EUROCITIES Position Paper on Urban Transport Noise

Mr Henk WolfertaCentre for Environmental Expertise, DCMR EPA, P.O. Box 843, 3100AV SCHIEDAM, TheNetherlandsFindings of the first round of Noise Mapping, according to the Environmental NoiseDirective 2002/49/EC, showed that traffic noise is the most dominant noise source. This wasalso found in the Noise Questionnaire set out by Working Group Noise EUROCITIES(WGN) in 2008. About 60 millions of the European citizens, living in agglomerations asmeant in the directive are exposed to noise levels higher than 55 dB LDEN resulting inannoyance and in other health effects. Due to these findings, WGN decided to set the battleagainst traffic noise as one of their main priorities. Therefore, numerous actions wereundertaken such as requests to the European Commission to strengthen the EmissionLimit Values of vehicles, lorries, motorized two and three wheelers and tires. Besides thecrusade against noisy vehicles WGN also provided the cities with information on BestPractices in order to tackle the noise. Promotion of quiet road pavements by means of aleaflet, a report with recommendations how to gain political interest for noise, etc. havebeen important products of WGN. WGN decided to bundle all recommendations, viewsand standpoints in one integral paper, called Position Paper on Urban Transport Noise.

a email: henk.wolfert@dcmr.nl

1 INTRODUCTION1.1 Aim of this paper

This paper gives an overview of the Position Paper on Urban Transport Noise that is draftedby EUROCITIES noise working group. The working area of this working group is Europe. Notonly EU27 but also outside EU27 like Turkey, Norway, Georgia, etc. Working Group Noise,abbreviated as WGN, is one of the numerous working groups of EUROCITIES. More aboutEUROCITIES is given in 1-3.1.2 Regarding cities

In these eras of urbanization and re-urbanization a high percentage of people is living inurban areas and their numbers will increase in the decades to come. Currently almost seventy

percent of the people are living in cities. Their share will grow to eighty percent in 20504 whichmeans that in 2050 the same amount of people is living in cities as now in the whole world,namely around 9 billion people. Increase of urban mobility can be expected.

2 MAIN FACTORS AFFECTING MOBILITYMany factors have influenced and are influencing mobility. Too much to report in this paper,

so the most important factors influencing mobility or better said transport are discussed below.Lifestyle, increasing fuel costs, environmental awareness, increasing incomes, etc. is notreported.

2.1 GlobalizationGlobalization, which could be defined as movement of people, goods, capital, culture, ideas,

technology between countries all over the world, has increased drastically last decades. It ispropelled by an increasingly trade and investments all over the world. This phenomena has existfor long times however, last decades this goes faster and faster due to new and improvedtechnologies and reducing barriers like geographical, physical, political and economicalboundaries. This globalization offers many benefits for people all over the world like increasedlife expectancy, better quality of life but it also let us some drawbacks. One of thesedisadvantages is that it leads to more transportation of people and goods. Most of thetransportation modes have detrimental effects on the environment like air pollution, CO2emissions leading to climate change and last but not least noise pollution. Most of the ports(seaports and airports) in the world are often close to cities and affect the acoustic climate inthose cities. Not only as a result of inbound and outbound transport but also due to thetransportation of the people or the goods to the hinterland that is passing through5.

2.2 UrbanizationFrom their earliest existence, around 3000 BC, when the first cities took shape, cities have

always been a magnet for people living elsewhere whether they live in rural areas on thecountryside or whether they live in deprived areas. Influx from migrants have shaped cities intowhat they currently are. The most important drivers for people to move to cities is theireconomical and desperate situation in their place of origin. What happened in early years inEurope, seeing peasants flowing to cities is now going on in large parts of Africa. The secondmovement, or better the first explosion of influx, in the late 18th and 19th century, at thebeginning of the industrial era, resulted in fast growing cities as e.g. Manchester, London andParis. Due to a better immunity and better nourishment ,resulting in lower death rates, cities inEurope started to grew faster than they ever did. The third movement started in the 20th centurydue to several factors such as economic, labor shortage, political and safety reasons, etc. and isstill going on. The changes from an agricultural, to an industrial and subsequently to aknowledge based economy has strengthening this influx. Policies to hold urban sprawl, due tothe suburbanization, are stimulating urbanization also. In general cities can be seen as attractive,energizing, vibrant, etc. offering their urbanites all the facilities and pleasures of modern life(cultural, entertainment, sport, recreation, education, etc.). Even wages, innovations per capitaare higher in urban areas. Creating and enlarging cities result in efficiency benefits. Cities gain15% in efficiency in infrastructure, energy, per doubling compared with the countryside6. From

an energy saving perspective mankind would be better off with large cities than sprawleddwellings or villages. However, there are also some drawbacks. These cities are confronted with15% more crime, aids per capita, poorer air quality, shortage on biodiversity and noise.

2.3 DemographicsDemographic, social and cultural factors are important determinants influencing mobility. It

is reported7 that 50% of the mobility growth is caused by demographic and social factors.Lifestyle, cultural values and norms determine to a major extent the choice of transportation, thetime and the motives for transportation. Other factors that affect mobility growth are welfare, carownership and improvement of the infrastructure, see figure 1. Demographic factors as smallerhouseholds, changes in commuting and influx of immigrants are also relevant. Due to thesefactors traffic grows, especially in urban areas. The most catching demographic, social andculture factors are, apart from the urbanization and globalization mentioned above,computerization, intensification and informalization of society. Computerization has led andleads to e-commerce, e-shopping, e-working, e-learning, e-conferencing, etc. which should savecar use. However, sometimes it increases because employees tend to work or live on largerdistances, parcels of Internet ordered goods are delivered on demand by means of small vehicles(vans). Realizing that e-shopping invites buyers to shop in numerous e-shops, which have theirown transport, more car movements will be made compared to physical shopping. From surveysreported on e-working it has been reported that e-workers make almost the same mileage asnormal workers however, its more spread over the day 8. Computerization makes it able tolevy electronically toll, electronically road control in order to smooth traffic flow and preventfrom traffic jams. Informalization could lead to lower thresholds of morality and behavior whichleads in turn to aggressive driving behavior on the roads in terms of speedy acceleration,spinning wheels, use of claxons, shouting drivers and passengers but also to clamoring bolidesproducing a lot of droning music. Changing behavior is an ultimate challenge, especially inyounger groups. The combination of computerization and informalization has led and will lead tovanishing borders between home and work. Overtime work has increased last years and has ledto intensification. It could lead to increased car use, especially when overtime is spent in theevening hours at work. Also the smart phone has accelerate this development. Individualizationleads to smaller households and more participation of women in labor which leads in turn tomore transport9. It was found that women, participating in labor tend to seek their leisure andrecreation activities outside instead inside their residences10. Intensification is the increase ofcombining task or activities. It leads, among other things, to more trips, often by car like drivingto school (bringing the kids) and subsequently driving to work. After work driving for shoppingto buy food and drinks and subsequently fetching the kids from school bringing them at homeand in the evening, after diner driving to sports of other social events. This phenomena is calledjourney chains. Due to the many activities to be done in the remaining 8 hours (assuming thatone needs 8 hours of sleep and work 8 hours) it is the most convenient, flexible and fast way todo this by car people think. Besides above mentioned factors it is important to distinguish thesize and composition of the population and within it the specific age groups. The phenomena ofageing is well known in a lot of European countries. People are getting older, remaininghealthier and especially the just retired ones (65-75 years) do have the money, the time, the driveand the possibilities to travel a lot. The age distribution in European society changes drastically,see figure 211. About 90% of people above 65 years is still living independent and are, due totheir social and physical mobility able to participate fully in society. This silver generation,especially the younger ones (65-75) are traveling a lot and due to their conveniences they mostly

choose for traveling by car. The mileage of trips due to visit social and health care dedicated toelderly people is increasing. In The Netherlands, a tendency is found that car use among elderlypeople is not increased in terms of number of trips but distances increased 12. The rate of carlicense holder ship is very high among man and women both in this group, see table 1.The proposed elevation of the age of retirement will not result in less car use and mileagebecause life expectancy grow every year with about 3 months13. In particularly elderly peoplewith physical limitations (slightly disabled) and living in the rural areas, with a poor coverage ofpublic transport, tend to travel by car, taxi, bus on demand, etc. in order to visit social andhealth services, cultural events or exhibitions because they are not able to do this by walking orbiking anymore. Cultural habits that could play a role among youngsters that are grown up infamilies with one or more cars and are used to move by car because their parents took themeverywhere by car. The holiday trips are increasing as well. A 50 years ago just a few (the happyfew) could afford a holiday trip to Asian or Oceania. Today it's available for a broad segment ofthe EU citizens. However, the current financial downturn gives a dip in traveling but it can beassumed that this removes when the downturn is over. Shrinking numbers of urbanites do nothave any effect on mobility. The effect of shrinking communities does not gives only a slighteffect on mobility and car use14. A last factor that could be reported is that high incomes, higheducated people and households with kids often use cars more than low incomes and loweducated people. High incomes enable people to choose for the houses and surroundings theydesire (natural, rural, safe, etc) and put aside the longer distances they have to make ascommuters. The own more cars or other motorized vehicles and the are able to have moreholiday or weekend trips.

3 THE ENVIRONMENTAL HERITAGE3.1 Seize of environmental noise burden in European cities

Traffic Noise is the most dominant sort of noise, especially in urban areas. In 2008, a noisequestionnaire was set out by Working Group Noise EUROCITIES which showed that around55% of the citizens of European cities are exposed to noise levels above 55 dB LDEN. See figure3. These noise exposure is mainly caused by traffic noise (more than 95%) and is in line with theprovisional findings of the first round of noise mapping according the Environmental NoiseDirective EU, see figure 4 elsewhere in this paper. It is known that car use is increasing andmileage as well. However, the financial downturn has temporally caused a decrease in new cars,as from 2011, car sales are slightly increasing. As aforementioned, it might be expected that in afew years the tendency will be more cars. This will lead to more pollution, congestion,fragmentation of urban areas, noise, fatalities, etc. if measures stay behind. In contradiction tothe air pollution emissions (NOx, CO, PM, CO2, benzene, etc.) which are decreased lastdecade(s), noise pollution has increased. Cars have become noisier because of the increase inweight, increase in tire width and less insulation15.The first round of noise mapping findings showed us that a remarkable share (more than 100million) of the people in Europe is exposed to noise levels above 55 dB LDEN and 45 dB LNIGHT.See figure 4. These findings are based on the noise mapping of agglomerations and majorrailways, major roads and major airports obliged to draft noise maps in the first round. Whichmeans that just a part, although an important part, of the noise misere is mapped. The real seizeis expected to be at least 180 million.The findings of the first round are showed in figure 4 which

is derived from the European Environ mental Agency16. From this graph it can be concluded thatthe report, given by cities during the questionnaire of EUROCITIES, is confirmed. Traffic noiseis the dominant noise problem in European cities. This was felt by cities in the noisequestionnaire of EUROCITIES and is shown by the data of the first round of noise mapping.

3.2 Health effectsNoise especially long lasting noise could have serious health impacts. It is widely known

that long lasting noise causes health effects which could be even irreversible. Most importanteffects to be mentioned and explained here are aannoyance, mental health effects, cardiovascularand other physiological effects, sleep disturbance, general distraction, speech interference anddisruption of mental activity.Figure 5 illustrates how exposure to noise affects health andwellbeing. Of a total population exposed to long lasting noise, many people will notice it anddevelop adverse feelings to this. Within a part of this exposed population, stress reactions, sleepstage changes and other biological and biophysical effects could occur. This, in turn couldincrease risk factors like blood pressure. For a relatively small part of the population thesefactors may then develop into clinical symptoms like insomnia and cardiovascular diseaseswhich, as a consequence, can even increase the death rate. The most widespread problem createdby noise is annoyance. In the urban environment road traffic is the dominant source of noiseannoyance. There is plenty of scientific evidence that sleep is a biological necessity, anddisturbed sleep is associated with a number of health problems. Studies of sleep disturbance inchildren and in shift workers clearly show adverse effects. Noise disturbs sleep by a number ofdirect and indirect pathways. Even at very low levels physiological reactions (increase in heartrate, body movements and arousals) can be reliably measured. Also, it was shown thatawakening reactions are relatively rare, occurring at a much higher level than the physiologicalreactions.The recent WHO night-noise guidelines concluded:

o Disturbed sleep leads often to adverse impacts on health.o Noise during sleep increases heart rate, arousals, sleep stage changes and awakenings.o Noise exposure causes self-reported sleep disturbance, increase in medicine use, increase

in body movements and (environmental) insomnia.o Noise-induced sleep disturbance is viewed as a health problem in itself (environmental

insomnia), it also leads to further consequences for health and wellbeing.o Disturbed sleep could cause fatigue, accidents and reduced performance.o Noise at night could causes hormone level changes and clinical conditions such as

cardiovascular diseases, depression and other mental illnesses.Traffic noise exposures could lead to changes in blood pressure and increased risk of varioustypes of heart disease (e.g. ischemic heart diseases, angina pectoris, myocardial infarction).Noise-induced cardiovascular diseases are considered to be the consequence of stress. Exposureto noise triggers the production of (stress) hormones like cortisals, noradrenalin and adrenaline.These hormones could cause changes in the values of a number of biological risk factors, such ashypertension, higher cholesterol, etc. These risk factors can increase the risk of cardiovasculardisease. Long lasting exposure to environmental noise could therefore result in permanentchanges to the vascular system, with elevated blood pressure and heart diseases as potential

outcomes. The extent of these effects will be partly determined by individual characteristics,lifestyle behaviours and environmental conditions.Traffic noise at higher levels affect adults cognitive functioning (information processing,understanding and learning). To have this effect, though, noise levels must be high, or the taskcomplex or mentally demanding. Repetitive and simple tasks are not affected by road trafficcmnoise. The influence of noise on cognitive functioning depends on a persons perceived controlof the noise and its predictability. In general, the following effects were found for childrenexposed to high levels of traffic noise:

o Difficulties in keeping attention;o Difficulties in concentrating;o Poorer discrimination between sounds and poorer perception of speech;o Difficulties in remembering, especially complex issues; ando Poorer reading abilities and school performance.

It is known that ambient noise leads to a loss in the content of a teachers instruction, andconsequently children may have problems with speech perception and languageacquisition. This, in turn, can lead to impairment of childrens reading skills and vocabulary,and eventually to difficulties with other, higher-level processes, such as long-term memoryfor complex issues. The European Environmental Agency17 presented a summary of the noiselevel threshold values associated with the onset of a range of health effects. These are shown inTable 2.Recent reports of the World Health Organization (Night Noise Guidelines and EnvironmentalBurden of Disease on Noise) have shown that at least 1 million DALYs per annum are lost inEU27+ and that the noise levels in agglomerations are far beyond the health standards, proposedby WHO. For LNIGHT a preferred limit value is proposed of 40 dB and an interim value of 55 dB.A recent report from the Danish Cancer Institute has delivered enough evidence between noiseand strokes18 above the age of 64,5 years a higher risk for strokes occurs for people exposed toresidential road traffic noise. It is remarkable that vulnerable groups like school children, elderlypeople, disabled and ill people and noise sensitive people are not identified within the END as aspecial target group.3.3 Economic effects

Last decades more and more is known about the economic effects of noise. At least one candistinguish the costs mentioned below. For some of them there is enough evidence, for others itis assumed, because sufficient scientific evidence is (still) missing.

o costs of harmful health effects caused by long lasting noise exposureo costs of production loss (concentration loss and interference of communication)o costs of measures that must be taken in order to mitigate the noise at sensitive objectso costs of administration (officers, allowances, permitting, enforcement, prosecution, e.g.)o costs caused by value loss of real estate propertieso less income for the communities (harvest property tax drops)o costs of learning disabilities (drop outs that must repeat their year)

o lack of income due to lots that are exposed to high noise levels and are unusable forhousing.

o wage-risks (firing personnel because of productivity loss)o costs of accidents related to noise (tiredness, concentration loss e.g.)

As already mentioned health effects can turn in irreversible effects, Pursuant to these effectseconomic damage occurs. Medical treatment costs, costs of medication, the costs of DALY's,costs of loss of productivity, concentration loss and the cost of interference with communication.According to an earlier estimation around 210 million people are exposed to noise levels that areharmful19 in EU25. This is more than the extrapolated 180 million in paragraph 3.1. After thesecond round of noise mapping and improvements of the accuracy this could be true. Whentaking in consideration that only agglomerations and major roads will be mapped this 210million could be a rather good estimation!According to some institutes like the Health Council of the Netherlands, the World bank and thepan-European program ExternE costs of health amount around 75.000- 80.000 per annum. In2007 Transport and Environment have commissioned CE Delft to explore the costs of noise inEurope. The CE report found that the total amount of costs caused by DALY's amounts 40billion per annum in EU2519. More than 90% of these costs are caused by passenger cars andtrucks. High noise levels, especially at night, disturb sleep and as a result people are not fit andhave to deal with concentration loss and miscommunication. This leads to production lossbecause faults are being made due to these effects. In spots where noise levels occur that exceedthe limit values of the ruling legislation, measures have to be taken. Noise barriers, quiet roadsurfaces, traffic smoothing, tunnels, insulation, e.g. must be put up. The costs of these measuresare huge. E.g. in the Netherlands the total costs of the acoustic house insulation amounts 45million.

4 A PANACEA OF SOLUTIONS, DOES IT WORK?Although cities, because of their scale, have efficiency benefits in energy, facilities,

transport, etc. of about 15% urbanites suffer more from noise than the peasants and other livingoutside agglomerations. This is due to the higher density of people, their economical functionand the availability of all kind of services and facilities. A lot of measures have been devised andinvented in last decades. However, their applicability in urban areas is limited and whenapplicable, the effect is limited too. In general noise measures can be divided in groups. Pergroup some examples are given, due to the limited number of pages of this paper, see table 3.As well in new as in existing situations its is hard to keep or bring the noise down to levelsbelow 55 dB or even 60 dB in urban areas. From16 it is known that numerous cities andagglomerations deal with noise levels above 75dB LDEN which means that reductions of 20 dBand even more are needed. Almost one million of the European urbanites are exposed above 75dB LDEN and around 140.000 to an noise level above 70 LNIGHT.Applying all kind of technical measures against noise in urban areas do have limited effect orcannot be installed due to limited space (barriers), financial or for visual/esthetic reasons. Trafficmanagement (speed reduction, smoothing traffic flow, less sensitive routings, DRIPS withinformation, speed radars, etc.) do have limited effects as well. Eco-driving contributes to less

noise as well, however it is almost negligible in terms of equivalent noise levels. E.g. technicalmeasures like quiet road pavement give a reduction of about 3 dB, traffic management and betterroad design 2 dB. A shift of 10-20 percent to public transport gives 0,4 -1,0 dB. Curbing lorriesfrom the city could result in 1-2 dB reduction, depending on the share of lorries. All reductionsare averages for a rather busy road in a city.European Commission's White Paper on Urban Transport20 was published with numerousintentions to make transport in cities quieter, cleaner and de-carbonized. By 2030 the numbers ofconventionally fueled vehicles should be halved and by 2050 conventionally fuelled vehicles arenot allowed to enter the urban area. This means that by 2050 only electric vehicles are allowed toenter urban areas. This could be a part of the solution because it is known that electric vehicles,especially electric passenger cars have limited effect on the noise on the streets. Only at lowspeeds (35km/hr) the effect is noticeable21. For lorries the effect is greater however, their share isin general rather low in urban areas. Initiatives to provide electric and hybrids vehicles withadditional noise at low speeds could annihilated the reduction at the receivers when appliedcareless.

5 CONCLUSIONSDue to the development sketched above it might be expected that mobility will grow, not

only worldwide but also in Europe. It can be concluded that measures be taken at a local levelare not sufficient to solve the noise problems in cities. Even when combining all kind ofmeasures to lower the noise at the faade of the dwellings it will be a drop in the ocean. Toreduce the noise with more than 10-15 dB, using end of pipe measures, is an mission impossiblefor various reasons. At specific point solutions could be mitigate the noise burden of localresidents. Beside the measures mentioned source based measures should be put in place,lowering the noise emission of vehicles by setting stricter emission limit values for vehicles andtires. Reductions of 5 dB are viable for both and in time, after research, reductions up to 10 dBcould be possible changing to other concepts. Electric and hybrid vehicles could accelerate thedrop of emission values unless additional noise stays limited, has a certain directivity, shortdistance propagation and is, temporarily (until 2050). The Working Group Noise embraces theactions proposed in the White Paper on Urban Transport EU phasing out conventional fueledvehicles from urban areas and pleas for a tighter schedule. More intelligent solutions should beimaginable. A tough measure to be taken is to forget people exposed to noise levels above 75 dBdont apply measures, because high levels remain, it would be better move them! Betterplanning and use of ICT/ITS could mitigate the noise burden due to better flows, shorter traveltimes and choosing green and quiet routes. Bringing back companies to certain cities (deprived)districts which could avoid or limit commuting. This has a role in making the districts moreresilient and economically stronger. Promoting production and use of local product contribute aswell to a better environment. Urban agriculture & local products could be a hype!From several sources it was found that autochthonous people drive twice as much kilometersthan migrants, so withholding immigration is contra productive for reducing traffic noise and iscontrary to the function and history of cities.

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe gratefully acknowledge the members of working group noise for contributing to the

numerous activities and support to our lobbies to European Commission, European Parliamentand European Council.6 REFERENCES1. http://www.eurocities.eu2. http://workinggroupnoise.weblog.nl3. Activities of Working Group Noise INTERNOISE2012 by H.Wolfert4 http://www.eurostat.eu5. http://www.worldbank.com6. Why the future of humanity and the long term sustainability of the planet are inextricablylinked to the fate of our cities by Geoff West, SEED may 2012.7. Monitoring van de mobiliteit 1986-1993, Korver en Vanderschuren 19958. ICT, Ruimte en Mobiliteit, Dutch Ministry of Transport, Raspe et al, 20029. Mobiel in de tijd, SPB, Harms, 200310. Environment and emancipation in the Netherlands, Prof. R. van Schendelen, 199211. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/mortality_and_life_expectancy_ statistics12. Dutch Journal, Verkeer en Vervoer13. http://www.eurostat.eu14. Mobility, Dutch Ministry of Transport, 200815. Road noise, POLIS meeting Bergisch Gladbach, H.Bendtsen 2007.16. http://noise.eionet.europa.eu/viewer.html (noiseobservarory)17. Good Practice Guide on noise exposure and potential health effect, EEA 201018. Danish Institute of Cancer Epidemiology, Mette Srensen, 201119. Traffic Noise Reduction in Europe, CE Delft 200720. White Paper on Transport, European Union 201021. Stimulation of low noise road vehicles in The Netherland, G.J. Blokland at all,

INTERNOISE2011

factors influencing car use

25%

25%

50%

car-ownership and welfareimprovements infrastucturedemographic

Figure 1: factors influencing car use

Figure 2: population distribution

Figure 3: noise burden in cities 2008

Figure 4: exposed people in Europe

Figure 5: Pyramid of effects (Babisch)

Table 1: Percentage license holder ship in The Netherlands (CBS)

Age group: License holders:40-49 years 91%50-59 years 87%60-64 years 85%65-74 years 66%> 75 years 35%

Table 2: Effects of noise on health and wellbeing with sufficient evidence (EEA Technical reportNo 11/2010)

Table 3: Measures that can be taken to reduce the noise (limited)PREVENTION ADAPTATION MITIGATION REPRESSIVE CURATIVESpatial planningUrban planningRoad designHouse designAvailabilityPublic transportQuiet vehicleslike hybrids,electricsStricter ELVsfor vehiclesSoft modes

Compensation(money,facilities, qualityof life factors,etc)Soundscaping

FaadeinsulationTechnicalmeasuresImprove logisticsE-facilities (e-learning, e-shopping, tele-working, ect)Quiet routesTrafficmanagemente-driving

Limiting parkingspaceRestrictive zonesFinancial regimeTime windowsSlots

Re-designingroads, houses,etc.End-of-pipemeasures