalsocialnoisecostsintheEU22theav-erageofthetwohasbeenusedfortherelevantcountries.
Forthesecountriesminimumandmaximumestimateswerealsodetermined,whichwereusedtoes-timatebandwidth.
Notethatthebandwidthfortheestimatedsocialcostsoftraf-ficnoiseintheEU22isbasedonminimumandmaximumestimatesforjust9countries.
Fortheother13countries,onlyasingleestimatewasavailable.
Anotherwaytoestimatethesocialcostsoftrafficnoiseisbyvaluatingtheasso-ciatedDALYs(seepreviouschapter).
Asmentioned,theWHOiscurrentlywork-ingonanestimateofDALYsduetotrafficnoiseinEuropeandcertainprelimi-naryresultsofthisstudyhavealreadybeenpresentedintheEU'sNoiseSteeringGroup5.
ThesetentativeresultsshowthatthetotalnumberofDALYsdependsheavilyonhowtheDALYsduetoannoyancearecalculated.
Differencesinmeasuringmethodyieldestimatesdifferingbyafactor2.
IfwevaluetheWHO'sconservativeestimateofDALYs(assumption:1DALYequals78,500(VITO,2003)),thesocialcostsoftrafficnoisearefoundtobecomparabletothefigureobtainedbyusingtheresultsofINFRAS/IWW,OECD/INFRAS/HerryandLink.
Thesocialcostestimatespresentedabovewouldthereforeappeartoberobust,butconservative.
5See:http://circa.
europa.
eu/Public/irc/env/noisedir/libraryl=/health_effects_noise/who&vm=detailed&sb=Title4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust2007233.
3PassengercarsandlorriesresponsibleforbulkofcostsPassengercarsandlorriesareresponsiblefor90%ofthetotalsocialcostsofroadandrailtrafficnoiseinEurope;seeFigure10.
ThisisdueabovealltothelargenumberofvehiclesandkilometresdrivenonEuropeanroads.
Figure10DistributionofsocialcostsduetotrafficnoiseintheEU22overtransportmodes(2006pricelevel)04812162024PassengercarBusMotorcycleLorryPassengertrainFreighttrainbillionEuroNote:ThisfigurecoverstheEU27exceptCyprus,Estonia,Latvia,LithuaniaandMalta.
Sources:INFRAS/IWW(2004),OECD/INFRAS/Herry(2002),Link(2000).
ThisdistributionofsocialcostsovertransportmodesisagainbasedonthevaluationstudiesbyINFRAS/IWW(2004),OECD/INFRAS/Herry(2002)andLink(2000).
ToderiveaveragefiguresfortheEU22thesamemethodologywasusedasinsection3.
2.
3.
4BenefitsofnoisereductionNoiseabatementpolicieswillhavemajoreconomicbenefits.
Lesspeoplewillbeannoyedbytrafficnoiseandtheincidenceofhealthproblemswilldecline.
Withtheirsleeplessdisturbed,peoplemayalsobemoreproductiveatwork.
Thelattereffectmaybereinforcedbyimprovedcognitiveperformance,moreover.
Accord-ingtoNavrud(2002)theperceivedbenefitofnoisereductionis25perhouse-holdperdecibelperyear.
Thisestimateisbasedonathoroughreviewofthelit-eratureonthistopic.
TheEUworkinggroup'HealthandSocio-EconomicAs-pects'(2003)alsorecommendsusingthisfiguretovaluenoisereduction.
Noiseabatementpolicieswillgeneratecostsavingsforgovernment,too.
Expen-dituresonthehealthsystemwillbelowerduetoadeclineinnoise-relatedhealthproblems.
Inaddition,ifnoiseisreducedatitssource(i.
e.
onvehicles,roadsur-facesandrailtracks),thenlocalandnationalauthoritiescanreducethefundscurrentlyspentonbuildingandmaintainingnoisebarriersandinsulation.
TheDutchgovernment'sNoiseInnovationProgramme(IPG)hascalculatedthatforeverydecibelofnoisereductionat-source100millioninexpendituresonend-of-4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200724pipemeasuressuchasnoisebarriersandinsulationwillbesaved(IPG,2007).
Thiscalculationonlytakesmajorinterurbanroadsandrailwaysintoaccount.
Ac-tualsavingswillprobablybeevengreater,becauseotherregionsandurbanar-easwillalsobenefitfromsuchnoisereductionviaat-sourcemeasures.
Fromasocialperspectivethereisalsoapreferenceforat-sourceoverend-of-pipemeas-ures,thelatterbeingconsiderablylesscost-effective(seeChapter4).
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust2007254NoisereductionoptionsInthischapterwesetoutthenoisepolicydevelopmentsofthelastdecadesandthemeasuresavailabletoreducetrafficnoise.
Wefirstdescribethedifferencebetweenat-sourcemeasuresandend-of-pipe(anti-propagation)measuresandthenpresentanin-depthanalysisoftheformer.
4.
1At-sourceversusend-ofpipemeasuresThereareessentiallytworoutestonoiseabatement.
Firstly,noiseemissionscanbereducedattheirsource,throughmeasuresrelatingtovehicles/drivelines,tyres,roadsurfacesandtrafficmanagement.
Secondly,noisecanbeabatedbyreducingtheexposureofpeoplebymeansofanti-propagationorinsulationmeasures(byincreasingthedistancebetweensourceandrecipient,forexample,orhamperingnoisepropagationbyinsulatingbuildingsorconstructingnoisebar-riers).
Figure11providesaschematicoverviewofthefactorsleadingtoadverseeffectsofnoiseandthusthebasicroutesavailabletoachieveabatement.
Figure11FactorsdeterminingtrafficnoiseemissionsNoiseemissionNoiseexposureEffectsonhumansandfaunaTechnicalcharacteristicsofvehiclesTechnicalcharacteristicsof(rail)roadTrafficspeedTrafficvolumeAnti-propogationmeasuresSource:RIVM,2003adaptedbyCEDelft.
At-sourcemeasuresthatreduceoverallemissionsarepreferabletonoiseexpo-suremeasuresreducingimissionsatthelocallevel,likeinsulationofhousesorconstructionofnoisebarriers(EC,2004;KPMG,2005).
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200726At-sourcemeasureshavethegreatestpotentialMeasuresthattacklethebasicsourcesofnoisehavevastpotentialtoreduceex-posure;seeFigure12.
Thisfigureprovidesaqualitativeestimatebasedonthecontributiontothepotentialreductionofannoyancebyeachofthecontributingfactors.
Together,thesemeasurescouldreduceannoyanceduetoroadtrafficbyasmuchas70%.
Tomakethisareality,though,requiresconcertedeffortsatallgovernmentlevels:EU,nationalandlocal,withtheEUthemostimportantbodywhenitcomestoat-sourcemeasures.
Atnoisehotspots(residentialareas,out-sideschools,hospitals,etc.
)pan-Europeanmeasuresneedtobecomplementedbyspecificlocalpolicies.
Figure12Reductionpotentialusingcurrentnoisereductiontechnologies(expertjudgement)Source:EC,2005.
Ascanbeseen,thegreatestreductionpotentialcomesfromtechnicalmeasurestoreducenoiseemissionsfromvehicles,tyresandroadsurfaces.
TheabatementimpactofthesevariousmeasuresispresentedinmoredetailinTable3.
Table3Potentialatsourcenoisereductionmeasures,indB(A)VehicleSpeedreductionRoadsurfaceEngineTyreThin/densePorous5yearperspective1-21-21-31-32-410-15yearperspec-tive2-42-4-3-56-8EffectofmeasureinternationalinternationallocallocallocalWhopaysIndustry/polluterIndustry/polluterIndustry/polluterRoadowner/societyRoadowner/societySource:TOI,2005.
At-sourcemeasuresmostcosteffectiveMeasurestoreducenoiseat-sourcearegenerallymorecost-effectivethanthosedesignedtohamperitspropagation(Ohm,2006;DRI,2005).
Measuresrelatingtotyresandvehiclepropulsioncanachievenoisereductionsatrelativelylowcost,becausestate-oftheartenginesandtyresarealreadyperformingsignifi-4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200727cantlybetterthancurrentlimits.
Tighteningofthelimitswillthereforecauseverylittleadditionalcosttotheautomotiveindustry(KPMG,2005).
TheDanishnationaltrafficnoisestrategyshowsthatmeasuresaimedatreduc-ingnoisepropagation(includingnoisebarriers)areamongsttheleastcost–effectivesolutionsfor2020(Danish,2003).
Iftheseareappliedonalargescaleintheabsenceofat-sourcemeasures,thecostswillevenoutstripthebenefits.
OneDanishcasestudyclearlyillustratesthatporousasphaltisfarmorecost-effectivethananti-propagationmeasureslikehomeinsulationornoisebarrierconstruction,whichare3-10timesmoreexpensive(DRI,2005).
TheDutchNoiseInnovationProgramme(IPG)hascalculatedthateverydecibelofnoisereductionat-sourcewillsave100millioninnationalexpenditureonnoisebarriersandbuildinginsulation.
Ingeneral,thebenefitsofat-sourcenoiseabatementmeasuresdramaticallyex-ceedtheircosts.
Thismeansthatfromawelfarepointofviewitisclearlyadvan-tageoustoimplementnoisemeasuresat-source.
RIVM(2003)estimatesthatthebenefitsofnoisereductionbywayofquietertyres,low-noiseroadpavementsandwheel/railoptimisationareonaverage2-4timeshigherthantheircost.
Ofthesemeasures,thecosteffectivenessofquietertyresisgreatest,asseveralstudiesreportthattyre/roadnoisereductioncomesatzerocost(Sandberg,2006;RIVM,2003).
AstudybyFEHRLindicatesthatthecosteffectivenessofareduc-tionoftyre/roadnoiseissignificantlybetterthanthefigurereportedabove.
FEHRLestimatesthebenefitsat48-123billion,whilethecostsareonly1.
2billion.
Themaincostitemforindustrywouldbediscontinuationofproductionofthenoisiesttyres.
Researchcostswouldbeverylimited,asquietertyreshavealreadybeendevelopedandarealreadyonsaleontheEuropeanmarket(FEHRL,2006).
Anotherargumentinfavourofat-sourcemeasuresisthatthecostsofnoisere-ductionarebornedirectlybythecardriver,withanyresearchanddevelopmentcostsbeingincorporatedintoprices.
Furthermore,at-sourcemeasures-espe-ciallythoseatvehiclelevel-areinlinewiththepolluterpaysprincipleandArticle174oftheECTreaty,whichstatesactionat-sourcetobeapriorityprinciple.
Onedisadvantageofat-sourcemeasuresatthevehiclelevel,however,isthatpenetrationofthevehiclefleettakesseveralyearsfortyresandalmostadecadeformotorvehicles.
Localmeasureslikespeedreductionandlow-noiseroadsur-facesarethereforealsoneeded.
Giventheverylonglifespansofrailwayrollingstock,thisiseventruerofrailwaynoisereductionmeasures.
Theoptimalstrategywillneedtocompriseamixoflocalandat-sourcemeasures,includingnoisebar-riersathotspots.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust2007284.
2Transportnoiseregulation:thelegalframeworkRoadvehiclenoiseiscoveredbytwoEuropeandirectives.
Motorvehiclenoiseemissionhasbeencoveredbylegislationsincethe1970s(Directive70/157)andtyre-roadnoisesince2001(Directive2001/43).
TheEUDrivelinenoisedirectivefollowsRegulationNo.
51oftheUnitedNationsEconomicCommissionforEurope(UNECE),whichharmonisesmeasurementsofroadvehiclesoundemissions.
Regulation51isdefinedattheinternationallevelbytheUNECEworldforumforharmonisationofvehicleregulations.
Railwaynoiseisaddressedthroughdirectivesonrailwayinteroperabilityforhigh-speedrail(Directive96/48/EC)andconventionalrail(Directive2001/16/EC),whichprovidealegislativeframeworkfortechnicalandoperationalharmonisationoftherailnetwork.
Underthislegislation,TechnicalSpecificationsforInteropera-bility(TSIs)areestablishedbytheCommission,whichincludenoiselimitsforroll-ingstock.
Despitetheseefforts,thenoiseexposureofcitizenshasnotdiminishedsincethe1970s.
Inpartthisisduetoineffectivelegislationaswellasincreasedtrafficvol-umes.
Additionally,though,itwasdeemednecessarytofocusnoisepolicyonactualnoisereception.
The1996GreenPapermarkedthestartofthisalternativeapproach,leadingtotheEnvironmentalNoiseDirective(END)of2002(Directive2002/49)asasecondcornerstoneofnoisepolicy.
Itsmainobjectivesare:Tomonitorenvironmentalnoise.
Toaddresslocalissues.
Toinformthepublicaboutnoiseissues.
Toobligelocalauthoritiestodrawupnoisemapsandactionplansforreduc-ingnoiseexposureinandaroundmajorcities,roads,railwaylinesandair-ports(seeTable4).
Atthesametime,however,responsibilityforsettingnoiseexposurelimitsre-mainsthecompetenceofnationalauthorities.
Formallyspeaking,theactionplansdonotneedtobeattunedtothesenationalexposurelimits.
Table4TimetableforcreationofnoisemapsandactionplansArea/SourcetobemappedStrategicnoisemapsbyActionplansbyAgglomerations>250,000inhabitants>100,000inhabitants30June200730June201218July200818July2008Majorroads>6,000,000vehicles/year>3,000,000vehicles/year30June200730June201218July200818July2008Majorrailways>60,000trainjourneys/year>30,000trainjourneys/year30June200730June201218July200818July2008Majorairports>50,000flights/year30June200718July20084.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200729Trafficnoiseisalsooneoftheimpactstobedocumentedduringtheenviron-mentalimpactassessment(EIA)oftransportinfrastructureprojects.
Guidelinesforweightingnoiseasanenvironmentalimpactduringthedecision-makingproc-essaresetoutinEuropeandirectives85/337/EECand97/11/EC.
UndertheframeworkoftheCARS21initiativetoboostthecompetitivenessoftheEUcarindustry,theCommissionhasannounceda'holistic'viewwithregardtothetacklingofnoiseissues.
Thus,allrelevantstakeholdersandsystems(e.
g.
trafficmanagement,driverbehaviour,vehicleandtyretechnology,roadsurfaces)shouldbeinvolvedintacklingnoiseissuessoastoachieveacost-effectivepack-ageofreductionmeasures(EC,2007).
Inthepast,noisehasalwaysbeenseenasmoreofatradeissuerelatingtohar-monisationofproductstandardsthanasanenvironmentalhealthissueintheEU.
Thisisstillthecasetoday,tojudgebytheinfluenceofUNECEworkinggroups,thehandlingofrailnoiseandtheleadingpositionofDGEnterpriseandIndustryindeterminingEUnoisestandardsforvehicles.
4.
3VehiclenoiseregulationfailedDespitenoisetypeapprovallimitsbeinginforcesince1970,sincethentherehasbeennotangiblereductionofnoiseemissionsunderrealdrivingconditionsforpassengercarsandonlya2-4dB(A)reductionforheavydutyvehicles(HDVs)(RIVM,2003;Blokland,2004).
Thisisdueto:Weak,ineffectivenoiseemissionlimits.
Drivingconditionsduringproductapprovaltestsforvehiclesandtyresthatdonotreflectrealtrafficsituations.
Testconditionsbeingchangedseveraltimes,whichimpliedatighteningofthelimitsforHDVsbutaweakeningforpassengercarsbyseveraldB(A)(M+P,2000;seeFigure14).
Tyresonlybeingassessedseparatelysince2001,eventhoughtyre/roadcon-tactisalreadythedominantsourceofnoisefrompassengercarsatanyspeedover30-50km/h.
Althoughtheexteriornoiseofvehicleshasnotdiminishedoverthelastdecades,interiornoisehasbeenreduced,throughimprovedinsulationmethods,inre-sponsetocustomerdemand.
Directive70/157/EEC,whichhasbeenupdatedseveraltimes,prescribesatestmethodforvehicledrivelineandtyrenoiseandlaysdownnoiseemissionlimits.
Thetestmethodbasicallycomprisesanoisemeasurementunderfulltorquedur-ingaccelerationatlowspeed.
Theunderlyingreasoningisthatifavehiclepassesthisextremetestitwillalsobequietundernormalcircumstances.
How-ever,thetestmethodhasundergoneseveralchangesovertheyears,themostimportantofwhichhasbeenchangesingearandhenceenginespeed(rpm),themostimportantdeterminantofdrivelinenoiseemissions.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200730VehicledrivelinenoiseversustyrenoiseThetwomainnoisesourcesinroadtransportarethevehicledrivelineandtyre/roadcontact.
Thehigheritsspeed,themorenoiseavehicleproduces.
Thisgraphshowstherelationshipbetweenspeedandnoiseemissionforbothdrivelineandtyres.
Atlowerspeedsdrivelinenoisepredomi-nates,withthenoiseoftyre-roadcontactbecomingmostimportantasspeedincreases.
Thejaggedlinefollowsgearchanges.
Figure13CorrelationbetweenspeedandnoiseemissionforapassengercarSource:RIVM,2002.
Thechangeintestmethodmeantareductioninthetestedenginespeedofpas-sengercarsandanincreaseinthatofheavyvehicles.
Consequently,heavyve-hiclesbecamesignificantlymoresilent,whilepassengercarsdidnot(Blokland,2004).
Theroadsurfaceandtyrehavealsobeenredefinedinthetestmethod,moreover,inawaybeneficialtovehiclemanufacturers.
Figure14,below,illus-tratestheliberallimitsandtheeffectofthechangesinthemeasurementproce-dure.
Allinall,thenoiseemissionsofpassengercarshavenotbeenfurtherrestrictedbyEuropeanorinternationalnoiseemissionsstandards.
Thisisillustratedby(M+P,2000).
Onewouldexpecta1998vehicletobefarmoresilentthanthenoiseemissionstandardof1970,butFigure15showsthatthisisnotthecase.
Thefigureshowsthatalthoughnoiseemissionlimitshaveindeedbeentightenedovertime,thesegainshavebeenmainlyonpaperandnotbeentranslatedtotherealworld.
Ascanbeseen,vehiclenoiseemissionsfollowroughlythesamepat-ternasthetighteningoflimits.
Thismeansvehiclesdidnotinfactbecomequi-eter,butthatchangesinthetestmethodcausedreducednoiseemissions.
Ap-pendixAelaboratesfurtherontheeffectofthepasttighteningoflimitsandtestcyclesonvehiclenoiseemissions.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200731Figure14MeasurednoiseemissionsoftwopassengercarsovertheyearsasafunctionofthetypeapprovaltestSource:M+P,2000.
Since2000,lengthydiscussionshavebeenheldwithintheUNECEworkinggrouponvehiclenoiseabouttheupdateofthetestmethodandnewlimitvalues.
ThereisageneralconsensusintheWorkingPartyonNoise(GRB)thatequiva-lentvaluesmustbeidentifiedbetweenthenewandoldtestproceduresbeforeanytighteningofthelimitscanbediscussed.
A2-yeardatacollectionperiodwillstartinJune2007.
UpdatingtheDirectivewillthereforetakearound5yearsfromnowbeforecomingintoforce.
Severalexpertsconsequentlyargueforatighten-ingofthetypeapprovallimitswhilestillretainingthecurrenttestcycle.
Asthenewstandardswillapplyonlytonewvehicles,itwillbeadecadebeforequietercarsstartreducingnoiseexposure.
Witha2-yearmeasurementperiodafter2007andaroundfouryearsfornewlimitvaluestobenegotiatedandtrans-posedintheUNECEandEU,itwillbeanothertwoyearsbeforethenewlimitvaluescomeintoforce,sothatquietercarsmaynotreachthemarketuntilabout2015.
Theaverageageofacarontheroadsisaround6years,andtheoverallnoiseabatementimpactofnewlegislationwillonlyhaveeffectoncequietervehi-clesmakeupthebulkofthefleet.
TangibleeffectscouldthereforeperhapsbeexpectedonEurope'sroadsaround2020.
Recentdraftsofthetestprocedureindicatethatamorerealisticdrivingpatternistobeadopted.
Itisextremelyimportant,however,thatthevehicletestremainsatestofthepowerunititself,wheretyre/roadnoiseismarginal.
Scopeforimmediateimprovementofatleast3dB(A)TheconclusionsofareviewofthetechnicalpotentialforreductionofvehiclenoisebyTRLandRWTUV(TRL,2003)canbesummarisedasfollows:4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200732Engine:thevarianceoftoday'sproductionenginesforcarsisaround7dB(A)overthewholerange,withtheupperhalfcomprisingenginesthatarestillonthemarketbutnotstate-of-the-art.
Thismeansthereisareductionpotentialof3dB(A)ifallvehiclesareequippedwiththesequieter,currentlyavailableengines.
Gasflownoise:afurtherreductionofintakeandexhaustnoisecaningeneralbeachievedbyusinggreatersilencervolumesanddouble-walledsilencers.
Theproblemistoreservethenecessarystoragecapacityforthesilencersandaccommodatetheincreaseinweight.
Mechanicalnoise:Forcars,thecontributionofgearboxanddrivetraintooverallnoiseemissionisinsignificant.
Forheavydutyvehiclesthesituationisdifferent,especiallysincetherequirementsforrobustnessanddurabilityaremuchhigherthanforpassengercars.
Possiblereductionmeasuresaread-vancedencapsulationsandthede-couplingofthegearboxandengine(lowerrpm).
AstudybyEC(2004)indicatesthatthelimitsforheavydutyvehiclescouldbeloweredby3-5dB(A)intwostepswithin10years,basedonanewmeasurementmethod.
Forpassengercarsandlightdutyvehicles,thelimitscouldbetightenedby3-6dB(A)intwostepswithinthesametimeframe.
ForpassengercarsthefollowingproposalhasbeenpresentedbyM+Pconsul-tancy(Blokland,2004):Decreaselimitvaluefromcurrent74to71dB(A)(severalcarsarealreadyavailablewith67dB(A)).
Removethe+1dB(A)allowancefordirect-injecteddieselengines.
Moderndieselinjectiontechnologyisnotlouderthanpetrolengines.
Removetheunnecessaryallowanceof+2dB(A)forvans:thesearemainly'strippeddown'passengercarmodels.
Inthecaseofpassengercars,acousticdesignusuallytendstowardslowernoisevolumes,especiallyforluxurymodels.
However,loudacousticdesignisaspe-cificfeatureofasmallminorityofsportscars,whichcanthusnonethelessdeter-minetheoverallsoundlevelofaroad.
Theindustryisnotthatkeentoreducenoiselimits,asitsetsrestrictionsonproducingcarswitha'sporty'sound.
4.
4TyrenoiselimitstoohightobeeffectiveIn2001Directive2001/43/ECcameintoforce,settinglimitvaluesfortyre/roadnoise.
ThisDirectivewaspotentiallyanimportantcontributiontonoisepolicy,be-causeabove30-50km/htyre/roadnoisebecomesthemostimportantsource.
Almostallthetyresthathavebeeninservicesincetheregulationswereintro-ducedarewellbelowthecurrentlimits.
TheDirectiveisthereforeessentiallyinef-fectiveandnomorethansymbolic(seeFigure15).
Eventheloweringby1-2dB(A)foreseenbythedirectivefor2007-2009isineffective(Sandberg,2003).
Themoststrikingfeatureisthata1dB(A)reductionandaround-downareap-pliedbeforethemeasuredtestvaluesarecomparedwiththelimitvalues.
Thisimpliesthatatyremeasuredat77.
9dB(A)meetsthelimitvalueof76dB(A).
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200733InAugust2004theDirectiveandemissionslimitswerescheduledforrevision.
WithintheframeworkoftherevisionoftheRoad/tyredirective,theCommissionhascommissionedFEHRLtocarryoutastudytoassessthepotentialforreduc-ingthelimitvaluesandtheimpactsofreductionsonoveralltrafficnoise,safetyandeconomy.
BasedontheFEHRLstudy,theCommissionwillcomeupwithaproposalforaDirectivereplacingandexpandingon2001/43/EC.
Thisproposalwillincludestandardsforsafety(wetgrip,aquaplaning)androllingresistanceaswellasnoise.
AconsultationwillbeannouncedaroundMay2007,withapro-posalduefortheautumn.
AspartoftheFEHRLstudy,adatabaseofmeasurementson300tyreshasbeencreated.
Fiftypercentofthetyresmeasuredproducednoiselevelsover3dB(A)belowthecurrentlimits.
Asawhole,therangeistypicallyuptoaround5dB(A)belowthecurrentlimitvalue,whilebestavailabletechnologyiseven8dB(A)be-lowthatlimit(FEHRL,2006;EC,2004).
Figure15MeasurementdataandproposedlimitvaluesforpassengercartyresSource:FEHRL,2006.
ProposalsfortighteningtheRoad/tyredirectiveFEHRLandtheGermanFederalEnvironmentAgency(UBA)havebothprovidedproposalsforatighteningoftheRoad/tyredirective.
Theirlimitvaluesforpas-sengercarsaredepictedinFigure15.
TheFEHRLstudyrecommendsreductionsof2.
5-5.
5dB(A)forpassengercartyresand5.
5-6.
5dB(A)forcommercialvehicletyres.
TheGermanFederalAgency(UBA)hasproposedreductionsversusthecurrentlimitvaluesofroughlythesameorder,butproposesdroppingthediffer-entiationonthebasisoftyrewidth.
Table5showstheproposedlimitvalues.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200734Table5Typeapprovallimits(dB(A))proposedforpassengercartyres2001/43/EGFEHRLUBATyrewidthR(mm)CurrentNextphase20082012200820122016R1457271145275767575.
573.
5717069Low-noisetyresdonotconflictwithlowrollingresistanceandsafetystandards;seeFigure16.
WithrespecttotheformertheFEHRLstudy(FEHRL,2006)foundnoconflictatall.
Asregardsthelatter,therearemanyexamplesinthedatabaseoftyresthatproducerelativelylownoiselevelsandyetperformwellintermsofsafety.
Thereareindeedindicationsthatthesetwocharacteristicsareevenposi-tivelyassociated(Sandberg,2006).
Whilethereisnoconflictbetweensafety(wetweatherconditions)andlownoiseatcurrentlevelsoftechnologicaldevelopment,itstillneedstobemonitoredinthefuture,asitcannotbeguaranteedthattherewillbenoconflictforfuturetyres,astheFEHRLstudyconcludes.
Figure16Correlationbetweenlownoise,safetyandrollingresistancecharacteristicsforpassengercartyresRetreadedtyresarenotcoveredbytheDirective.
Thislimitsitseffectiveness,because,somewhatsurprisingly,aroundhalfthetyresusedinheavygoodstransportandasmallerfractionofpassengercartyresarereused.
Theargumentsforreducingtyrenoiselimitsaresoundnotonlybecauseofthetechnicalpotential,butalsofromasocio-economicperspective.
Severalstudiesshowthatlow-noisetyresarecurrentlynomoreexpensivethannormaltyres(Sandberg,2006;RIVM,2003).
Accordingtothetyreindustry,thecostsforlow-noisetyresamounttoaround2billionperyear,butintheviewofFEHRLthesearesignificantlyoverestimated.
Thebenefitsaresignificant,totallingaround48-123billionbetween2010and2022,makinglow-noisetyresverycost-effective(FEHRL,2006).
Thesesavingsaccruetolocalandnationalauthoritiesandhence4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200735taxpayers,viasavingsonanti-propagationmethods.
Otherbenefitsarelowerhealthcarecostsandimprovedwell-being.
IncentivesforquietertyresTospeedupthedevelopmentoflow-noisetyres,financialincentivesmayneedtobeintroduced.
Onemeansofdoingsomaybetolevyataxontyresorintroducesomeothertypeoffinancialincentiveproportionaltotheassignednoiselevel.
Anotheroptionisasystembasedonintroductionofanoise-differentiatedannualvehicletax.
Toincreasetheuseoflow-noisetyres,thetypeapprovalratingneedstobemarkedonthetyresidewall.
ThisiseasytorealiseandshouldbepartoftherevisionofDirective2001/43/EC(Sandberg,2006b).
Optimisationoftyresfromafuel-efficiencyperspectiveisalsopresentlyunderdiscussion.
TherevisionoftheTyre/roadnoisedirectivewillincludelimitspertain-ingtofuelefficiency,safetyandnoise.
Thereiscurrentlyverylittleinformationavailabletoconsumersonthesetyreperformancecharacteristics.
Therearethereforealsoargumentsfordevelopingaconsumerlabelfortyresthatcoverssafety,climateandnoisetogether6.
4.
5Low-noiseroadpavementsLow-noiseroadsurfaces,suchasthin-layer,double-layer,porousandporo-elasticpavements,offerconsiderablepotentialtocutroadnoisedramatically,andareverycomplementarytotechnicalmeasurestoreduceengine,exhaustandtyrenoisefromcarsandtrucks.
Suchsurfacemeasureshavetheadvantageofbringingimmediatebenefits,particularlyforuseinnoisehotspots.
TyreroadnoiseexplainedTyre/roadnoiseisacomplexadditionofseveralmechanismsofnoisegenerationandamplification,dependingonthepropertiesofbothtyresandroadsurface:Noiseisgeneratedpartlybyimpactsandshocksonthetyre,causedbyroadsurfaceirregulari-tiesorirregularitiesonthetyretread.
Theseshocksmakethetyrevibrateandradiatenoise.
Vibrationsofthetyretreadspreadtothesidewalls,whichthenradiatethenoisefurther.
Aerodynamicnoisesourcesincludeso-calledairpumping,consistingofthenoisypushingawayofairontheleadingedgeofthecontactzonebetweentyreandroadsurfaceandthenoisysuckinginofairalongtherearedge.
Theresonancesoccurringinthetyrecavityandtreadpatterncanalscanalsobeconsideredasaerodynamicnoisesources.
One'micro-movement'effectisthestick/sliptreadelements'motionrelativetotheroadsur-face,causingthetreadelementstovibratetangentially.
Anadhesioneffectisthestick/snapeffectofthesuddenlooseningofthetyretreadfromtheroadsurface,comparabletothesuddenlooseningofasuctioncup.
Thehorneffectisanoiseamplificationmechanismwherebynoisegeneratedneartheedgeofthetyre/roadsurfacecontactareabecomesamplifiedduetothegeometrycreatedbytyreandroadsurface.
Thisisthesamephenomenonintendedbytheconicalpartofatrumpetoramegaphone.
Source:EC,2006.
6Thereareindicationsthatthislabellingneedstobedifferentindifferentclimaticzones.
Thiswouldbeacomplication.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200736Thedegreesofnoisereductionachievedbylow-noisepavementsareshowninTable6.
Table6Noisereductionsduetolow-noiseroadpavementsinurbanandruralareasPavementUrbanRural50km/h70km/h110km/hTwo-layerasphalt3dB(A)4dB(A)5dB(A)Thinlayerasphalt1.
5dB(A)2dB(A)2dB(A)Source:Ohm,2006.
Low-noisepavementsareacost-effectiveoptiontoreducetrafficnoise.
KPMG(2005)indicatesthatlow-noiseasphaltcanreduceinvestmentsinnoiseabate-mentmeasuresbyupto80%comparedtonoisebarriers.
Thecostreductionsaregreatestforintra-urbanroads,becauseitishereparticularlythatlow-noisepavementscanreducetheneedforexpensivebarriers.
TheEuropeanCommissionisplanningtomandateCEN7todevelopaEuropeanstandardforlow-noiseasphalt.
IncertainMemberStatesthereareseveralacousticalclassificationsystemsforroadsurfaces,buttherearenointernationalstandardsonsuchclassificationnorareroadsurfacescheckedforconformity.
WithsuchaCENstandardinplace,theintroductionofacousticalperformanceinpubliccontractsforroadsurfacingmightbefacilitated,competitionintenderingincreased,andtheuseoflower-noiseroadsurfacesfosteredaswell.
Importantly,theSILVIAprojectfoundthattherearenosignificantdifferencesbe-tweenporousasphaltsanddenseasphaltswithrespecttoeithersafety,rollingresistanceorfuelconsumption(Elvik,2003).
4.
6SpeedreductionandtrafficmanagementThenoiseofaroadcanalsobereducedbyinfluencingthespeedorflowofthetrafficitcarries.
Limitingtrafficspeedreducesitsnoise,especiallybetween50and80km/h.
AsTable7belowshows,speedlimitenforcementinurbanareashasapositiveeffectontransportnoise.
Trafficmanagementoftenalsohasaneffectonthenumberofvehicles.
Thetableshowsthenoisereductioncausedbyareducedtrafficvolumeunderassumptionofnochangesineitherspeedorper-centageofheavyvehicles.
Althoughtrafficmanagementmeasureshaverelativelylimitedpotentialcom-paredtothelong-termpotentialofothermeasures,theyinvolveonlylimitedin-vestmentsandhaveadirecteffect,becauseoftheirlimitedimplementationtime.
However,thecostsassociatedwithtraveltimelossesmaybesignificant.
Compliancewithnewspeedlimitsisobviouslyimportantforachievingthede-siredeffects,asillustratedintheexampleinthetextbox.
7CENistheEuropeanStandardisationCommittee.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200737SpeedreductionpositiveforairqualityandnoiseIntheNetherlands,thespeedlimitonvariousmotorwaysectionsclosetocitydwellingswasre-ducedin2006becauseoflocalnon-compliancewithEUairqualityregulations.
Compliancewiththenewlimit,80insteadof100km/h,isenforcedwithspeedcamerasthatcalculateaveragespeed.
Thishashadapositiveeffectonairquality,butnoiseemissionhasalsobeenreducedbyupto1.
5dB(A),dependingonlocalcircumstances.
Anothereffectperceivedbypeoplelivingclosetotheroadsectionsinquestionistheabsenceofnoisepeaksbyindividualcarspassingathighspeedduringthenight.
Source:DutchMinistryofTransport,2006.
Trafficmanagementmeasureshaveapositiveimpactnotonlyonnoisereductionbutalsoonairqualityandroadsafety.
Reductionsintrafficcanbeachievedbypromotingpublictransport,encouragingcyclingandwalking,parkingmanage-ment,HGVbans,routedesignationandroadbypasses.
Otherexamplesoftrafficmanagementincludemeasuresthatinducethetrafficflowtobecomemoreflu-ent,throughsmarttuningoftrafficlights,forexample,toavoidstop-and-gotrafficasfaraspossible.
TheeffectsoftrafficmanagementmeasuresisshowninTable7andTable8.
Table7EffectsofspeedlimitchangesonnoisereductionSpeedreduction(10%heavytraffic)TrafficreductionFrom110to100km/h0.
7dB(A)10%0.
5dB(A)From100to90km/h0.
7dB(A)20%1.
0dB(A)From90to80km/h1.
3dB(A)30%1.
6dB(A)From80to70km/h1.
7dB(A)40%2.
2dB(A)From70to60km/h1.
8dB(A)50%3.
0dB(A)From60to50km/h2.
1dB(A)75%6.
0dB(A)From50to40km/h1.
4dB(A)From40to30km/h0dB(A)Source:DRI,2004.
Table8EffectsoftrafficmanagementmeasuresonnoisereductionTrafficmanagementmeasurePotentialnoisereduction(LAeq)Trafficcalming/Environmentallyadaptedthrough-roadsUpto4dB(A)30km/hzoneUpto2dB(A)RoundaboutsUpto4dB(A)Round-top/circle-toproadhumpsUpto2dB(A)Speedlimitscombinedwithsignsaboutnoisedisturbance1-4dB(A)NighttimerestrictionsonheavyvehiclesUpto7dB(A)atnighttimeRumblestripsofthermoplasticUpto4dB(A)noiseincreaseRumbleareasofpavingstonesUpto3dB(A)noiseincreaseFlat-tophumpsUpto6dB(A)increaseNarrowspeedcushionsUpto1dB(A)increaseRumblewavedevices0dB(A)Source:Berndtsen,2005.
4.
7Anti-propagationmeasures(noisebarriers,insulation)Ifthedesireddegreeofnoisereductioncannotbeachievedbyat-sourcemeas-ures,noisebarriersandinsulationofdwellingsmaybehelpfulinreducingpropa-gationofthenoise.
Onaverage,noisebarriersreducenoiselevelsby3-6dB(A),dependingontheirdesignandheight.
Roadsidenoisebarriersareonlyaccept-4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200738ableformotorwaysandotherbypassroadswherethereisnoneedforpedestri-anstocross.
Onbusyurbanstreets,whicharecrossedbypedestriansalongtheirentirelength,noisebarrierscannotbeplaceddirectlyonthekerbside.
Itisonlyinnon-urbanareasthattheycanprovideasolution,therefore.
Ifnoothermeasurescanbeadopted,orifothermeasuresareinadequate,soundproofwindowsandinsulatedwallsaretheonlypossibilityremainingforfur-therprotectionagainstnoise.
Tobeeffective,though,suchwindowsmustbekeptclosed,andmanypeoplehavetroubleadjustingtothisrestrictionontheirnormalbehaviour(openingwindows,etc.
),especiallyduringthesummer.
Theaveragecostofanoisebarrierisaround300perm2,dependingonitsconstructionandthematerialsused(Witteveen+Bos,2004).
Thisisaround2.
4millionforabarrier4metreshighand1kilometrealongbothsidesofaroad.
4.
8RailtransportnoiseNoiseisoneofthemostsignificantenvironmentalimpactsofrailtraffic.
Contrarytoroadtraffic,whereEuropeanemissionstandardshaveexistedsincetheearly1970s,suchemissionsstandardsfortrainsonlycameintoforceatthebeginningofthepresentcentury.
Moreover,EUnoiseemissionstandardsapplyonlytorailvehiclesoperatinginmorethanoneMemberState.
Europeanlegislationaddressesrailwaynoiseat-sourcethroughdirectivesonrail-wayinteroperabilityforhigh-speedrail(CouncilDirective96/48/EC)andconven-tionalrail(Directive2001/16/EC),whichprovidealegislativeframeworkfortech-nicalandoperationalharmonisationoftherailnetwork.
Underthislegislation,TechnicalSpecificationsforInteroperability(TSIs)areestablishedbytheCom-mission,whichincludenoiselimits.
Withintheoperabilityframework,emissionlimitsregardingthenoiseofhighspeedtrains(2002)andconventionaltrains(2005)havebeenset.
Theselimitsapplytoneworupgradedrollingstock.
Are-ductionofthelimitvaluesby2-5dB(A)isforeseenfor2016/18.
WheelandrailroughnessthecauseofnoiseNoisefromtrainsisbasicallycausedmainlybythewheelsrollingovertherails.
Thisproblemobviouslyconcernsthetransportofbothpassengersandfreight,butitisfarmoreacuteinthelattercase.
Itistheroughnessofrailsandwheelsthatcausesnoise.
Locallyhigherrailroughness,causedbyintensivetrafficandwearandtearofwheels,maycauseariseinnoiseemissionsofupto5dB(A)(EC,2003).
Oneoftheoptionstoreducesuchemissionsisthereforeregularpol-ishingoftherails.
Oneimportantsourceofwheelandrailroughnessisvehicleswithtread-brakedwheels.
Thebrakepadscancreatearoughnessonthewheel,whichinturnroughenstherailovertime.
Replacingcastironbrakeblocksbycompositematerialblockswouldthereforebebeneficialforallthevehiclestravel-lingonthesametrack.
ReportsbytheInternationalUnionofRailways(UIC)aswellasotherstudieshavestatedthatareductionof8-10dB(A)canbeachievedifalltread-brakedfreightwagonsareretrofittedwithcompositebrakes.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200739Therearetwotypesofbrakeblocksthataremadeofcompositematerialsratherthaniron:K-blocksandLL-blocks.
K-blocksareapprovedbytheofficialauthori-tiesforinternationaluseandaremostfrequentlyappliedatthemoment.
Al-thoughLL-blocksaremoresimilartoconventionalbrakesystemsandcheapertofit,theyarenotyetcertifiedforinternationaluse,aprocedurethatmaytakeabout2years(from2007).
Inthecaseofnewvehicles,discbrakescanalsobeused.
MostrecentinformationshowsthatuseofK-blockssavesmaintenancecosts,whileLL-blockscanbeappliedcost-neutrally.
LL-blocksarealreadyappliedintheUS,SouthAfricaandPortugalforcostreasons.
TheaforementionedDutchIPGprogrammeisrunningtestswithbothK-andLL-blocks,estimatingthelifecyclecostsofeach,amongstotherthings.
Compositebrakeblocksmostcost-effectiveRetrofittingallthe600,000freightwagonsinuseintheEUwouldcostaround2-3billion(K-blocks)accordingtotheUIC(UIC,2006b),butthesecostsmaybeanupperestimate,asindicatedabove.
Itisundisputed,however,thatretrofit-tingthefreightwagonfleetwithcompositebrakeblocksismostcost-effective.
ItisconcludedbytheUIC,amongothers,thatuseofsuchbrakingblocksisfarmorecost-effectivethanmerelyinstallingnoisebarriers.
TheSTAIRRSproject(Oertli,2003)concludesthatacombinationofcompositebrakingblocks,opti-misedwheels,railabsorbers,acousticgrindingandnoisebarriersupto2mhighisthemosteffectiveoption.
Highernoisebarriersshouldonlybeusedifothertechnologiesfallshort(Oertli,2003;RIVM,2003;UIC,2006).
Withoutdueaction,halfofallfreightwagonscurrentlyontherailsintheEUwillstillbeinusein2020(Kunst,2006;UIC,2006b).
TheEUworkinggrouponhealthandsocio-economicaspectshasthereforeadvisedphasingoutexistingrollingstock(EC,2005).
Thisphase-outcanbeachievedbyintroducingprogres-sivelystringentemissionstandards.
TrackchargedifferentiationispromisingAnimportantinstrumentfornoiseemissioncontrolistherailaccesscharge.
Thisisthefeetheoperatorpaystheinfrastructuremanagerforusingtherailwaysys-tem.
Thischargecouldbedifferentiatedonthebasisofthenoiseemissionoftherollingstock.
Toincreaseitseffectiveness,itcouldbedifferentiatedaccordingtopopulationdensity.
Trackchargedifferentiationwouldputmarketpressureonoperatorstouselow-noiserollingstockandonvehiclemanufacturerstoinvestinlow-noisetechnologydevelopment.
Subsidyprogrammeslacksuchincentives.
Thecostsoflow-noiserollingstockarebornebytherailsectorratherthanthetaxpayer,furthermore,inlinewiththepolluterpaysprinciple.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200740RailnoisereductioninSwitzerlandSinceJanuary2002anoisereductionbonusisencouraginginfrastructureuserstoemploylow-noiserollingstockinSwitzerland.
Toqualifyforthebonus,advancedbraketechnologymustbeused(compositeblocks,discbrakesorcomparable).
Inpracticethebonusisabout5-8percentofthetotalrailaccesscharge.
Thenoisereductionbonusiscombinedwithanoisereductionpro-grammeincludingsubsidiesforretrofittingallSwissrollingstockwithcompositebrakes(K-type).
Noisebarriershavefurthermorebeenconstructedunderacost-benefitconstraint.
Thewholepro-grammeisbeingfundedfromtaxincreasesintheroadsector.
Source:UIC,2006Inthesubsidyprogrammeoutlinedinthebox,Swissrollingstockbenefited,whileforeignoperatorscouldnotclaimthesubsidiesforretrofitting.
Theywereconse-quentlychargedmorefortheiruseofSwisstrack.
TheSwissexampleshowsthatinthesinglemarketnationalsubsidiesposetheriskofdiscriminatorytreatmentofoperators.
FuturerailnoisereductionAswheelsbecomesmoother,trackgrindingandothermeasuresalsobecomemoreimportant.
Quieterrailwaysdependnotonlyonrollingstock,butalsoontrackquality.
Track-relatedmeasuresarecost-effective.
Onewaytoenforcegrindingofmajortrackswouldbetointroducetighternoiseexposurelimitsatnighttime.
Forthemidandlongterm,rollingstockneedstobedevelopedwithnoisereductioninmind.
4.
9Two-wheeledvehiclenoiseOnlyinregionswheremotorcyclesmakeupasignificantfractionoftheoverallvehiclefleetaretheyareamajorcontributortoambientnoiselevels.
Althoughitismainlyinurbansettingsthatthisnoiseproblemisnoticedandreported,theirannoyancepotentialisalsohighelsewherebecauseofthehighpercentageofillegalnoise-increasingmufflersfittedandoftenaggressivedrivingbehaviour.
ASwedishnoiseannoyancestudyidentifiedmotorcyclenoiseasbyfarthemostannoyingformofvehicle-relatednoise.
Consequently,measurestoaddresstheuseofsuchmufflersneedtobegiventhehighestpriority.
Inaddition,alltheotherreductionmeasurescitedforcarsandheavy-dutyvehicles,suchasimprovementofthetypeapprovalmeasurementmethodandloweringofnoiselimits,shouldbeappliedtomotorcycles,too.
Directive97/24/EClaysdownlimitvaluesfortwo-wheeledroadvehicles.
TheseEuropeanlimitsarenotparticularlystringent,noristhenoisetesttechnicallyde-manding,asisdemonstratedbythefactthatsomemotorcyclespassitbyasub-stantialmarginof4-6dB(A)marginbelowthelimitvalue.
Theproblemofownerstamperingwiththeirvehicle,particularlybyreplacingtheoriginalexhaustsilencerbyalessefficientone,seemstobeequallyseriousalloverEurope.
Overall,thepenetrationofillegalexhaustsinthefleetis35%formotorcyclesand65%formopeds.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200741Thepurposeofthetypeapprovalrequiredforeachcategoryofvehicleistoen-surethatindividualvehiclesmeetthesafetyandenvironmentrequirementses-tablishedbysociety.
Itisthereforepatentlyabsurdthatinthecaseoftwo-wheeledvehiclesmanyifnotmostofthosevehiclesinrealityacquirequiteadif-ferent,noisierperformanceprofile,whetherimmediatelyorsoon.
Measurestopreventtamperingshouldthereforebeaffordedthehigherpriority.
Onlyaftertheproblemofillegalnoiseemissionshasbeenresolvedisfurthertighteningofnoiseemissionsworthwhile.
Thereisroomenoughfortighteningofthelimits,giventhecurrentmarginsunderthelimitvalueaswellastheemissionlevelsalreadybeingachievedinJapan.
TheEffNoisestudy(EC,2004)indicatesthatreduceduseofillegalexhaustsi-lencerscouldreducemotorcyclenoiseemissionsby5-15dB(A),whilesubse-quentstepwisetighteningoflimitvaluescouldreducethembyafurther3-6dB(A)(EC,2004).
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust2007424.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust2007435RecommendationsforactionNoiseexposureisawidespreadandserioushealthproblemIntheEuropeanUn-ionandnoiseabatementmeasuresshouldthereforebeaffordedgreaterprioritythanatpresentintheEUpolicyprocess.
Tothisendwemakethefollowingrec-ommendations:ToguaranteetheEuropeanpopulationahealthierlivingenvironment,noiseexposurestandardsshouldbesetandenforcedforseveraldifferentenviron-ments(outdoorlivingarea,dwellinginteriors,schools,etc.
),asisthecasewithcurrentEUairqualitystandards.
Inquantifyingthesestandards,theguidelinesdrawnupbytheWHOcouldserveasastartingpoint.
Theseex-posurestandardscouldthenserveasanappropriatebasisfortheactionplansprescribedintheEUEnvironmentalnoisedirective.
Thereneedstobegreaterpoliticalfocusonnoisepolicy.
Trafficnoiseshouldbeviewedprimarilyasapublichealthissue,ratherthanmerelyatradingstandardstopic.
TheleadatboththeEuropeanandtheinternationallevelshouldthereforebetakenbypublichealthandenvironmentalexperts.
Themostcost-effectivemeasuresarethoseatthelevelofvehicles.
ItisthereforethesemeasuresthatshouldbeaffordedpriorityattheEUlevel.
Theinstrumentsemployedinnoisepolicyhavethepotentialtoreducenoiseemissionssignificantly,buttodosothelimitstheyrestonmustbemadecon-siderablymorestringent.
Todate,though,lobbyingbyindustryseemstohavebeenverysuccessful,forthelimitsinforcehavebeentooliberaltohavehadanyeffect.
Priorityshouldnotbegivenmerelytoharmonisation,buttighten-ingofthelimitsplacedhigheronthepoliticalagenda,toreducetheevergrowingnoiseexposureoftheEUpopulation.
Thereisalreadyscopefortighteningthenoiselimitsforvehicledrivelinesbyatleast3-4dB(A),asaninitialstep.
After2012year-on-yearimprovementtargets(xdB(A)everyyyears)shouldbeintroduced,outlinedwellinadvancetogiveindustrysufficienttimetoadapt.
Thecurrenttestcycleforroadvehiclesissub-optimalinrelationtoreal-worldvehiclenoiseperformance.
Revisionofthetestcycleisalengthyprocess,however,andthenoiseemissionlimitsshouldthereforefirstbetightenedbasedonthecurrentcycle,withthecycleitselfbeingrevisedintimeforthenexttighteningoflimitsaround2012.
ThelimitsintheEUTyre/roaddirectiveneedtobetightenedifnewtechnol-ogyistobepromoted.
TheUBA/FEHRLproposalsareagoodstartingpoint.
Toimproveconsumerinformation,alltyresshouldbelabelledwiththeirnoiseapprovalratingandrollingresistance.
Retreadedtyresshouldbeincludedinthedirective,atleastforheavyvehicles,sincetheseaccountforasurpris-inglyhighshareofabout50%ofthemarket.
Aninternationalstandardfornoiseroadsurfaceclassificationsystemsshouldbedeveloped,layingdowntermsforincludingacousticperformanceinpubliccontractsforroadsurfacing.
Asaninitialsteptoreducethenoiseemissionsofrailtransport,theuseofcompositebrakesonfreightwagonsshouldbepromoted.
Thecurrenttrack4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200744chargeisapromisinginstrumentfordifferentiatingonthebasisofnoiseemission.
Theadvantageofthismeasureoverasubsidisedretrofittingpro-grammeisthatretrofittedwagonswillbeusedmostfrequently.
Combiningtrackchargedifferentiationwithasubsidyschememayhaveadverseeffectsoninternationalcompetition.
TypeapprovalproceduresforLL-blocksshouldalsobehastened,astheseperformjustaswellasK-blocksandareregardedasmorecost-effective.
SinceLL-blockscanappliedcost-neutrally,nosubsidiesarenecessary.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200745LiteratureBabisch,2006W.
BabishTransportationNoiseandCardiovascularRisk:ReviewandSynthesisofEpide-miologicalStudies,DoseEffectCurveandRiskEstimationBerlin:UBA,2006Babischetal.
,2005W.
Babisch,B.
Beule,M.
Schust,N.
Kersten,H.
Ising,Trafficnoiseandriskofmyocardialinfarction,In:Epidemiology,16(1):33-40,2005Babisch,1998W.
BabischEpidemiologicalstudiesofthecardiovasculareffectsofoccupationalnoise–acriticalappraisalIn:Noise&Health,1:24-39,1998Berg,2003M.
vandenBerg,etal.
Valuationofnoise:positionpaperS.
l.
:WorkinggrouponHealthandSocio-economicaspects,2003Berglundetal.
,1999B.
Berglund,T.
Lindvall,D.
H.
SchwelaGuidelinesforCommunityNoiseLondon:WHO(WorldHealthOrganisation),1999Bistrupetal.
,2001M.
L.
Bistrup,S.
Hygge,L.
Keiding,W.
Passchier-VermeerHealtheffectsofnoiseonchildrenandperceptionoftheriskofnoiseCopenhagen:NationalInstituteofPublicHealth,2001Blokland,2004GijsjanvanBloklandType-approvalasinstrumentforcontrollingroadtrafficnoiseAalsmeer/Vugt:M+P/Müller-BBM,2004Bluhmetal.
,2006G.
L.
Bluhm,N,Berglind,E.
Nordling,M.
RosenlundRoadtrafficnoiseandhypertensionIn:OccupationalandEnvironmentalMedicine2007;64:122-1264.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200746EllebjergLarsenetal.
,2002L.
EllebjergLarsen,H.
Bendtsen,B.
MikkelsenTrafficnoiseannoyance:Asurvey,in:Aarhus,Odense&RandersLyngby:DanishTransportReviewInstitute,2002Berndtsen,2005TrafficManagementandNoiseReducingPavements:RecommendationsonAdditionalNoiseReducingMeasuresSilviaprojectdeliverable,2005http://www.
trl.
co.
uk/silvia/Silvia/pdf/Main_Outputs/SILVIA-DTF-DRI-008-11-WP5-020205.
pdfCE,2004J.
P.
LVermeulen,B.
H.
Boon,H.
P.
vanEssen,L.
C.
denBoer,J.
M.
W.
Dings,F.
R.
Bruinsma,M.
J.
KoetseDeprijsvaneenreisDelft;Amsterdam:CE;VU,2004Clarketal.
,2005C.
Clark,R.
Martinez,E.
vanKempen,A.
Tamuno,J.
Head,W.
Hugh,M.
Davies,M.
M.
Haines,I,LopezBarrio,M.
Matheson,S.
A.
StansfeldExposure-EffectRelationsbetweenAircraftandRoadTrafficNoiseExposureatSchoolandReadingComprehensionIn:AmericanJournalofEpidemiology163(1),27-37,2005DanishEPA,2003A.
Ohm,M.
P.
JensenStrategiforbegrnsningafvejtrafikstj:Delrapport3.
Virkemidlerogsam-fundskonomiskeberegninger(Strategyforlimitingroadtrafficnoise:Report2.
Meansofabatementandsocio-economicassessment(inDanish))Copenhagen:DanishEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,2003DRI,2005LarsEllebjergLarsenCost-benefitanalysisonnoise-reducingpavementsCopenhagen:DanishRoadInstitute,2005DRI,2004Trafficmanagementandnoisereducingpavements:Recommendationsonaddi-tionalnoisereducingmeasuresDanishRoadInstituteCopenhagen:Ministryoftransportandenergy,2004DutchMinistryofTransport,2006Evaluatie80kmzones(Evaluationof80-kmzones(inDutch),letterfromtheMin-isterofTransporttotheDutchparliament,DGP/WV/u.
06.
02308,2006.
http://www.
vananaarbeter.
nl/Images/Evaluatie%2080%20km%20zone_tcm220-171282.
pdf4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200747EC,2001EU'sFutureNoisePolicy,WG2Dose/EffectPositionPaperOnDoseResponseRelationshipsBetweenTransportationNoiseAndAnnoyance:RevisedBrussels:EuropeanCommissieon,2001EC,2007ACompetitiveAutomotiveRegulatoryFrameworkforthe21stCentury:Commis-sion'sresponsetotheCARS21HighLevelGroupFinalReportImpactAssess-ment,CommunicationfromtheCommissiontotheEuropeanParliamentandtheCouncilCOM(2007)22final,2007Brussels:EuropeanCommission,2007EC,2006Noiseclassificationofroadpavements:Task1:Technicalbackgroundinforma-tion,DraftreportCOWIBrussels:EuropeanCommission-DGEnvironment,2006EC,2005PositionpaperontheeffectivenessofnoisemeasuresEUWorkingGroupHealth&Socio-EconomicAspectsBrussels:EuropeanCommission,2005EC,2004EffNoise:Servicecontractrelatingtotheeffectivenessofnoisemitigationmeas-ures:finalReport,VolumeILRMKONTORGmbH(contractor)Brussels:EuropeanCommission-DGEnvironment,2004EC,2003PositionPaperontheEuropeanstrategiesandprioritiesforrailwaynoiseabate-mentEUWorkingGroupRailwayNoiseoftheEuropeanCommissionBrussels:EuropeanCommission,2003EC,2002S.
NavrudThestate-of-the-artoneconomicvaluationofnoiseBrussels:EuropeanCommission,DGEnvironment,2002Elvik,2003R.
Elvik,P.
GreibeSafetyAspectsRelatedtoLowNoiseRoadSurfaces,SilviaprojectSilviaprojectdeliverable,2003http://www.
trl.
co.
uk/silvia/Silvia/pdf/Main_Outputs/SILVIA-DTF-ATKINS-001-03-WP3-091203.
pdf4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200748EPA,1978Noise:AhealthproblemWashingtonD.
C.
:EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,OfficeofNoiseAbatementandControl,1978FEHRL,2006Tyre/roadnoise:finalreportBrussels:TUVNord,BAST,TRL,VTI,2005HealthCounciloftheNetherlands,2004TheinfluenceofnighttimenoiseonsleepandhealthTheHague:HealthCounciloftheNetherlands,2004IPG,2007InnovatieprogrammaGeluid(NoiseInnovationProgramme(inDutch)),2007http://www.
innovatieprogrammageluid.
nlINFRAS/IWW,2004ExternalCostsofTransport,UpdateStudyZürich/Karlsruhe:INFRAS/IWW,2004Isingetal.
,2004ExposureandeffectindicatorsofenvironmentalnoiseH.
Ising,W.
Babisch,R.
Guski,B.
Kruppa,C.
MaschkeBerlin:BerlinZentrumPublicHealth,2004Kaseloo,2005P.
A.
KaselooSynthesisofnoiseeffectsonwildlifepopulationsCenterforTransportationandtheEnvironment,NorthCarolinaStateUniversityIn:Proceedingsofthe2005InternationalConferenceonEcologyandTransportation/C.
L.
Irwin,P.
Garrett,K.
P.
McDermott,(eds.
)p.
33-35,2005Kaselooetal.
,2004P.
A.
Kaseloo,K.
O.
TysonSynthesisofnoiseeffectsonwildlifepopulationsS.
l.
:VirginiaStateUniversity,2004Kunst,2006HeikoKunstEuropeanTransportandRailNoisePolicy,Railwaynoiseinurbanareas:possi-blesourcenoise,reductionmeasures,presentationPisa:S.
n.
,2006KPMG,2005J.
KloosterCosteffectivenessofroadtrafficnoisemeasuresTheHague:KPMG,20054.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200749Link,2000H.
Link,etal.
TheAccountsApproachUNITE(UNIficationofaccountsandmarginalcostsforTransportEfficiency)Leeds;S.
n.
,2000LondonHealthCommission,2003Noise&Health:MakingthelinkLondon:LondonHealthCommission,2003M+P,2000Noiseofpassengercars1974-1999:Theparadoxofa2dB(A)increaseintrafficnoiseanda8dB(A)decreaseintypeapprovallimitsVught,:M+P,2000Miedema,2001H.
M.
E.
Miedema,C.
G.
OudshoornAnnoyancefromtransportationnoise:relationshipswithexposuremetricsDNLandDENLandtheirconfidenceintervals,In:EnvironmentalHealthPerspectives,109(4):(2001)p.
409-416Oertli,2003J.
OertliTheSTAIRRSproject,workpackage1:acost-effectivenessanalysisofrailwaynoisereductiononaEuropeanscale,In:JournalofSoundandVibration,Volume267,Issue3,p.
431-437,2003.
Niemann,2004H.
,Niemann,C.
MaschkeWHOLARESFinalReport:NoiseeffectsandmorbidityBerlin,:S.
n.
,2004OECD/INFRAS/Herry,2002ExternalcostsoftransportinEasternEuropeZürich/Vienna:S.
n.
,2003Ohm,2006AnneOhmAcousticalclassificationandconformitycheckingofroadsurfaces:Costs,bene-fitsandcost-effectivenessoflow-noisesurfaces,COWI,StakeholderWorkshop,2006.
KongensLyngby:COWIA/S,2006Ouis,2002D.
OuisAnnoyancecausedbyexposuretoroadtrafficnoise:anupdateIn:NoiseHealth,4(15),69-79,20024.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200750Prasher,2003D.
PrasherNOPHERNoisePollutionHealthEffectsReduction,Finalreport2000-2003London:UniversityCollegeLondon,2003RIVM,2005A.
B.
Knol,B.
A.
M.
StaatsenTrendsintheenvironmentalburdenofdiseaseintheNetherlands1980-2020Bilthoven,RIVM,2005RIVM,2005E.
E.
M.
M.
vanKempenvan,B.
A.
M.
Staatsen,I.
vanKampSelectionandevaluationofexposure-effectrelationshipsforhealthimpactas-sessmentinthefieldofnoiseandhealthBilthoven:RIVM,2005RIVM,2004H.
Kruize,A.
A.
BouwmanEnvironmental(in)equityintheNetherlands:AcasestudyonthedistributionofenvironmentalqualityintheRijnmondregionBilthoven:RIVM,2004RIVM,2003H.
A.
Nijland,E.
E.
M.
MvanKempenvan,G.
P.
vanWee,J.
JabbenBilthovenCostsandbenefitsofnoiseabatementmeasuresIn:Transportpolicy10,131-140,2003RIVM.
,2003A.
E.
M.
Franssen,J.
M.
I.
Kwekkeboom,Effectenvangeluiddoorwegverkeeropdeslaap(Theimpactofroadtrafficnoiseonsleep(inDutch)),Bilthoven:RIVM(DutchNationalInstituteforPublicHealthandtheEnviron-ment),2003RIVM,2004B.
A.
M.
Staatsen,H.
A.
Nijland,E.
E.
M.
vanKempenA.
E.
M.
deHollanderA.
E.
M.
Franssen,A.
E.
M.
,I.
vanKampAssessmentofhealthimpactsandpolicyoptionsinrelationtotransport-relatednoiseexposures:TopicpaperonnoiseBilthoven:RIVM,2004RIVM,2002H.
A.
Nijland,A.
G.
M.
DassenVerkeerslawaaiinEuropa(TrafficnoiseinEurope(inDutch))Bilthoven:RIVM(RijksInstituutvoorVolksgezondheidenMilieuhygine),20024.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200751RIVM,2001E.
E.
M.
M.
vanKempen,C.
A.
Ameling,R.
T.
Hoogenveen,B.
A.
M.
Staatsen,A.
E.
M.
deHollanderDepotentileziektelasttoeteschrijvenaandegeluidsbelastinginNederland(ThepotentialhealthburdenattributabletonoisenuisanceintheNetherlands(inDutch))Bilthoven:RIVM,2001Rosenhall,1990U.
Rosenhall,K.
Pedersen,A.
SvenborgPresbycusisandNoise-inducedhearingloss,In:Ear&Hearing,11(4):257-263,1990SAEFL,2003MonetisationofthehealthimpactduetotrafficnoiseBern:SAEFL(SwissAgencyfortheEnvironment,ForestsandLandscape)2003Sandberg,2002UlfSandbergNoiseEmissionfromPoweredTwo-WheeledVehicles:PositionPaperLingkping:VTI(SwedishNationalRoadandTransportResearchInstitute),2002Stansfeld,2003S.
A.
Stansfeld,M.
P.
MathesonNoisepollution:non-auditoryeffectsonhealthIn:BritishMedicalBulletin,68.
,p.
243-257,2003Soguel,1994N.
SoguelvaluationMonétairedesAtteintesàl'Environnement:unetudeHédonisteetContingentesurl'impactdesTransports(Monetaryevaluationofenvironmentalharm:ahedonicandcontingentstudyoftheimpactsoftransport(inFrench)),Neuchtel:UniversityofNeuchtel,1994Theebe,2004M.
A.
J.
TheebePlanes,trainsandautomobiles:TheimpactoftrafficnoiseonhousepricesIn:TheJournalofRealEstateFinanceandEconomics,Vol.
28,No.
2-3,2004TNOInro,2002H.
M.
E.
Miedema,W.
Passchier-Vermeer,H.
VosElementsforapositionpaperonnight-timetransportationnoiseandsleepdistur-bance,Delft:TNOInro,20024.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200752TOI,2005AstridH.
Admundsen,RonnyKlaeboeANordicperspectiveonnoisereductionatthesourceOslo:TOI(InstituteofTransportEconomics),2005TRL,2003P.
A.
Morgan,P.
M.
Nelson,H.
StevenIntegratedassessmentofnoisereductionmeasuresintheroadtransportsectorTRLlimed:RWTVBrussels:EuropeanCommission-DGEnterprise,2003http://ec.
europa.
eu/enterprise/automotive/projects/report_noise_reduction.
pdfUBA,2005Dataontheenvironment:ThestateoftheenvironmentinGermany,edition2005Berlin;UBA,2005UBA,2003C.
Maschke,U.
Wolf,T.
Leitmann.
EpidemiologischeUntersuchungenzumEinflussvonLrmstressaufdasImmun-systemunddieEntstehungvonArteriosklerose(Epidemiologicalstudiesontheinfluenceofnoisestressontheimmunesystemandthedevelopmentofarterio-sclerosis(inGerman)),AnschlussberichtdesForschungsvorhabensBerlin:UBA,2003UIC,2006RailFreightNoiseAbatement,areportonthestateoftheartParis:UIC&CER,2006UIC,2006bStatusandoptionsforthereductionofnoiseemissionfromtheexistingEuropeanrailfreightwagonfleet:includingathirdpartyassessmentoftheUIC/UIP/CERactionprogrammeonnoiseUIC,CER,UNIFE,UIP,UIRR,AEATechnologyParis:UIC,2006VanKempen,2002E.
E.
M.
M.
vanKempen,H.
Kruize,H.
C.
Boshuizen,C.
B,Ameling,B.
A.
M.
Staatsen,A.
E.
M.
deHollanderTheassociationbetweennoiseexposureandbloodpressureandischemicheartdisease,In:EnvironmentalHealthPerspectives,110(2002)p.
307-317VITO,2003R.
TorfsKwantificeringvangezondheidsrisico'saandehandvanDALYsenexternege-zondheidskosten(QuantificationofhealthrisksusingDALYsandexternalhealthcosts(inDutch))Mol:VITO(Vlaamseinstellingvoortechnologischonderzoek),20034.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200753VTI,2006MikaelgrenNoiseemissionsfromrailwaytrafficLingkping:VTI(SwedishNationalRoadandTransportResearchInstitute),2006VTI,2006UlfSandbergFinancialIncentivestoEncouragetheUseofLow-NoiseTyresLingkping:VTI(SwedishNationalRoadandTransportResearchInstitute),2006WHO,2007NightNoiseGuidelinesforEuropeBonn:WHO,regionalOfficeforEurope,2007Witteveen+Bos,2004ProjectIPG4.
3Schermpositie-fase1:verkenningoplossingsrichtingen,fase2:akoestischeeffectenenkosten(Barrierpositioning-phase1:possiblesolutions,phase2:acousticeffectsandcosts(inDutch))Deventer:Witteveen+Bos,20044.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust2007544.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200755ReportDelft,August2007Authors:L.
C.
(Eelco)denBoerA.
(Arno)SchrotenTrafficnoisereductioninEuropeHealtheffects,socialcostsandtechnicalandpolicyoptionstoreduceroadandrailtrafficnoiseAnnexesOudeDelft1802611HHDelftTheNetherlandstel:+31152150150fax:+31152150151e-mail:ce@ce.
nlwebsite:www.
ce.
nlKvK272510864.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust2007564.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200757AExposuretotrafficnoiseA.
1ReliabilityofexposurefiguresThefigurespresentedinsection2.
5onthenumbersofpeopleexposedtotrafficnoiseareofdebatablereliability.
Ascountriesarenotobligedtomeasureorre-portthenumberofpeopleexposedtonoise,informationonthistopicisrelativelysparse.
Inaddition,thedatathatisavailableisbasedonarangeofdifferentmeasuringmethodsandnoisemetrics.
Forthesereasonsitisdifficulttoacquirereliabledataabouttheabsolutenumberofpeoplecurrentlyexposedtoharmfullevelsoftrafficnoise.
TwostudiesdoreportnoiseexposuredataforvariousWesternEuropeancoun-tries:INFRAS/IWW(2004)andLink(2000).
INFRAS/IWWreporton17countries,Linkon11.
Table9presentstheroadtrafficnoiseexposurefiguresforthe9countriescoveredbybothstudies.
Table9Numberoppeopleexposedtoroadtrafficnoise(noiselevelsabove55dB(A))inseveralEuropeancountriesasreportedbyINFRAS/IWWandLinkCountryINFRAS/IWW(2004)Link(2000)Austria4,688,0004,950,000Finland900,000840,000Germany40,508,00040,260,000Ireland1,280,0001,500,000Italy40,370,00040,190,000Netherlands4,384,0008,200,000Portugal5,344,0004,240,000Spain16,060,00016,060,000Sweden1,382,0001,580,000Total118,615,000114,121,000Althoughtheaggregatenumberofpeopleexposedtoroadtrafficnoiseinthe9EuropeancountriesintheTable9differonlyslightly,byabout3%,forcertainin-dividualcountriesthedifferencesarelarge.
FortheNetherlands,PortugalandSwitzerland,especially,theresultsfromthetwostudiesdiffersubstantially,byover20%.
TheNetherlandsisknownforhavingexcellentfiguresonthenumberofpeopleexposedtotrafficnoise.
ItisthereforeinstructivetocomparetheINFRAS/IWWandLinkdatafortheNetherlandstoreliableDutchfigures.
AscanbeseeninTable10,bothINFRAS/IWWandLinkpresentfiguresfortheNetherlandswhichdiffersubstantiallyfromthe(reliable)DutchfigurespublishedbyCE(2004).
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200758Table10NumberofpeopleexposedtoroadtrafficnoiseintheNetherlandsasreportedbydifferentstudies55-60dB61-65dB66-70dB71-75dB>75dBCE(2004)3,669,0001,484,000352,00046,0009,000INFRAS/IWW(2004)5,100,0002,400,000400,000217,000340,000Link(2000)2,760,0001,299,000217,00081,00027,000TheexposurefiguresforEasternEuropeancountriescitedinsection2.
5arefromOECD/INFRAS/Herry(2002).
However,theexposuredatapresentedinthatstudyarenotbasedonactualmeasurementofthenumberofpeopleexposedtotrafficnoise,butwereestimatedwiththehelpofsomeroughassumptions.
Itcanbeconcludedthatthefiguresonthenumbersofpeopleexposedtotrafficnoiseareofquestionablereliability.
Forthisreasontheresultspresentedinsec-tion2.
5shouldbeinterpretedandusedwithduecaution.
Thequalityofthestatisticsonpopulationexposuretotrafficnoiseisexpectedtoimprovesoon,astheEnvironmentalNoiseDirective(END)of2002obligesEuro-peancountriestomonitortheexposureoftheircitizenstoenvironmentalnoise(seesection4.
1).
A.
2TherelationbetweenexposuretonoiseandhealtheffectsNotallofthoseexposedtotrafficnoisewillexperiencehealtheffects.
Alargeproportionwillbescarcelyaffectedatall,apartfromexperiencingannoyanceand/oracertainamountofsleepdisturbance.
Asmallerfractionofthepopulationwillexperiencephysiologicalchangeswithunknowneffects,however,suchastemporaryincreaseinbloodpressureorproductionofstresshormones.
Forsomeofthem,theseeffectswillleadtopathologicalchanges,suchashyperten-sionandchronicstress.
Ayetsmallerfractionwilleventuallybecomeillorevendie.
Thisrelationshipbetweennoiseexposureand(experienceof)healtheffectsisshowninFigure17,onthenextpage.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200759Figure17SchematicrepresentationofthedistributionofnoiseresponsesinapopulationSource:RIVM(2001).
MortalityMorbidity:cardiovasculardiseasesPathologicaldisorders:chronicstress,hyperten-sionPhysiologicalchangesofunknownsignificance:stresshormones,temporaryincreaseofbloodpressureInternalexposure:annoyance,sleepdisturbanceProportionofpopulationaffected4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust2007604.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200761BSocialcostsfortrafficnoiseB.
1ComparingINFRAS/IWWandLinkBothINFRAS/IWW(2004)andLink(2000)haveestimatedthesocialcostsofnoiseduetoroadandrailtraffic.
However,theirresultsvaryratherwidely.
Themainreasonsforthesedifferencesare:Thenumberofpeoplereportedtobeexposedtotrafficnoisediffersbetweenthetwostudiesbecauseofthedifferentdatasourcesused.
Sincethetotales-timatedcostsarethesumofthecostsforallindividualsexposedtonoise,theestimatednumbersofpeopleexposedtotrafficnoisedirectlyaffectsthecostestimatesreported.
BothstudiesusecomparableWillingesstoPay(WTP)figuresderivedfromhedonicpricingstudiesfornoisereduction:about0.
1%ofpercapitaincome.
However,INFRAS/IWWusethesefigurestoestimatethelossofwell-beingduetoannoyanceandsleepdisturbance,whileLinkusesthesamefigurestoestimatethelossofwell-beingduetoannoyanceonly.
Inthelatterreportthemonetaryvalueofsleepdisturbanceduetotrafficnoiseisestimatedsepa-rately.
AnimportantdifferencebetweenINFRAS/IWWandLinkisthewayfatalitiesduetotrafficnoisearevalued.
INFRAS/IWW(2004)estimatetheincreasedmortalityduetohealthriskandvalueeachfatalityusingtheso-calledRiskValue,basedamongotherthingsonthevalueofastatisticallife,thelatterfromtheliteratureonvaluingthevictimsoftrafficaccidents.
Thismethodhasbeencriticisedbecausevictimsoftrafficaccidentsaremuchyoungerthanvictimsofheartattacks.
Forthisreason,Linkevaluatesonlythe'yearsoflifelost'(YOLL),usinga'valueofalifeyearlost'(VLYL).
Thismethod,foritspart,canbecriticisedforethicalreasons,becauseitclaimsthatthelivesofelderlypeopleare'worthless'thanthoseofyoungercitizens.
Medicalcostsareestimatedinthetwostudiesinentirelydifferentways.
INFRAS/IWWprovidesestimatesforthemedicalcostsofcardiovasculardis-easesonly,therebyassumingthat8%ofalltheeconomiccostsassociatedwithcardiovasculardiseaseareduetotrafficnoise.
Thisfigureof8%repre-sentstheshareofthecostsofthesediseasesattributabletotrafficnoiseof65dB(A)andupwardsanditisconsequentlyonthebasisofthepopulationexposedtothisnoiselevelthatmedicalcostsarecalculated.
Link,ontheotherhand,usesaseriesofexposure-responsefunctionstoestimatethenumberofpeoplesufferingvarioushealtheffectsduetotrafficnoise.
Tovaluethehealtheffectsinthesepeople,LinkusesmonetaryvaluesfromEx-ternE.
Themedicalcostsassociatedwithsleepdisturbanceareestimatedinasimilarway.
4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust2007624.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200763CVehiclenoiseemissiontrendsFigure18showsthestatisticaldistributionoftypeapprovalresultsforpassengercars.
Ineachyearthetotalnumberofmeasurementsissetat100%.
Thesolidlinerepresentsthelimitvaluesfornormalvehicles.
Thelimitfordirect-injecteddieselsand4-wheel-drivecarsis1or2dB(A)higher.
Aproportionofthemeas-uredvaluesarethereforeabovethelimitvalue.
Becausethetestcyclehasbeenchangedseveraltimesovertheyears,fromthisfigureitisnotpossibletodrawanyrealconclusionsabouttheoveralltrendinnoiseemissions.
Whatcanbeconcluded,however,isthat:Stepwisetighteningofthelimitvaluehasnotsignificantlychangedtheaver-agemeasuredtypeapprovalresults.
Overtime,thedistributionofthetypeapprovalresultsforallvehicleshasnar-rowed.
Figure18Statisticaldistributionoftypeapprovalresultsforpassengercars1980198219841986198819901992199419961998646668707274767880828486Distribution[%]YearofinspectionSoundlevelpass-by[dB(A)]35-4030-3525-3020-2515-2010-155-100-5Source:M+P,2000.
BasedonFigure18,thedashedlineinFigure19givesaneducatedguessoftheinfluenceofthemostsignificantchangesinmeasurementprocedureonthemeasurednoiselevelsofavirtual"everydaytestedcar".
Between1980an1996thiscarwasgivenanextraallowanceofabout4dB(A).
Thelinefollowsthemo-dalmeasuredvalue(basedonFigure18)remarkablywell.
Thissuggeststhat4.
451.
1/TrafficnoisereductioninEuropeAugust200764mostofthechangesinthemeasuredvaluesareduetochangesinthemeas-urementprocedure.
Figure19Educatedguessoftheinfluenceofthemostsignificantchangesinthemeasurementprocedureonthemeasurednoiselevelsofavirtual'everydaytestedcar'1980198219841986198819901992199419961998707274767880Soundlevelpass-by[dB(A)]2nd3rd2nd+3rdlownoisenormalgeartestedtesttracksurfaceandtyresChangesinmeasuringmethodSource:M+P,2000.