Printer friendly view [1]
[2]
Transport noise overview
Noise homepage [3]
Contents:
- Introduction [4]
- Quality of life [5]
- Health impacts of
traffic noise
- What does noise cost? [6]
- Noise is
preventable
- Current
noise regulations are failing
- Source
measures: effective and value for money
- References [7]
Introduction
Noise is more than just a nuisance: In Europe, around 40% of the
population is estimated to be exposed to noise levels that are
potentially dangerous to health. At least 170 million Europeans (EU-15
figures) are seriously annoyed by noise in their residential areas[1].
Noise is defined as unwanted sound
and is perceived as a pollutant and an environmental stressor. In
contrast to many other environmental problems, noise pollution
continues to increase. Traffic noise from roads, airports and railways
is the most widespread source and increasingly recognized as a key
environmental cause of physical and mental health impacts. Recent
research has demonstrated the health dangers and social costs and
investigated prevention and remediation measures.
Factbox:
find out more about measuring
noise
Quality of life
Noise levels in residential areas are crucial to wellbeing. House
prices are the clearest indication of the value that citizens place on
quietness. Surveys have shown that the desire for a quiet area is
consistently amongst the top considerations for homebuyers. Noise
levels can affect house prices by up to 12% according to a real estate
prices study [2] [8].
Health
impacts of traffic noise
Noise is recognised as a serious threat to public health by the World
Health Organisation[3] [9]. Noise is
also one of the most widespread health threats due to the variety of
sources, from traffic, industry, workplaces and neighbourhoods. Noise
has been identified in Dutch and Flemish studies as the second most
important environmental cause of loss of healthy years of life: Noise
is more dangerous than both passive smoking and NOx pollution [4,5]. Traffic noise from roads,
railways and aircraft is the most widespread source.
The central objective of noise policy must be to minimize the negative
impacts of traffic noise on public health. The WHO recommends maximum
average levels of 55dB(A) during the daytime and 45dB(A) at night to
meet this objective [6] [10].
In depth:
find out more about transport noise
and health
What does noise
cost?
The total cost of noise includes directly attributable costs, such as
the costs of constructing noise barriers, installing insulation, and
negative effects on property prices, but must also take into account
the wider impacts. Other noise-related costs include healthcare costs
paid by health services, insurance or individuals, the costs of lost
productivity (including sick leave) to the employer, the cost of lost
leisure time to the individual, and other costs including reduced
enjoyment of leisure and relaxation activities, discomfort, anxiety and
inconvenience [7] [11].
Many studies have attempted to put a value on the costs of noise,
measuring the costs of illness, and/or the willingness of people to pay
to avoid noise, which can be seen for example by comparing prices of
equivalent houses in noisy and quiet areas. Studies in Denmark have
estimated that the health costs of traffic noise alone are
€80-€450million per year [8] [12].
The costs to society of
noise exposure were estimated at €42 billion per year in the
EU-15 – which will have increased considerably since
enlargement [9] [13]. New studies are
underway which will put a value on the
social costs to the EU-27.
Reducing transport noise comes at vast expense to local, regional and
municipal authorities, and thus taxpayers, due to expenditure on noise
walls or barriers and noise insulation of buildings. Building
ever-higher noise walls is not only unsightly, the protection is
restricted to a very small area, and construction is also hugely costly
(estimated $1.5million per mile of noise barrier in the USA). Barrier
solutions do not give taxpayers value for money. Addressing the noise
at its source, i.e. on the vehicle, road surface or railway, is found
to be many times more cost effective, and the benefits will be heard
throughout the entire transport network [10] [14].
There is still a pressing need for better understanding of the benefits
of tackling traffic noise. The monetary benefits are harder to evaluate
than the costs as they are accrued to diverse groups of stakeholders,
including residents, drivers and other road users, rail passengers,
health services, local authorities and therefore taxpayers. It is clear
that a substantial reduction of traffic noise would reduce the burden
on public health, therefore reduce the number of sick days and ease the
strain on health services.
Noise is
preventable
The EU’s Sixth Environmental Action Programme sets the
objective of ‘substantially reducing the number of
people regularly affected by long-term average levels of noise, in
particular from traffic which, according to scientific studies, cause
detrimental effects on human health’ [11] [15].
To this end, EU
Directive 2002/49/EC – known as the Environmental Noise
Directive – aims to define a common approach to avoid,
prevent and reduce the harmful effects of noise across Europe. The
Directive includes an obligation to draw up noise maps and action plans
for agglomerations and transport infrastructures. According to the
Directive, it must be ensured that overall noise levels do not
increase. Quieter areas should not be lost due to wider distribution of
sources of noise [12] [16].
At a political level, traffic noise can be addressed in two ways:
- Legislation to reduce noise emissions from products and
services, in
particular motor vehicles and components, railway vehicles and
aircraft. Effective noise emissions limits should be a precondition for
product approval.
- Developing instruments to reduce noise, including transport
demand
management, a shift to quieter modes of transport and improved
sustainability requirements in transport planning.
Current
noise regulations are failing
Noise regulations have not been effective in reducing traffic noise to
date, which is demonstrated by the absence of any improvement in
traffic noise levels over the last 35 years of regulations! Whilst
increasingly noisy traffic is in part due to increased volume of
traffic and a trend towards heavier vehicles with more engine power,
blame also lies with the vehicle certification test which does not
reflect real world traffic situations and weak, ineffective noise
standards.
Source
measures: effective and value for money
If current trends continue, the conflict between transport and
residents will worsen due to space restrictions, environmental costs,
and the expense for noise barriers, insulations, re-routing traffic,
etc. Cost-efficient and more effective noise reduction measures are
already available: quieter vehicles and tyres are already on the
market, extensive research and development has led to production of
quieter road surfaces, and in the rail sector quieter brake blocks and
improved noise absorption equipment are already available.
In depth:
find out more about transport noise
sources and solutions
References
[1] Amundesen, Astrid and Klaeboe,
Ronny (2005): A Nordic perspective on noise reduction at the source,
Institute of Transport Economics (TOI), Oslo.
[2] Theebe, M. A. J. (March 2004)
“Planes, trains and automobiles: The impact of traffic noise
on house prices”, The Journal of Real Estate Finance and
Economics, Vol. 28, No. 2-3, Springer Netherlands.
[3] WHO Noise page
[4] RIVM (Dutch Institute for
Environment and Health) as quoted by European Commission, Working Group
Health and Socio-Economic Aspects of Noise (Van den Berg, M. et al)
Working
Paper on the Effectiveness of Noise Measures, p.7, July 2005
[5] Milieurapport Vlaanderen (MIRA),
State of the
Environment Report 2005, Flemish Environment Agency (VMM)
[6] WHO, Berglund, B., Lindvall, T.
and Schwela, D. H. (eds.) (2000) Guidelines for Community Noise, p.47,
WHO [17],
Geneva
[7] Navrud,
Ståle (2002): The State-Of-The-Art on Economic Valuation of
Noise: Final Report to European Commission DG Environment, Department
of Economics and Social Sciences, Agricultural University of Norway.
[8] Danish Road Institute, quoted in
FEHRL (2006/02), Guidance manual for the implementation of low-noise
road surfaces, SILVIA project report.
[9] Infras (2004): External costs of
transport (accidents, environmental and congestion costs) in western
Europe, Paris, Infras Zurich, IWW, University of Karlsruhe and
Infras/IWW (2000): External costs of transport — Update
study, Infras/IWW.
[10] UIC & CER: Oertli, J.
and Huebner, P. (July 2006), Rail
Freight Noise Abatement – A
report on the state of the art, p.6, Union International des Chemins de
Fer, Paris, France
[11] 6th
Environmental Action
Programme of the European Community 2002-2012, Article 7.1
[12] EU Environmental Noise
Directive: Directive
2002/49/EC, "Directive of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and
management of environmental noise", Official Journal of the European
Communities L 189, 12-25 (2002)
Links
[1] h
[2] h
[3] h
[4] h
[5] h
[6] h
[7] h
[8] h
[9] h
[10] h
[11] h
[12] h
[13] h
[14] h
[15] h
[16] h
[17] h
