Theory and practice of the assessment and valuation of noise from roads and railroads in Europe

(1)

Theory and Practice of the Assessment and

Valuation of Noise from Roads and Railroads

in Europe

(2)

(3)

Theory and Practice of the Assessment and

Valuation of Noise from Roads and Railroads

in Europe

Proefschrift

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Technische Universiteit Delft,

op gezag van de Rector Magnificus Prof. dr. ir. J.T. Fokkema, voorzitter van het College voor Promoties,

in het openbaar te verdedigen op 23 september 2008 om 12.30 uur door

Hans Arnold Nijland Doctorandus biologie geboren te Hengelo (O)

(4)

Prof. dr. G. P van Wee

Samenstelling promotiecommissie

Rector magnificus voorzitter

Prof.dr. G.P. van Wee Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor Prof. dr. ir. H. Priemus Technische Universiteit Delft

Prof. dr. K.A. Brookhuis Technische Universiteit Delft Prof. ir. N.D. van Egmond Universiteit Utrecht

Prof. dr. P.J. Stallen Universiteit Leiden

Prof. dr. C. Koopmans Universiteit van Amsterdam

TRAIL Thesis Series nr. T2008/10, the Netherlands TRAIL Research School

TRAIL Research School P.O.Box 5017 2600 GA Delft The Netherlands T: +31 (0) 15 27 86046 F: +31 (0) 15 27 84333 E: info@rsTRAIL.nl ISBN 978-90-5584-104-2

All rights reserved. No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission of the author.

(5)

i

Voorwoord

Promoveren was tot zo’n jaar of zes geleden voor mij vooral verbonden met een van mijn grote passies, het schaakspel. Als een pion de achterste rij bereikt promoveert hij. Dat is, na mat zetten, de allergrootste dreiging die het schaken kent. En schaken bestaat vooral uit dreigingen, datgene wat niet op het bord wordt uitgevoerd, maar eventueel uitgevoerd had kunnen worden. Voor de liefhebber is dat het allermooiste.

Deze promotie daarentegen heeft niets met dreigingen te maken. Ik heb het niet op het schaakbord, maar gewoon achter de pc uitgevoerd. Het woord uitdaging komt even bij me op, al heb ik een hartgrondige hekel aan dat soort jargon. Hoe dan ook, toen Bert van Wee me jaren terug vroeg om eens te overwegen te gaan promoveren, heb ik daar niet lang over nagedacht en ja gezegd. Gewoon netjes opschrijven wat je doet, dat is het wel zo’n beetje, dacht ik toen. En nu, na zes jaar, kan ik zeggen dat dat helemaal klopte: promoveren is vooral stug doorgaan en in jezelf blijven geloven. Natuurlijk steekt af en toe de twijfel de kop op. Maar gelukkig kon ik dan altijd bij Bert langs, die het in zich heeft om alle twijfels weg te vagen, te motiveren, me nieuwe perspectieven te laten zien en tegelijk nog koffie te zetten ook. Voor al die dingen ben ik je veel dank verschuldigd Bert.

Er waren natuurlijk veel meer mensen betrokken bij dit proefschrift. Want ook al is het in essentie een eenzaam gedoe, een hoop dingen doe je toch samen met anderen. In de eerste plaats ben ik dank verschuldigd aan de co-auteurs van de verschillende artikelen, die de kern vormen van dit verhaal: Jan Jabben, Elise van Kempen, Irene van Kamp, Sander Hartemink en opnieuw Bert van Wee. Rebecca Stellato dank ik voor haar statistische adviezen en Ruth de Wijs en Annmieke Righart voor hun verbeteringen van mijn Engels. En het geheel zou sowieso nooit van de grond gekomen zijn als ik niet het geluk had gehad om na mijn verblijf in de Filipijnen zomaar terecht te komen in een projectgroep die het niet alleen belangrijk vond om resultaat te boeken, maar ook om op een goede manier samen te werken. Mijn beide paranimfen, Brigit Staatsen en Arno Bouwman maakten deel uit van die projectgroep.

(6)

En het RIVM, later het Milieu- en Natuurplanbureau en nog weer later het Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving dank ik ervoor dat ze me de gelegenheid hebben gegeven om me een dag in de week terug te trekken op mijn zolderkamer.

Tenslotte, Annette, ben ik jou natuurlijk dankbaar voor je steun. De afgelopen jaren was ik lichamelijk meestal wel aanwezig, maar geestelijk zat ik soms toch ergens anders, bij de juiste formulering van een of andere zin in een artikel bijvoorbeeld. Jij begreep dat gelukkig. Niels dank ik omdat je bijna altijd zonder morren de computer aan mij gaf als ik daarom vroeg. Ik weet dat dat niet prettig is voor een puber, en vond het daarom des te mooier dat je het toch deed. Eigenlijk vind ik maar een ding jammer van dit hele gebeuren, en dat is dat mijn vader het niet meer heeft kunnen meemaken. Hij zou trots geweest zijn.

(7)

iii

1 Introduction

Traffic noise and traffic policies have been around for a long time. Lists of punishments for creating too much noise have been found on Mesopotamian clay tablets, dating back as long as 2000 B.C. (Geysen, 1993). In Julius Caesar’s time ‘noise regulation’ (to put this in modern terms) was established by his Senatus Consultum in 44 BC: ‘Hence-forward, no wheeled vehicles whatsoever will be allowed within the precincts of the city, from sunrise until the hour before dusk…… Those which shall have entered during the night, and are still within the city at dawn, must halt and stand empty until the appointed hour’ (Schafer, 1994).

Today traffic noise still causes problems although it is no longer due to the oxen-carts. About 20 % of Europe’s citizens are subject to noise levels which health experts consider to be unacceptable (European Commission, 1996). Furthermore, contrary to Julius Caesar’s days, it is now not only the city council that puts noise policy in place, but regulatory bodies at national and even international level also play a distinct role in modern noise policy.

Rationality is one of the key pillars of current noise policy in the Netherlands. Costs and (societal) benefits of noise measures play an important role in the decision-making process of whether or not to implement new noise abatement measures (contrary to the process of setting standards, where costs and benefits play a far less pronounced role). Noise policy can be looked at in different ways. One of these is the framework of Marchau and Walker, which will be used in this thesis (see figure 1.1.).

As Marchau and Walker (2005) put it: ‘Policymaking requires an integrated systems view of the various factors influencing the performance of a system, their consequences for system performance, and a way of valuing these consequences in order to choose a policy to implement. In other words, policymaking concerns making choices regarding a system in order to change the system outcomes in a desired way.’ The system that will be examined here concerns noise of the road and railroad transport system. Air traffic is not taken into account. The outcomes of interest - indicators like noise level, degree of annoyance, DALYs (disability adjusted life years: see De Hollander, 2006) or external costs of traffic - will depend on the actor involved (e.g. local or national authority). The

(10)

valuation of the outcome will again depend on the perspective of the (policy) actors involved. The perspective of the national government has been chosen for this thesis, where valuation of the outcome by national authorities is often expressed in monetary terms.

The policy analysis framework, presented in figure 1, represents a theoretical framework for understanding the context of policymaking. This thesis will look at noise policy according to that framework. The thesis will examine possible gaps in the traffic system itself, in the outcomes of interest (i.e. in assessing noise levels) and its valuation. The thesis intends to come up with improvements in (the application of) scientific methods and with suggestions for further research. Given the vast area of noise policy and the limited resources, not all possible gaps can be addressed. Looking at the current state of knowledge about the transport system, a gap might be the self-selection due to traffic noise: i.e. the phenomenon that people who are more sensitive to noise than others are supposed to consciously choose a quiet residential area to live in. This self-selection is well-known in transport research in relation to other individual characteristics such as individual preferences for public transport or walking (see for example Cervero and Duncan, 2002 or Bagley and Mokhtarian, 2002).

Figure 1.1.: An integrated view of policy-making (Source: Marchau and Walker, 2005) To date, very little is known about this self-selection and noise policies do not take it into account.

Gaps in determining the outcomes of interest and the valuation of these outcomes are manifold: first of all, there are uncertainties in the assessment of the noise level, the first step in most noise impact assessments. Secondly, there is (as yet) no scientific agreement on all noise impacts. Thirdly, not all impacts are well enough understood to be assessed. Except for noise annoyance and sleep disturbance, exposure-response relationships are non-existent. Other impacts, for example cardio-vascular diseases or cognitive backlog due to noise, still need further research.

Fourthly, if monetisation of noise impacts takes place at all, there are weak points in the methodologies used and the application of monetisation in practice.

Major gaps in (national) noise policies are twofold: firstly, although the relevance of non-acoustical factors for noise impacts is wellknown, noise policy is usually based on acoustic factors only. These acoustical factors account for only one-third of the variance in individual responses to noise. The other two-third of the variance depends on

non-External forces Policies Valuation of outcomes System domain for policies Outcomes of interest

(11)

acoustical factors or is unexplained. Another (major) gap in noise policy comes from the fact that in most European countries, noise assessment (and resulting noise abatement measures) takes place only during (re-)construction of roads and railroads. Whether or not traffic noise increases afterwards (mainly due to the ever-increasing traffic) is not dealt with (see e.g. der Schweizerische Bundesrat, 1986; Bundesministerium der Justiz, 1990; Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 1999).

This thesis aims to critically review the scientific methods used to assess the costs of noise effects (or, vice versa, the benefits of noise measures). The thesis is limited to the assessment of road and railroad noise in Europe and will cover:

- current methodologies for assessing noise and for determining the societal benefits of noise measures will be presented

- weaknesses in current methodologies and - suggestions for overcoming these weaknesses

This thesis is based on articles published in scientific journals, where several topics important to understanding the assessment of noise and noise policies are dealt with in brief. As the thesis would be rather incomplete without at least some attention to these topics, the first chapter will be devoted to the key themes related to the assessment of the monetary costs of noise (1.1) and to noise policy (1.2); this will be followed by an outline.

1.1 Noise valuation

Since rationality and cost-effectiveness are key pillars for current noise policies, the valuation of noise impacts, i.e. attaching monetary values to them, is receiving more and more attention. This section will briefly overview the most commonly used methodologies in noise valuation, i.e. contingent valuation and hedonic pricing, along with their main strengths and weaknesses. Some further discussion points are raised in chapters 3 and 4.

Noise has impacts on both human health and on animal life. This thesis is limited to the assessment of impacts on human health (see chapters 2 and 3 for a brief overview of these effects). To estimate the total welfare loss due to noise or the total increase in welfare due to noise-reducing measures, the components that comprise changes in welfare will first have to be identified, estimated and valuated. Summing up the components should be done to give the total change in welfare, assuming no overlap. The components are:

(i) Resource costs, i.e. medical costs paid by health services, insurances and/or individuals

(ii) Opportunity costs, i.e. costs in terms of lost productivity

(iii) Dis-utility, i.e. other social and economic costs including discomfort, inconvenience (pain, suffering), anxiety, concern and inconvenience to family members and others

The first two categories are often referred to as Cost of Illness. They should ideally be valued and added to the third category, the individual’s loss of utility, assuming that individuals are capable of separating the different categories (however, this is doubtful, as seen, for example, in Navrud, 2002). Noise valuation concentrates on valuating annoyance by measuring dis-utility for two reasons. Firstly, in terms of DALYs, annoyance has the largest noise impact on health (see Table 1.1). Note that in this

(12)

context health is seen in line with the constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO, 1946) as ‘not merely the absence of disease and infirmity’ but as ‘the ability to cope with the demands of everyday life’ (Committee on Medical Cure and Care, 1991). This is not undisputed though; the question is where to draw the line between health and well being (see De Hollander, 2004).

Table 1.1: Annual burden of disease in the Netherlands due to noise in DALYs per million inhabitants (source: De Hollander, 2004), applying 0.01 as disability weight factor for annoyance and sleep disturbance

Lower estimate (DALYs/million) Upper estimate (DALYs/million) Annoyance 640 4500 Sleep disturbance 60 1100 Cardiovascular disease 125 580

Secondly, because of the possible overlap between the three categories and the danger of double counting, only the largest category, dis-utility, is measured. Therefore the outcome, the Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) or Willingness-to-Accept (WTA) usually represents a lower economic estimate of noise impacts.

The majority of valuation studies on noise use hedonic pricing (HP). This methodology is based on work of Walters (1975) and Nelson (1980, 1982). HP is based on revealed preferences on the housing market. Changes in noise levels lead to changes in house prices, ceteris paribus as reflected in the Noise Sensitivity Depreciation Index (NSDI), which is the percentage change in the house price due to a 1 dB change in noise level. Two assumptions are crucial: (i) the consumer has a free choice of dwellings (given the often tight market for houses, this is very frequently not the case) and (ii) the consumer is well aware of all relevant information (which again is probably very often not the case: people may be aware of annoyance as a noise impact, but very seldom will they know about cardiovascular diseases caused by noise). The main strength of the method is that it is based on actual behavior. The main weaknesses are threefold: firstly the method is not apt to assess non-use value, secondly the method is sensitive to modeling assumptions (and related to this point the need for many data) and thirdly the method is sensitive to the housing market conditions (see Smith and Huang, 1993, for example). Bateman et al. (2001) used GIS to increase the number of independant variables in an existing HP study in Glasgow. They showed that the NSDI of 0.8, initially used, was more likely an indicator of all kinds of environmental impacts of road traffic (including, for example, visual (dis-)amenity, whereas 0.2 was more likely the NSDI expressing the isolated influence of noise. Table 1.2 shows NSDI-values found in different European HP-studies on road traffic. HP-studies on railroad traffic are few.

(13)

Table 1.2: European hedonic pricing studies on road traffic noise

Author Study area NSDI

Grue et al., 1997 Oslo 0.21- 0.54

Hammar, 1974 Stockholm 0.8 – 1.7

Iten and Maggi, 1990 Zürich 0.9

Pommerehne, 1988 Basel 1.26

Soguel, 1991 Neuchatel 0.91

Udo et al., 2006 Soest 1.7

Vainio, 1995 Helsinki 0.36

The second methodology often used is contingent valuation (CV). This stated- preference method is based ‘simply’ on asking people what their WTP is for a decrease in noise level (or their WTA for an increase in noise level). The main advantage of the method is its wide applicability (including assessing non-use values), especially in ex ante evaluations (where by nature there are no data based on revealed preferences). The main disadvantages are twofold: firstly, it is difficult to give respondents good insight into such a vague concept as ‘a reduction of the noise level of some dB’, secondly the method is prone to several forms of biases, for example ‘strategic behavior’ of respondents. Table 1.3 shows that the WTP for European CV studies ranges from 2 – 110 Euro per household per dB per year. In the absence of original figures, the Working Group on Health and Socio-Economic Aspects of EU-DG Environment (2003) advises an interim figure of 25 Euro per household per dB per year. If necessary, new Member States might correct this with their purchasing power parity – indices.

Table 1.3: European contingent valuation studies on road traffic noise

Author Study area WTP/hh/dB/year

2006 price level

Arsenio et al., 2000 Lisbon 55

Barreiro et al., 2000 Pamplona 2 – 3

Lambert et al., 2001 Rhone-region 8

Navrud, 1997 Norway 2

Navrud, 2000 Oslo 25-35

Pommerehne, 1988 Basel 110

Saelensminde and Hammar, 1994 Saelensminde, 1999

Oslo and Akershus 52-104

Soguel, 1993 Neuchatel 67-78

Vainio, 1995 Helsinki 7 – 10

Wibe, 1995 Sweden 31

No European CV studies on railroad noise are known to the author.

1.2 National noise policies

Noise policy is created (mainly) at European, national and local levels. The global level plays a role only as far as harmonisation of (test)methods is concerned. The

(14)

harmonisation of European noise standards and test methods is often based on regulations of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE). This thesis focusses on issues related to European and national noise policies. For this reason, this section will briefly describe national noise policies, taking Dutch noise policies as an example. Most issues in the Netherlands occur in other countries as well and are relevant for most European countries.

Noise policy in the Netherlands exists formally since the early 1980s, with objectives laid down in national policy plans. Current national noise objectives are described in the National Mobility Policy Plan and deal mainly with resolving hot spots along infrastructure under the authority of the national government (highways and railroads). For highways noise levels at these hot spots register above 65dB (at the façade) and 70 dB for railroads. It concerns about 10,000 dwellings along highways (Jabben et al., 2004) and many tens of thousands along railroads.

The judicial framework for noise policy is formed by the Law on Noise Annoyance, which came into force in the early 1980s. The law starts from the so-called stand-still principle: no new situations that cause noise annoyance should arise and existing situations causing annoyance should be dealt with. The law aims to protect public health by setting standards for desirable and for maximum noise levels (see Table 1.4). In many places the standards were already exceeded when the law came into force. The national and the local governments have joint responsibilities in solving the hot spots already existing when the law came in force.

Table 1.4: Simplified scheme of noise standards at the façade of dwellings along highways and railroads (standards in Lden)

Preferred level (dB) Threshold for sanitation (dB in 1986) Maximum dispensation level for new dwellings (dB) Maximum dispensation level for existing infrastructure (dB) Maximum dispemsation level for new infrastructure

(dB)

highway 48 60 53 68 58

railroad 55 65 68 71 68

In principle, preferred noise levels are meant to be realised after (re-)construction of a (rail)road. Nevertheless, in many cases this is only possible at considerable cost. A so called ‘efficiency-criterion’ is applied to decide if the costs of noise abatement measures to obtain these levels are outweighed by the benefits. In no case whatsoever should the maximum dispensation levels be exceeded.

The efficiency criterion is: n

(1) Σ (Lden, begin - Lden, end) x max[1;(0,039(Lden, begin + Lden, end) – 2.94)] i=1

(15)

where:

Lden, begin = noise level before (re)construction Lden, end = noisel level after (re)construction Lden, end > preferred level

1 …n = all dwellings where Lden, begin - Lden, eind > 5 dB

A noise abatement measure is efficient (and will therefore be implemented) if the total cost of the measure is less than 3000 euro x the outcome of equation (1).

Noise policy as described above has several disadvantages:

1. Assessment of the noise levels only occurs during (re-)construction allowing for a growth in noise levels without accompanying measures, as long as no reconstruction takes place.

2. Only noise levels are considered, whereas non-acoustical factors are known to play an important role as well.

3. Noise rules and regulations are complex, so specialists are needed to fully comprehend them. This is not in line with the Aarhus treaty (1998) and the EC-directives 2003/4/EC and 2003/35/EC that aim to provide citizens the right to environmental information and public participation in environmental decision-making.

4. The noise rules and regulations are not fair as they do not protect every citizen in objectively equal noise situations to the same degree. The maximum allowed noise level will depend on whether houses were built before or after 1987, if the road or houses was/were built first, whether houses are situated inside or outside designated noise zones around infrastructure, or if there is a reconstruction or not etc.

To overcome most of the disadvantages above, a new system of noise emission ceilings along highways and railroads is currently being considered by the Dutch Ministry of Evnvironment and Ministry of Transport. The bill did not pass Dutch parliament yet.

1.3 Aim and outline of the thesis

The main objective of this thesis is to provide a methodological contribution to the current assessment practice of road and railroad noise in European countries, taking the framework of Marchau and Walker as a starting point. What is the assessment practice in different European countries and do national differences matter? Applying current Dutch methodologies in practice, what are the weaknesses and what are the possibilities for improvement? Although the focus of this thesis is on the Dutch situation, the knowledge gained can be applied elsewhere as well. The thesis comprises four academic papers, each of which addresses a particular research question. All academic papers have been published in internationally refereed journals. As the papers were designed as independant publications, there is some overlap in the individual chapters. The research questions addressed in the papers are the following:

1. To what extent can international data on noise, often produced by using different national calculation methods, be compared? And what does it mean for (inter)national noise policy?

(16)

This research question relates to the outcomes of interest and is addressed in chapter 2. For the assessment of noise exposure in Europe, the recent directive, 2002/49/EC, relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, is particularly important. It prescribes noise calculation methods, noise indices and the manufacturing of strategic noise maps. However, as long as there is no uniform European noise calculation model, noise exposure assessments will still be made using the different national calculation methods. This chapter reviews the consequences of using different national calculation models for the assessment of noise exposure and culminates with recommendations for future noise policy.

2. What is the price of noise in various European countries? Are differences in price (partly) due to artefacts, like differences in the noise impacts considered or the monetisation methods used? Is there a gap between the theoretical valuation approaches and the practical application of those approaches?

These research questions relate to the valuation and are addressed in chapter 3. In many European countries, the impact of new road and railroad infrastructure is assessed by performing a cost-benefit analysis, monetising as many relevant effects as possible. Considering that noise is a major external effect of traffic, the focus of this chapter is on the guidelines for monetising noise in different European countries. The study shows where and how guidelines for monetisation of noise effects are applied in Europe, at least in theory. In the past, a number of researchers pointed at the gap between the theory and practice of valuation of environmental effects. Using recent cost-benefit analyses of major infrastructural projects in the Netherlands, the chapter focuses on how the theoretical concepts are applied in real practice.

3. When applying monetising methods, what are the costs and benefits of (possible) noise abatement measures in the Netherlands? What does the ex ante evaluation of those measures show for Dutch policy and what are the methodological weaknesses?

These research questions relate to the valuation as well and are addressed in chapter 4. The aim of the chapter is twofold: firstly, it is meant to contribute to an ongoing discussion on the desirability of implementing a set of noise control measures for road and rail traffic in the Netherlands. And secondly, it is intended to overview current issues in noise valuation and to come up with topics for a research agenda. One of these topics, the (unequal) distribution of noise amongst the population, is addressed in the next chapter.

4. Noise policy is often based on acoustic and economic considerations only. Yet, from the literature it is known that non-acoustical factors like noise sensitivity may play an important role in causing annoyance. Is sensitivity to road traffic noise a major factor in the process of moving and settling down? Does it lead to self-selection? And if so, what does it mean for noise policy?

Chapter 5 adresses these research questions, focusing on a possibly overlooked phenomenon in the traffic system itself. To date, very little research has focussed on a self-selection process due to noise sensitivity and road traffic noise. The research carried out in one suburb in the western part of the Netherlands and presented in this chapter is meant to contribute to filling that gap. The fact that the research is done in

(17)

one suburb only limits the external validity of the results. Chapters 2 – 5 are briefly described above. Chapter 6 summarises the selected research papers and returns to the research questions in drawing general conclusions. Results are then discussed and the implications for noise policy described. The chapter ends with pointers for further research.

References

Arsenio E., Bristow A.L., Wardman M. (2001), An innovative stated preference computer survey model for valuing noise impacts from road traffic. Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds.

Bagley M.N., Mokhtarian P. (2002), The impact of residential neigbourhood type on travel behaviour: a structural equations modelling approach, Annals of Regional Science 36 (2), 279 – 297.

Barreiro J., Sanchez M., Viladrich-Grau M. (2000), How much are people willing to pay for silence? A one and one-half-bound DC CV estimate, in Proceedings of Internoise 2000, Vol. 5, 3408-3412, Nice.

Bateman I.J., Day B., Lake I., Lovett A.A. (2001), the effect of Road Traffic on Residential Prpperty Values: A Literature Review and hedonic Pricing Study. Report to the Scottish Office, Development Department, Edinburgh, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich.

Bundesministerium der Justiz (1990), Sechzehnte Verordnung zur Durchführung des Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetzes (Verkehrslärmschutzverordnung - 16.

BImSchV), Berlin.

Cervero R., Duncan M. (2002), Benefits of Proximity to Rail on Housing Markets, Journal of Public Transportation (5) 1, 1-18.

Committee on Medical Cure and Care (1991), Report on choices in medical cure and care, Ministry of Welfare, Health and Culture, The Hague.

Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (1999), Noise and Nuisance Policy, Noise Climate Assessment:A Review of National and European Practices.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/noise/research/climate/nannexb.htm )

Der Schweizerische Bundesrat (1986), Lärmschutz-Verordnung vom 15. Dezember 1986 (LSV), Bern.

European Commission (1996) ‘Future noise policy, green paper’, European Commission, Brussels.

EU-DG Environment. Working Group on Socio-Economic Aspects and Health (2003), Valuation of noise, position paper, Brussels.

(18)

Geysen, W. (1993), Opening speech at Internoise 1993, Noise/News International, December Volume, 217.

Grue B., Langeland J.L., Larsen O.I. (1997), Housing Prices – impacts of exposure to road traffic and location, TØI report 351/1997, Oslo.

Hammar T. (1974), Trafikimmisionens inverkan på villapriser, Statens Vägverk, Vägförvaltningen i Stockholms län, Mimeo.

Hollander de A.E.M. (2004), Assessing and evaluating the health impact of environmental exposures, “Deaths, DALYs or Dollars?”, PhD Thesis, University of Utrecht.

Iten R. and Maggi R. (1990), The economic value of traffic noise abatement in an urban area: empirical evidence from a hedonic and discrete choice approach, paper presented to the Fifth World Conference on Transportation Research, Yokohama.

Jabben J., Nijland H., van Rijn F., Drenth J., Alberts W. (2004), Geluid en bronbeleid op rijkswegen, RIVM/MNP-DWW notitie, briefrapport 1049/04, Bilthoven.

Lambert J., Poisson F., Champlovier P. (2001), Valuing benefits of a road traffic noise abatement programme: a contingent valuation study, paper presented at 17th International Congress on Acoustics, Rome, september 2 –7 2001.

Marchau V.A.W.J, Walker W.E. (2005), “Adaptive Planning for Dealing With Uncertainty in Implementing Advanced Driver Assistance Systems”, Transportation Research Records, Transportation Research Record 1886, 2005, 101-108.

Navrud S. (1997), Luftforurensninger – effekter og verdier (LEVE). Betalingsvillighet for å unngå helseeffekter, stoy og forsuring, Report 97:14, National Pollution Control Authority, Oslo.

Navrud S. (2000), Economic benefits of a program to reduce transportation and community noise – a contingent valuation survey, Proceedings of Internoise, Nice. Navrud S.(2002), The State-of-the-Art on Economic Valuation of Noise, Final Report to European Commission, DG Environment, April 14th 2002, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Agricultural University of Norway, Oslo.

Nelson, J.P. (1980), Airports and property values: a survey of recent evidence, Journal of transport economics and policy, 14(1), 37-52.

Nelson, J.P. (1982), Highway noise and property values: a survey of recent evidence, Journal of transport economics and policy, 16(2), 117-138.

Pommerehne W.W. (1988), Measuring environmental benefits: Comparison of a hedonic technique and CVM, in Welfare and Efficiency in Public Economics, D. Bos, M. Rose and C. Seidl (eds.), Berlin.

Saelensminde K. (1999), Stated Choice Valuation of urban Traffic Pollution, Transportation Research Part D, 4, 13-27.

(19)

Saelensminde K., Hammer F. (1994), Verdsetting av miljØgoder ved bruk av samvalgsanalyse.HovedundesØkelse. TØI report 251/1994. Institute for Transport Economics (TØI), Oslo.

Schafer, R. M. (1994), The Soundscape, Destiny Books, Rochester, Vermont, USA Smith V.K.,Huang J.C.(1993), Hedonic models and air pollution. Twenty-five years and counting, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 3, 381 – 394.

Soguel N. (1991), Evaluation de cout social de bruit genere par le trafic routier en Ville de Neuchatel, IRER, WP No. 9105, Université de Neuchatel.

Udo J., Janssen L.H.J.M., Kruitwagen S. (2006), Stilte heeft zijn prijs, Economisch Statistische Berichten, 13-1, 14-16.

Vainio M. (1995), Traffic noise and air pollution: Valuation of Externalities with the hedonic price and contingent valuation methods, PhD Thesis, School of Economics and Business Administration, Helsinki.

Walters A.A. (1975), Noise and prices, Oxford University Press, London.

Wibe S. (1997), The demand for quiet dwellings, Report to Byggforskningsradet, Stockholm.

World Health Organization (1946), Constitution of the World Health Organization, New York. http://www.searo.who.int/LinkFiles/About_SEARO_const.pdf

(20)

(21)

13

2 Traffic noise in Europe; a comparison of

calculation methods, noise indices and noise

standards for road and railroad traffic in

Europe

This chapter is reprinted from Transport Reviews Vol. 25 (5), Nijland, H., G.P. van Wee (2005), Traffic Noise in Europe: A Comparison of Calculation Methods, Noise Indices and Noise Standards for Road and Railroad Traffic in Europe, 591-612

Abstract

As the international dimension of environmental laws and legislation is gaining in importance, it has become increasingly essential to compare and assess international data. Can international data on noise, often produced by using different national calculation methods, be compared? And what does it mean for (inter)national noise policy? This article will focus on international data on noise created by road and railroad traffic. Our research shows possible differences in the outcome of noise calculations using different national methodologies of up to 15 dB(A). Furthermore, national noise indices and noise standards differ considerably, making it even more difficult to compare data on noise exposure. Therefore, harmonisation of calculation methods and noise indices, as initiated by the European Commission, is a necessary first step.

Although noise standards are left to the Member States, an effective European noise policy would be enhanced if the same type of indices were used for both noise-level calculations and noise standards. Laeq-type indices are recommended in this regard. Although harmonising noise calculations and using the same kind of indices would make noise data more comparable, it would still not make Europe quieter. For that purpose noise measures, preferably at the source, are necessary. The EC in Brussels plays a major role in introducing these noise measures. Reduction of tyre noise by

(22)

tightening emission limits is the most promising option. This may be supported at the national level by applying silent pavements. Integrating noise into spatial planning is the most cost-effective option at the local level.

2.1 Introduction

Noise is an environmental problem that has adverse effects on the daily life of many people. It has been estimated that around 20% of the European Union's population, close on 80 million people, suffer from noise levels by which most people become annoyed, sleep is disturbed and adverse health effects are to be feared. 1 Scientists and health experts consider these levels to be unacceptable. The European Court of Human Rights (2001) considers sleep to be a human right under Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms(Council of Europe, 1950). An additional 170 million people are living in so-called 'grey areas', where the noise levels are high enough to cause serious annoyance during the daytime (European Commission, 1996). Traffic, especially road traffic, is the main cause of noise. The overall external costs of road- and rail-traffic noise have been estimated at some 0.4 % of the GDP (ECMT, 1998). These figures are nevertheless merely indicative. According to the European Environmental Agency (EEA, 2000), the present differences in methodologies preclude comparison of the noise situations between member states. To overcome these methodological differences, the European Commission has issued a directive on environmental noise (European Commission, 2002). This directive aims, for example, to harmonise noise indices and noise calculation methods across the member states. The directive prescribes interim methods for the calculation of traffic and industrial noise. However, existing national methods of individual member states remain valid, as long as their output does not differ significantly from the interim methods. The development of a new noise calculation method for all noise sources has also been announced (see Harmonoise- Harmonised Accurate and Reliable Methods for the EU Directive on the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise, http:// www.harmonoise.org). The development and official implementation of this method through national laws may, however, still take many years. In the meantime, the noise loads in different member states will be compared, mainly on the basis of assessments using national noise calculation models. The European Commission Directive did not deal with noise standards, as national noise standards are regarded as a matter of subsidiarity and are therefore left to the individual member states.

Nowadays, society is more and more internationally orientated, applying ever more international rules and regulations, of which the before mentioned EU directive on environmental noise is an example. At the moment, 80 % of Dutch environmental law and legislation originates in Brussels (RIVM, 2002). As the international dimension gains importance, it will be increasingly paramount to compare and assess international noise loads in Europe. Here we will focus on the following. Can international data on noise, often produced by using different national calculation methods, be compared? And what does it mean for (inter)national noise policy? Our research is limited to the noise of road and railroad traffic. Sections 2.2 and 2.3 describe the adverse effects of noise exposure on health, and the magnitude of noise exposure in Europe. The

1_{Health effects are influenced by acoustical as well as non-acoustical factors (see also section 4). Main acoustical factor is}

(23)

conceptual model presented in section 2.4 poses the question of which factors influence the emission of noise and which factors influence the adverse effects of noise. Section 2.5 deals with current noise policy and its application to the conceptual model of the previous section, while section 2.6 presents different noise calculation methods and the consequences of differences between these methods for a European noise exposure assessment. Finally, section 2.7 draws conclusions and discusses implications for noise policy.

2.2 Health effects of noise exposure

Table 2.1 shows, as an example, some different noise levels in typical sitations. Table 2.1: Noise levels in some typical situations

Source: http://www.home.wanadoo.nlellywaterman/geluid/faq_geluid2.htm#term

dB(A) Typical situation

10 Just audible Falling leaf

30 Very quiet Library

40 Quiet Quiet neighbourhood

50 Light traffic at 30 m.

70 Interfering with speech Traffic on motorway

80 Annoying Heavy traffic at 15 m.

90 Very annoying, hearing

damage after 8 h.

Bulldozer at 15 m.

110 Extremely loud Rock concert

Table 2.2 shows all the possible health effects in relation to their scientific status and their respective threshold levels for exposure (Dutch Health Council, 1994, 1997). Not all effects are well understood, neither is there scientific consensus on the relationship between effects and noise exposure in all cases. The table shows some effects to already occur at low levels (e.g. annoyance, sleep disturbance) while others (e.g. hearing impairment, ischaemic heart diseases) only occur at relatively high levels above 70 dB(A). Noise policy usually concentrates on prevention and/or reduction of annoyance. If serious annoyance is reduced to acceptable proportions, the contribution of noise to other important effects like cardiovascular disease and blood pressure will probably be avoided (Pont, 1997).

(24)

Table 2.2: Health effects in relation to their scientific status and respective threshold levels for exposure

Source: Dutch Health Council , Noise and Health, September 1994

*) Adjusted according to Advice of Dutch Health Councilof 1997; was formerly 60 Noise exposure threshold level

Situation Noise index Value in dB(A) Inside/outside

Enough scientific evidence

- Hearing impairment work LAeq,8hr 75 Inside

sport LAeq,24hr 70 Inside

- Blood pressure work LAeq,8hr <85 Inside

home LAeq,6-22hr 70 Outside

- Ischaemic heart diseases home LAeq,6-22hr 70 Outside

-Annoyance home Ldn 42 Outside

- Awakening sleep SEL 55*) Inside

- Sleep sleep SEL 35 Inside

- Self-reported quality of sleep sleep LAeq,night 40 Outside

- performance at school school LAeq,day 70 Outside

Limited scientific evidence

- Weight at birth - Immune system - Psychiatric disorder

Inadequate scientific evidence

- Congenital defects

2.3 Noise exposure in different European countries

The EEA (2000) reports on annoyance as being an adverse effect of traffic noise and states that comparable European national data for annoyance due to methodological inconsistencies is not available. It is with the utmost care that EEA has stated that 6 % and 1 % of the European population is severely annoyed by road traffic and rail traffic noise respectively. Figure 2.1 represents the percentage of inhabitants per country exposed to road traffic noise above 65 dB(A) daily, as reported by OECD (1999). The figure shows remarkable differences between countries. The European Commission (1996), however, states the data available on noise exposure to be generally poor in comparison to data collected for measuring other environmental problems. These data are also often difficult to compare due to the different measurement and assessment methods. The data on noise exposure, as presented here, were calculated at national level using national calculation methods. In the light of the remarks of the European Commission, it would seem worthwhile to further investigate the nature of the differences in assessment methods; this will come up in section 4.

(25)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Austria Belgium Denmark Finland Western Germany Great Britain Greece Netherlands Norway Portugal Spain Sweden

Figure 2.1: percentage of the population exposed to road traffic noise above 65 dB(A) (Source:OECD environmental data, compendium 1999)

2.4 A conceptual noise model

Exposure to noise, in combination with non-acoustical factors, determines the effects of noise on the health and well-being of humans. Two important non-acoustical factors are sensitivity to noise and fear of the source (Fields, 1993, Miedema and Vos, 1999). The effects of noise exposure are usually more severe, ceteris paribus, during the night than during the day. Figure 2.2 presents a schematic overview of factors leading to (adverse) effects of noise.

(26)

Figure 2.2: Factors causing adverse effects of noise

The noise exposure levels mentioned in table 2.2 are caused by noise emissions occurring at a certain distance from the receiver in a certain spatial setting. Enlarging the distance between source and receiver leads to lower noise exposure. Obstacles on the transmission path result in lower noise exposure as well. Lower emissions lead to lower exposure. The level of emission, in turn, depends on factors like traffic volume, traffic speed and technical characteristics of vehicles and (rail)roads. A doubling of traffic intensities leads to a 3 dB(A) higher emission.2 An increase in speed leads to higher emissions as well. The amount of increase depends on the type of vehicle and the type of (rail)road. Figures 2.3 and 2.4 show typical speed-dependant noise emission curves for different types of trains. They also show different kinds of trains to have different noise emissions (at the same speed), and so noise emissions are due to different technical characteristics of the vehicle.

2_{Although physically speaking a rise of 3 dB(A) represents a doubling of the sound pressure, it is hardly audible to the}

(27)

6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 S p e e d (k m /h ) d B (A ) S -B a h n T G V IC E T R A N S R A P ID 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 0 S -B a h n T G V IC E T R A N S R A P ID

Figure 2.3: Speed-dependant noise emissions of different types of trains , distance 25 meters (source: www.mvp.de)

The acoustical characteristics of the elements of the conceptual phramework of figure 2.2 are used in noise abatement measures and are therefore discussed in the next paragraphs on noise policy.

2.5 Noise policy

Noise policy aims at preventing and reducing the negative effects of noise. Source measures that reduce emission levels (inter)nationally are preferred to measures like insulation since, in general, they are more cost-effective (Nijland, van Kempen, van Wee, Jabben, 2003). However, depending on the situation at the local level, screening or insulation may very well be the only remaining and/or most cost-effective option. The most cost-effective measures in a given situation are usually a mix of measures at the source and at the receiver. Oertli (2000) states the optimal mix of noise abatement measures to be dependant on the available financial resources. In his Swiss case study, the optimal mix consists for 65 % of the available budget for source measures, 30 % for noise-control barriers and 5 % for window insulation. Research by Lenders and Hecq (2002) on the cost-effectiveness of noise abatement measures for railways suggests that, in general, measures on rolling stock are more cost-effective than measures on tracks, but again, the optimum is probably to be found in a combination of the two types of measures.

Environmental impact of transport depends on a number of determinants. The first is the overall volume of transport, expressed as passenger kilometres (persons) or tonne kilometres (goods). The second category is the modal split (for passengers, this is the car driver, car passenger, train, bus/tram/underground, aircraft, ship, bicycle or walking), while the third is the technology used. A fourth category is the efficiency of using vehicles (for lorries this is the load factor, and for cars, trains and buses it is the occupancy rate). The fifth is the way in which vehicles are used (speed, acceleration, deceleration). Governments have several types of policy instruments to influence these determinants: regulations, prices, land-use planning, infrastructure planning, marketing

(28)

and providing information, and organisation. Table 2.3 shows the relationship between the type of instrument and the determinants (Blok and Van Wee , 1994).

Table 2.3: Dominant relationships between determinants for environmental impact of transport and policy instruments (Source: Blok and Van Wee, 1994)

Volume Modal

split

Technology Use of vehicles/ efficiency Behaviour Restrictions * * * * * Prices * * * * * Land-use planning * * * * Marketing * Information and * * Infrastructure * * * *

Policy is made at different levels: international, national, regional and local. The international dimension is gaining importance. European noise policy for road and railroad transport has already been implemented for setting emission limits, mapping the noise loads of major infrastructural networks and for setting standards for noise indices and noise calculation methods. Setting standards for maximum noise exposure is (still) a matter for the individual member states.

Figure 2.2 presents a schematic overview of factors leading to (adverse) effects of noise. We will use the figure in this section to show how these factors are influenced by policy measures on different administrative levels.

2.5.1 Policy aimed at reducing traffic volume

Verhoef (1994) discerns different kinds of adverse impacts of transport:

1. Impacts resulting from actual transport activities (congestion, accidents, noise, air, water and soil pollution).

2. Impacts caused by vehicles when not in motion (use of public space, pollution caused by production and disposal of vehicles).

3. Impacts related to the existence of infrastructure (barrier effects on communities, visual annoyance, effects on ecosystems).

Volume-reducing measures reduce the undesired impacts in all three categories, but especially in the first one. As noise is (but) one of the aspects, it is not usually the sole reason to reduce traffic volume. Volume-reducing measures typically interact with spatial planning (car-free zones, park and ride facilities etc.). Financial instruments are often applied to reduce and control volumes on specific routes (road-pricing) or to encourage modal shift (taxing).

2.5.2 Policy aimed at reducing speed

Speed reduction reduces noise emission (see figures 3 and 4) as well as the emission of polluting substances (e.g. NOx, SO2 and particulate matter) and enhances safety; for this reason, it is aimed at Verhoef’s first category of impacts, of which noise is one. The administrative body (local, regional or national) that manages the road usually initiates measures to limit speed. Table 2.4 shows the speed limits for different kinds of roads in

(29)

different European countries. Speed limits on urban roads hardly differ among countries, whereas speed limits on other roads and motorways may differ up to 20 km/h, which comes to a difference in noise emissions of about 2 dB(A).

Table 2. 4: Maximum speed on the different roads

(Source:http://europa.eu.int/abc/travel/driving/index_en.htm) Urban _roads (1) Other roads (1) Motorways (1) Austria 50 km/h 100 km/h 130 km/h Belgium 50 km/h 90 km/h 120 km/h Germany 50 km/h 100 km/h 130 km/h (2) Denmark 50 km/h 80 km/h 130 km/h Spain 50 km/h 90 km/h 120 km/h France 50 km/h 90 km/h 130 km/h Finland 50 km/h 80 km/h 120 km/h United Kingdom 48 km/h _{30 miles/h} 96 km/h _{60 miles/h} 112 km/h _{70 miles/h} Greece 50 km/h 110 km/h 120 km/h Italy 50 km/h 90 km/h 130 or 150 km/h Ireland 48 km/h 30 miles/h 96 km/h 60 miles/h 112 km/h 70 miles/h Luxembourg 50 km/h 90 km/h 120 km/h The Netherlands 50 km/h 90 km/h 120 km/h Portugal 50 km/h 100 km/h 120 km/h Sweden 50 km/h 90 km/h 110 km/h

(1) Maximum speed limits for cars in km/h, general rule

(2) In Germany there is no general speed limit on motorways, but 130 km/h is recommended (more than half the network has a speed limit of 120 km/h or less).

2.5.3 Policy aimed at improving technical aspects of cars and trains

Measures to ensure reduction of noise emissions by cars and trains via technical improvements are taken in a typically international context. The EU issued an initial directive on maximum noise emission levels of cars during type approval conditions in 1970; the emission standards have been tightened up several times since. Table 2.5 shows the prevailing noise emission limits for different types of vehicles since the introduction of noise limits.

(30)

Table 2.5: EU noise emission limits in dB(A) for passenger cars and heavy lorries from 1970 to 1996 (Source: Sandberg, 2001)

Year Passenger car Heavy vehicle >150 kW

1970 82 91

1981 80 88

1989 77 84

1996 74 80

From the table, it is clear that emission limits have been tightened from 8 dB(A) for passenger cars to 11 dB(A) for heavy lorries. Nevertheless, in the past 30 years, zero emission reduction for passenger cars (Van der Toorn, van den Dool and de Roo, 1997; Van der Toorn and Van Vliet, 2000; Sandberg, 2001) and 3 – 4 dB(A) reduction for heavy lorries (van der Toorn, van den Dool and de Roo, 1997, 2000, Sandberg, 2001) have been achieved in real driving conditions. This is due to (i) the driving conditions during test approval hardly occurring in real traffic, (ii) the test conditions having been changed a number of times over the years, which implied tightening the limits of 2-4 dB(A) for heavy vehicles and slackening the limits 1- 2 dB(A) for most passenger cars (Sandberg, 2001) and (iii) the tyres not being included in the test, while at a speed above 40 km/h, the noise of tyre/road contact noise becomes dominant (de Graaff, 1997). At the same time, there is a trend to equipping passenger cars with wider (i.e. usually louder) tyres (Kortbeek, van Blokland and de Graaff, 2000).

This led to the approval by the European Parliament in June 2001 of an amendment (Directive 2001/43/EC, European Commission, 2001) to the existing tyre directive (Directive 92/23/EEC: OJ L 129, 14.5.1992) on width-dependant tyre noise emission limits for new tyres (type approval). The current limit values in table 2.6 are not very restrictive; values for possible tightening-up in the future also are presented (Sandberg, 2001).

(31)

Table 2.6: EU directive on tyre noise emissions and possible future tightening-up (Source: Sandberg, 2001)

Type of tyre, width in

mm Limit value in dB(A) 1st tightening in dB(A) (2007-2009) 2nd tightening in dB(A) Passenger cars < 145 72 71 70 >145 < 165 73 72 71 >165 < 185 74 73 72 >185 < 215 75 74 74 > 215 76 75 75 Light lorries Normal 75 Snow 77 Special 78 Heavy lorries 76 78 79

Contrary to road traffic, where emission standards have existed since the early 1970s, such emissions standards for trains only came out in 2001, when EU Directive 96/48/EC concerning the inter-operability of high-speed trains was implemented. One of the technical specifications for inter-operability concerns noise emission. An EU directive for international passenger trains is in preparation.

2.5.4 Policy aimed at improving technical aspects of roads and

railroads

Acoustical properties of roads and railroads may differ considerably (up to 10 dB(A); CROW, 1999), depending on the material used, the construction and the wear and tear of the (rail)road. In recent years, a lot of new, ‘silent pavements’ have been developed. Table 2.7 shows speed-dependant correction factors (in dB(A)) according to the Dutch calculation method (Ministerie van VROM, 2002) for passenger cars on two types of pavement, one noisy and one silent. Policy aimed at applying silent pavement may be cost-effective compared to the costs needed for barrier walls (RIVM, 2000). Silent pavement is most commonly implemented at the road administration level (national, regional or local).

Table 2.7: Speed-dependant correction factors (in dB(A)) for passenger cars for two different types of pavements, silent (two layered) and ‘noisy’ (asphalt with surface treatment, according to Dutch calculation method 2 ( Source: CROW, 1999)

Km/h 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

Two-layered asphalt 4/8-11/16

-3.1 -3.7 -4.2 -4.6 -4.9 -5.2 -5.5 -5.7

-6 .2 Asphalt with surface

treatment

(32)

Noise from trains travelling between 40 km/h and 250 km/h is caused mainly by the wheels driving over the rails. Roughness (of rail and wheel) causes noise. Locally higher rail roughness, caused by intensive traffic, may locally cause a rise of the noise emission of up to 5 dB(A) (Van Beek, 2000). One of the options to reduce noise emissions is therefore regular polishing of the rails. A second effective option is the sound dampening of wheels.

2.5.5 Spatial planning

Spatial planning is a policy process that can be defined in many different ways. Schmidt (2002) describes the goal of spatial planning as ‘the provision of preconditions for the spatial allocation of the life functions of living, work, education, supply and disposal in order to maximize the well-being of the society.’ Spatial planning is usually applied to local, regional and national levels, but not (yet) to international level. In the context of noise, spatial planning is a process that aims to (spatially) separate noise sources from noise receivers. A doubling of the distance reduces the noise load at the receiver point by 4 - 5 dB(A). In most countries, a distinction is made between existing and ‘new’ situations. The most stringent noise standards usually apply to new situations, where infrastructure is planned near existing dwellings or vice versa, where new dwellings are planned near existing infrastructure.

2.5.6 Time-management policy

Some of the adverse effects of noise (e.g. sleep disturbance, annoyance) are time-dependant. Therefore many countries have more stringent evening and night standards (typically 5 dB(A) and 10 dB(A) lower respectively; see tables 2.8 and 2.9). Transport modalities in which capacity management exists (e.g. rail and air traffic) and in which noise may be a limiting factor for the total transport volume, often try to handle the majority of traffic during daytime. Time-dependant road-pricing is one way to influence road traffic volumes during noise-sensitive periods. Limited delivery times, as applied in the distribution of goods in many (Dutch) inner cities, usually only allow delivery of goods in the morning hours (7.00 – 11.00) (Crum and Vossen, 2000), therefore limiting the noise at night.

2.5.7 Policy on noise exposure

Most European countries have national noise exposure standards to protect their citizens against the harmful effects of noise as described in table 2.2. These standards usually function as important judicial examination criteria during the (re)construction of (rail)roads and/or during the planning of residential areas. Tables 2.8 and 2.9 present, in a simplified way, the national standards for different European countries for road and railroad traffic. From the tables it is clear that standards differ among countries. It is also clear that the level of applying standards depends on the period (day, evening or night), the situation (existing or new, noise-sensitive area or not) and the mode of transport (train or car). Typically, but not always the case, night standards are 10 dB(A) lower than day standards. The most stringent standards apply to new situations. Furthermore, a distinction is often made between limit values and target values.

The system of diverse noise standards is therefore quite different from the uniform standards that are applicable to other traffic-related emissions, like NOx or PM10 .

(33)

Table 2.8: European noise indices and national exposure standards for road traffic (simplified) (Source: Gottlob, 1995: Flindell & MacKenzie, 2000)

Index

Free-field(FF) or façade (F)

Type of exposure value Day Evening Night Austria Laeq FF Target value new roads 50-55

6.00-22.00

40-45 22.00-6.00

Limit value for new federal

roads 60 6.00-22.00 50 22.00-6.00

Measures required on federal

roads 65 6.00-22.00 55 22.00-6.00

Denmark Laeq, 24 h FF Target value for new roads and neighbourhoods

55 55 55

Germany Laeq FF Target value for new

neighbourhoods 50-55 6.00-22.00 40-45 22.00-6.00 Limit value for roads under

(re)construction 59 6.00-22.00 49 22.00-6.00 Measures required on federal

roads

70 6.00-22.00

60 22.00-6.00 Great Britain Laeq FF Target value for new

dwellings 55 7.00-23.00 42 23.00-7.00 Limit value for new

dwellings 63 7.00-23.00 57 23.00-7.00 L10, 18 h F Measures required on new

roads

68 6.00-24.00 France Laeq F Limit value for new roads 60-65

6.00-22.00 55-57 22.00-6.00 Ireland L10 F Limit value for new roads 65-68

6.00-24.00 Netherlands Laeq FF Limit value for new roads 55

7.00-19.00

45 23.00-7.00 Portugal L50 ? Limit value for new roads 65

7.00-22.00 55 22.00-7.00 Spain Laeq F Limit value for new roads 60

7.00-22.00 50 22.00-7.00 Limit value for existing

roads

65 7.00-22.00

55 22.00-7.00 Sweden Laeq, 24 h FF Target value for new roads 55 55 55 Switzerlnd Laeq Target value for new roads 55

6.00-22.00 45 22.00-6.00 Limit value for dwellings 60

6.00-22.00

50 22.00-6.00

Clearance value 70

(34)

Table 2.9: European noise indices and national exposure standards for railroad traffic (simplified) (Source: Gottlob, 1995: Flindell & MacKenzie, 2000)

Index Free-field(FF)

or façade (F) Type of exposure value Day Evening Night Austria Laeq-5 FF Target value new

railroads 55 6.00-22.00 55 22.00-6.00 Denmark Laeq, 24 h

+ Lmax

FF Target value 60 60

Germany Laeq -5 FF Target value 55

6.00-22.00 45 22.00-6.00 Tail wind conditions, effect 1 - 2, dB(A), higher values in urban areas Limit value 64 6.00-22.00 54 22.00-6.00 Idem Great Britain

Laeq FF Target value 68

7.00-23.00

63 23.00-7.00 Limit value 68

6.00-24.00 63 24.00-6.00 London has different regulations France Laeq 12h F Target value 60

8.00-20.00 Laeq 12 h Limit value 65

8.00-20.00 Netherlands Laeq FF Target value 57

7.00-19.00 52 19.00-23.00 47 23.00-7.00

Laeq Limit value 70

7.00-19.00 65 19.00-23.00 60 23.00-7.00 Sweden Laeq, 24 h FF Target value 55

Switzerlnd Laeq-5 Target value 50

6.00-22.00 40 22.00-6.00 Higher values in urban areas, extra correction: –5 db(A) for >79 trains

Limit value 55

6.00-22.00 45 22.00-6.00 Higher values in urban areas, extra correction: –5 db(A) for >79 trains

Noise from trains is usually perceived as less annoying than noise of equal loudness from cars (Miedema and Oudshoorn, 2001). The difference equals an effect of approximately 5 dB(A). This effect is either incorporated in the standards (i.e. higher standards for railroad noise) or in the calculation of noise exposure (Germany, Austria and Switzerland have a so-called ‘Schienenbonus’, a reduction of the calculated noise immission of 5 dB(A)). Some standards are measured as so-called ‘free-field’ values, some as ‘façade values’. Where the same value applies, the façade-type standard is up to 3 dB(A) stricter than the free-field type standard. Belgium, Luxembourg and Finland have no noise limits, just guidelines.

(35)

2.5.8 Policy on non-acoustical factors

It is estimated that about one third of the individual variety of responses to noise can be explained by acoustical factors, one third by non-acoustical factors and that one third is unexplained. The main factors are fear of the source, sensitivity to noise and the possibility of controlling the noise (Fields, 1993). Policy concentrates on the acoustical factors, whereas examples of policy measures aimed at influencing the non-acoustical-factors are scarce (Stallen, 2001). Flindell and Witter (1999) discuss the example of Heathrow Airport. To reduce annoyance, a scheme was developed to use the runways alternately. People living in the neighbourhood of the airport could participate in the design of the timetable for the different runways. In this way, the noise loads became predictable, inducing a feeling of control and thereby influencing one of the main acoustical factors, the feeling of controlling the noise. Informing neighbours of a party (or inviting them, maybe assuming they won’t attend anyway) is aimed at predictability and thus at enlarging the feeling of control. Even if they are invited but don’t attend, the neighbours will probably not feel as annoyed by the noise as they would otherwise.

2.6 European national noise assessment methods

Noise standards usually deal with either noise emissions or noise exposure. The former type is issued at European level (see tables 2.5 and 2.6); the latter is usually a national standard (see tables 2.8 and 2.9). Noise exposure is more often calculated than

measured. As long as there still is no harmonised European model (see section 1), calculations are done using national noise calculation methods. Most methods calculate the total noise exposure during a certain period (LAeq-type); however, some calculate the noise level exceeded during a certain percentage of time (e.g. LA10, LA50). All methods calculate the noise exposure at a certain place for a certain time by first calculating the emission at the source. In calculating the transmission of noise to the receiver, the models take into account attenuation by distance, and ground, air and noise barriers. Sometimes, corrections are made for reflection or meteorological conditions. In the equation:

LA = EA – Dgeo – Datm – Dground – Dscreen + Crefl + Cmeteo Where

LA = A-weighted (i.e. corrected for the sensitivity of the human ear) noise exposure value at the receiver point

EA = A-weighted emission of the source Dgeo = attenuation by distance

Datm = attenuation by atmosphere Dground = attenuation by the ground Dscreen = attenuation by noise barriers Crefl = correction for reflection

Cmeteo = correction for meteorological conditions

Calculating the same standard traffic situation using different national methods yields different outcomes. Differences in the outcome of calculation methods may be due to (i) real existing differences due to different conditions or different types of vehicles or (rail)roads in the respective countries or (ii) differences in parameters used, which do not reflect existing differences.

(36)

The first type of difference is illustrated by Dittrich (2000), who measured the noise emission of different types of freight wagons in four different countries at different speed. In all cases, the block-braked type of freight wagon (Hopper St. Block in figure 2.4) made more noise than the disc-braked type (Container Disc in figure 2.4). Yet, looking at the noise emission of the same type of freight wagon in different countries, Dittrich measured differences ranging from 0 – 3 dB(A), depending on the country, the type of wagon and the speed (see Figure 2.4). These differences can only be explained by differences in the construction of the rails in the various countries. Van Leeuwen and Ouwerkerk (1997b) compared different national noise calculation methods. These are the French method (Ministère de l’environnement et du cadre de vie et Ministère des Transports Direction générale des transports intérieurs, 1980), the Swiss method (Bundesamt für Umwelt, Walt und Landschaft und Bundesamt für Verkehr, 1990), the British method (Department of Transport, 1995), the German method (Deutsche Bundesbahn, 1990), the Austrian method (ŐNORM, 1995) and the Dutch method (Ministerie van VROM, 1997). They found differences of up to 3.6 dB(A) for the noise emission by freight wagons, falling in line with the findings of Dittrich. The differences found for passenger trains were larger (up to 9 dB(A)). Yet, this too might (partially) reflect real existing differences.

Pass-by noise level LpAeq dB(A)

70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Container Disc Flat Sinter Hopper St.Block Container Disc Flat Sinter Hopper St.Block Container Disc Flat Sinter

Austria NL Italy France

80 km/h 100 km/h 140 km/h

Figure 2.4: Measured noise level of different types of freight wagons in 4 countries at 80 km/h, 100 km/h and 140 km/h (Dittrich, 2000).

Various researchers focused on the second type of difference, the methodological artefacts. Van Leeuwen (1997b) found that the screening attenuation used in different European railway noise models differed up to 9 dB(A), which can only be due to methodological inconsistencies. A remarkable difference, though not necessarily completely an artefact, is the correction for wooden vs. concrete sleepers. Only the Dutch and the German calculation methods differentiate between these two types. The Dutch method considers the concrete sleepers to be 2 dB(A) more silent than the wooden ones, whereas in Germany it is the other way around.

A recent measurement campaign by the Umwelt Bundes Amt (UBA) comprising 13,000 train passages of 365 different spots showed noise emissions on wooden sleepers to be 2

Theory and practice of the assessment and valuation of noise from roads and railroads in Europe

Theory and Practice of the Assessment and

Valuation of Noise from Roads and Railroads

in Europe

Theory and Practice of the Assessment and

Valuation of Noise from Roads and Railroads

in Europe

Voorwoord

Contents

1 Introduction

1.1 Noise valuation

1.2 National noise policies

1.3 Aim and outline of the thesis

References

2 Traffic noise in Europe; a comparison of

calculation methods, noise indices and noise

standards for road and railroad traffic in

Europe

Abstract

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Health effects of noise exposure

2.3 Noise exposure in different European countries

2.4 A conceptual noise model

2.5 Noise policy

2.5.1 Policy aimed at reducing traffic volume

2.5.2 Policy aimed at reducing speed

2.5.3 Policy aimed at improving technical aspects of cars and trains

2.5.4 Policy aimed at improving technical aspects of roads and

railroads

2.5.5 Spatial planning

2.5.6 Time-management policy

2.5.7 Policy on noise exposure

2.5.8 Policy on non-acoustical factors

2.6 European national noise assessment methods