Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
EUROCITIES
EUROCITIES is the network of major European cities. Founded in 1986, the network brings together
the local governments over 135 large cities in 33 European countries. EUROCITIES represents the
interests of its members and engages in dialogue with the European institutions across a wide
range of policy areas affecting cities. These include: economic development, the environment,
transport and mobility, social affairs, culture, the information and knowledge society, and services
of general interest.
November 2008
2
Table of contents
Summary 3
Introduction 5
Conclusions 40
Recommendations 41
Summary
1. Conformation on the number of people exposed to noise (>50% above 55 decibels) across
the EU Noise Maps. The figures on people exposed to noise don’t differ much from the
figures given in the provisional data of the EU Noise Maps gathered by the European
Commission.
2. Generally speaking, respondents of most of the cities surveyed are aware of their
respective noise problems but little progress has been made in reducing noise. There
are some good examples but most cities lag behind.
3. Not only cities make little progress in mitigating noise. The EU is making little progress
as well, because over the past 20 years cars and Heavy Good Vehicles (HGV) have hardly
become any quieter. The process for quieter vehicles, planes, trains, tyres and outdoor
equipment goes very slow and a lot of delay is found.
The published Environmental Noise Directive (END) is helpful in showing the noise
burden in cities and member states. Mapping will make the public and politicians more
aware of the extent of the noise burden in their cities. But the effectiveness of the END
is doubtful when you look at its objective (less people annoyed by noise)
4. The END doesn’t contain limits. Whether noise limits will make the END more effective
can be doubted. Some cities think it could help other cities and other cities don’t
believe that a limit could help to make the END more effective.
5. Cities have hardly designated Quiet Urban Areas. This is a pity because these areas are
very important for relaxation and against stress. People can get away from the noisy
urban environment en relax. The Noise Questionnaire revealed that few cities take
actions to preserve Quiet Urban Areas.
6. This noise questionnaire produces a number of recommendations that can help cities to
tackle the noise in urban areas. These recommendations are:
a) Working Group Noise EUROCITIES should pay attention to construction noise,
recreational noise and neighbourhood noise during its meetings. Further WGN should
gather knowledge and experience on noise and share this with EUROCITIES members
by means of newsletters, websites, web logs, leaflets or reports.
b) Follow-up questions about question 3c should be sent to the cities that filled in the
noise questionnaire. We cannot compare cities based on the current answers on the
budgets they have, because the cities have not included same types of costs in their
answers.
c) The Working Group Noise (WGN) should explore setting up an European network of
cities that will monitor noise by using noise measurements (ENNEM, European Noise-
monitoring Network of EUROCITIES Members). This network should have the
following goals :
Introduction
Currently more than 70% of the European residents are living in cities and their numbers will
increase up to 80% the next decades. Cities have always been a magnet for people to live and
work. An increase of city inhabitants will probably mean that the number of cars and the number
of kilometres covered will increase if people don’t switch to more sustainable modes of transport
and insufficient (or ineffective) measures are used. Nowadays around 50% of European citizens are
exposed to noise levels higher than 55 decibel (dB). And around 15% are exposed to noise levels
higher than 65 dB. If no additional (better) measures are taken, these percentages will increase
dramatically.
Surveys done by several institutions show that noise not only causes annoyance and sleep
disturbance but also causes irreversible health effects like high blood pressure, myocardial
infarctions, heart attacks and strokes.
This could even lead to death. Surveys done by TNO, DEFRA, UBA, the EU, the WHO, Babisch,
Miedema, Jarup and others have shown that there is enough evidence for all these health effects.
Recent surveys done by the Dutch Institute for Environmental Health Assessment (RIVM) showed
that young children exposed to high noise levels demonstrate a higher risk of suffering from
learning disabilities (reduced reading memory). Thus, if traffic and vulnerable groups increase in
coming years, the number of unhealthy people will increase if insufficient measures are taken.
Noise does not only affect health. It also influences the value of real estate. The house price can
drop from 0.1 % to 3.2 % per extra decibel depending on the situation in a city or country and
depending on the house markets.
This means that a lot of money is lost. For Gjestland it was calculated that the total loss of money
(due to noise related health problems and depreciation or real estate) amounts to €40 billion per
year.
Noise affects health and house prices but it also lowers the quality of life. This means that cities
become less attractive for people with high incomes and families. Based on this, the Working
Group Noise (WGN) has been set up within the EUROCITIES network with the goal of finding best
practices for urban areas and influencing European legislation and requirements on noise. Besides
this, WGN exchanges information between cities and undertakes projects.
WGN has undertaken this noise questionnaire in order to streamline its work and to verify if it is on
the right course. The noise questionnaire was sent to around 130 cities, 57 of which responded – a
response rate of 44%.
Number of cities involved in the survey: 47 (some of the answers have come from the same city)
Figure 1
Question 1a: main noise problems
Figure 1 shows how frequently several noise problems were mentioned. As can be seen,
traffic noise was the most frequently mentioned problem. 98% of all the cities (who filled
in the noise questionnaire) mentioned traffic noise as one of their five main noise
problems. The least mentioned noise problem was low frequency noise (5%). The five main
problems seem to be traffic noise, construction noise, neighbourhood noise, railway noise
and air traffic noise.
EUROCITIES Policy/Position:
Eurocities Working Group Noise primarily focuses on the types of noise covered by the
Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC (END). This focus should remain the coming
years but more attention could be paid to construction noise, recreational noise and
neighbourhood noise. The Netherlands has a lot experience with tackling construction
noise. Dutch experience and knowledge can be exchanged during meetings and bilateral
contacts between cities. Each city has its own experience with neighbourhood) noise. These
experiences could be exchanged in the same way.
These themes (construction noise, recreational noise and neighbourhood noise) will be put
on the agenda for the meetings scheduled for 2009 and 2012. During these meetings
workshops could be organized for each of the themes, making it possible to exchange as
much knowledge and experience as possible. Experts could be invited to these workshops as
well. The outcomes (best practices and approaches) of these workshops will be reported in
a separate report and sent to all members of EUROCITES. They will also be put on the
EUROCITIES website.
Figure 2
Question 1b:does your city have a noise policiy
plan or another environmental policy plan
including noise?
2%
30% yes
no
unknown
68%
Figure 2 shows the percentage of cities that has a noise plan or another environmental
policy plan including noise. 68% of the cities have a noise plan, while 30% haven’t got one
at all.
Most of the responding cities have plans so far but often these Noise Plans are a part of
another plan like an Ecological Plan, an Environmental Plan or a plan based on Agenda 21.
Those plans often do not cover all urban noise problems.
While answering the noise questionnaire some cities seem to have confused the noise policy
plan with the Noise Action Plan according to END. About 10% of the cities are still working
on a Noise Plan so the percentage of cities that will have a Noise Plan within two or three
years will increase significantly.
EUROCITIES Policy/Position:
It seems that cities are aware of the fact that noise is (becoming) an important factor in
urbanized areas and should be considered because long lasting noise leads to health
problems and has negative effects on liveability. WGN should constantly bring the noise
situation and its effects to the attention of policymakers and local, national and
European politicians in order to improve the quality of life in cities.
Map 1: geographical location of cities that have (or haven’t got) a noise plan or another
environmental policy plan including noise.
Cities that have a noise plan or another environmental policy plan including noise.
Cities that don’t have a noise plan or another environmental policy plan including noise.
Unknown whether this city has a noise policy plan or another policy plan including noise.
Map 1 shows the geographical location of cities that don’t have noise maps or another
environmental policy plan including noise. There is no clear pattern, however. Cities that have
noise maps aren’t located in a certain area. The same goes for cities that don’t have noise maps.
Figure 3
Question 2a: does your city have legal powers to
combat noise?
7% 2%
Yes
No
Unknown
91%
Figure 3 tells us if cities have legal powers to combat noise. 91% of the cities questioned
have legal powers to combat noise. Only 7% haven’t got these powers.
Some of the cities have indicated that they have full power to combat noise, while other
cities only have limited powers.
These powers usually apply to recreational noise, neighbourhood noise, construction noise
and noise related to planning. In some cases, powers are delegated to regional bodies. The
extent to which powers are delegated and the organizations to which powers are delegated
depends on national legislation/laws, the constitution and the form of government.
EUROCITIES Policy/Position:
2.b. If not, who else is the competent body to combat noise in your
country?
Most of the time when local governments don’t have legal power to combat noise, regional,
provincial or national bodies are competent.
EUROCITIES policy/position:
3.a. Does your city have a noise department or noise experts? If yes,
how many noise experts does it have?
Figure 4
Question 3a: does your city have a noise
department or noise experts?
2%
20%
Yes
No
Unknown
79%
Figure 4 show if cities have a noise department or noise experts. 79% of the cities have a
noise department or noise experts. About a fifth of the cities that have responded don’t
have noise experts or a noise department. These cities are mostly situated in Eastern
Europe (see map 2 on page 13).
EUROCITIES Policy/Position:
EUROCITIES believes it is necessary for cities to have noise experts continually gather and
safeguard knowledge on noise (noise legislation, noise abatement and noise effects).
Having noise experts, in stead of hiring consultants, will ensure that knowledge remains
within the organization. After all, when consultants leave after they’ve finished their job
they take their knowledge on noise with them.
EUROCITIES WGN does realise that it is up to cities to decide for themselves if they will hire
permanent staff or temporary employees. Most of the cities that don’t have noise experts
are situated in Eastern Europe (see map 2 on page 13). Therefore, EUROCITIES should
advise those cities to choose for a permanent staff. For the other cities no further action
needs to be taken on this point.
Map 2: geographical location of cities that have/don’t have a noise department or noise experts.
Figure 5
Question 3b: what kind of noise expertise is available in Unknown
your department?
other kind of noise
expertise
9% neighbour noise
13%
54% acoustic insulation
38% construction noise
52%
1 30% recreational noise
27% low frequency noise
64%
43% industrial noise
61% airport noise
71%
railway noise
Figure 5 shows what kind of noise expertise cities have in their department. 71% of the
cities have expertise on road traffic noise, which you may recall was the most frequently
mentioned noise problem (see question 1 on page 7). 27% of the cities have expertise on
low frequency noise while only 5% mentioned it as one of their five main noise problems. It
seems that most of the staff (experts) are linked to the most dominating noise problem:
traffic noise).
EUROCITIES Policy/Position:
Figure 6.1
Question 3c: what is the "noise budget" in your city?
9
8
7
6
budget (euros 5
per person) 4
3
2
1
0
1
city
Antwerp Athens Birmingham Brussels
Bursa Chemnitz Constantza Dublin
Eindhoven Espoo Florence Frankfurt
Helisinki Klaipeda Lisbon Liverpool
Ljubljana London Lyon Madrid
Malmo Manchester Munich Niš
Oslo Porto Rotterdam Sheffield
Stockholm Tampere Timisoara Utrecht
Warsaw
Figure 6.2
Question 3c: does your city have a "noise
budget?"
32%
Yes
No
61% Unknown
7%
About 61% of the cities have a noise budget (see figure 6.2 on page15).
Figure 6.1 and table 1 (page 15 and 16) show the noise budget per person for several cities.
Oslo seems to have the biggest noise budget per person (€ 7.77). Porto has the smallest
budget (€ 0.00).
WGN assumes the presented budgets are not comparable because some of the budgets
presumably include the costs of measures and projects while some of the budgets exclude
these costs. Especially the outliers could probably include the costs of projects and staff.
EUROCITIES policy/Position:
Working Group Noise will request that survey respondents answer some additional
questions, which would include for example:
Figure 7.1
Question 4: percentage of people exposed to 55-60 dB
45%
40%
35%
30%
Perce ntage of people 25%
exposed to 55-60 dB 20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1
Cities
Figure 7.1 shows the percentage of people exposed to 55-60 dB per city. Chemnitz has the
lowest percentage of people exposed to 55-60 dB (3% of its population is exposed to 55-60
dB, see table 1 on page 16) Oslo and Ljubljana have the highest percentage of people
exposed to 55-60 dB (40% of their population is exposed to 55-60 dB, see table 2 on
page18).
It was expected that Ljubljana would have a high percentage of exposed people but the
same was not expected for Oslo.
No reason has yet been found to explain the low percentage of exposed people.
The numbers on exposed people are mostly based on the Noise Maps the cities and
agglomerations made. These data still have to be approved by the European Commission.
It’s not known whether these Noise Maps could meet the criteria of the Environmental
Noise Directive. Working Group Noise wasn’t able to check the data and relies on the
contributing cities.
Figure 7.2
Question 4: percentage of people exposed to 60-65 dB
70%
60%
50%
Percentage of
40%
people exposed
30%
to 60-65 dB
20%
10%
0%
1
City
Figure 7.2 shows the percentage of people exposed to 60-65 dB per city. Chemnitz has the
lowest percentage of people exposed to 60-65 dB (2% of its population is exposed to 60-65
dB, see table 2 on page 18). Dublin has the highest percentage of people exposed to 60-65
dB (59% of its population is exposed to 60-65 dB, see table 3 on page 19).
Figure 7.3
Question 4: percentage of people exposed to 65-70 dB
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
Percentage of pe ople
25%
e xposed to 65-70 dB
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1
Citie s
Figure 7.3 shows the percentage of people exposed to 65-70 dB per city. Espoo, Florence
and Vantaa have the lowest percentage of people exposed to 65-70 dB (0% of their
population is exposed to 65-70 dB, see table 4 on page 20). Munich has the highest
percentage of people exposed to 65-70 dB (47% of its population is exposed to 65-70 dB).
Chemnitz has a very low percentage of people exposed to 65-70 dB. Only 1% of its
population is exposed to 65-70 dB (see table 4 on page 20). Note that Chemnitz had the
lowest percentage of exposed people in the previous two categories.
EUROCITIES policy/position:
Cities, whether they are obliged to or not, should periodically (every five years) update
their figures on the number of people exposed to various noise levels. By doing these cities
can monitor the trends over the years and verify whether the number of exposed people is
increasing or decreasing. This should feed into local level policies and inform the public if
local policies are effective.
1. Noise measurements
2. Noise calculations with computer software
3. Combination of 1+2
figure 8
Question 5: which measurements do you use of
prefer when determining the noise levels in your
city?
4% unknown
answe r
66%
1 combination of both
21%
9% noise calculations with
computer software
Noise measurements
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
pe rce ntage
Figure 8 shows the noise measurements used by cities in determining their noise levels.
Two thirds of the cities use a combination of noise calculations with computer software and
noise measurements. For the most part, these noise measurements are used to validate the
noise calculation model. 21% of cities only use noise calculations with computer software
and 9% only use noise measurements.
EUROCITIES Policy/Position:
WGN should inform cities which use calculations that better and more reliable results can
be produced with noise measurements that validate calculated noise levels. Cities which
only rely on noise measurements could be informed that noise measurements are very
costly and aren’t able to discern different noise sources.
There should be a discussion where different parties can share their positions on the added
value of using both measurement and calculations.
Figure 9
Question 6: does your city have noise maps?
unknown
Figure 9 shows us if cities have noise maps. Most cities (77%) have noise maps. 9% don’t but
should have them by 2012. 2% don’t even consider noise maps. 13% of cities didn’t indicate
whether they have noise maps or not. WGN expects that after the second round of Noise
Mapping (according to the Environmental Noise Directive (END) 2012/2013) more than 80%
of EUROCITIES members will have a Noise Map. WGN will put problems and solutions found
during the drafting of these Noise Maps and the forthcoming Noise Action Plans on the
agenda of WGN meetings. Besides this, a biannual congress will be organised (Noise in the
City) to share experiences and to provide measures for reducing noise. The first congress
was held in 2008 and a second congress is to be considered for 2010.
WGN has promoted the use of the Good Practice Guide (GPG), which offers information on
making a Noise Map according to the END 2002/49/EC, among EUROCITIES members, though
notices it was rarely used. The status of this GPG is unclear but the WGN believes that a
formal status as an EU document would encourage cities to use the GPG more often. During
the evaluation of the END in 2009 as meant in article 11.1 of the END, this will be advised
to the European Commission. This GPG is about railway noise and traffic noise. Industrial
noise is not mentioned in the GPG. For this reason, the Ecoport working group NOMEPorts
provided a Good Practice Guide on industrial and harbour noise, which should be combined
with the WGN GPG in a formal EU document.
EUROCITIES Policy/Position:
Within the process of the END’s evaluation, WGN will ask the European Commission to give
the GPG on Noise Mapping the status of a EU document. The WGN will also (continue) to
promote the use of the GPG.
7.a. What measures have been taken to mitigate noise? You may give
various examples.
Table 5: measures that have been taken to mitigate noise.
Frequently Restricting Little Measures on Special Other
Mentioned Measures Mentioned tracks and measures Measures
Measures Measure roads
Trees ** Shifting to
other modes of
transport (e.g.
public transport
and soft modes
such as walking
and biking)
Legislation
Table 5 shows examples of measures that cities have taken to mitigate noise.
* Placing bedrooms and the living room (frequently used rooms) in the least noisy part of
the house and placing the least frequently used room in the noisiest part of the house.
** Trees could be used to mask or shield noise. It is unclear whether the city that
mentioned trees (as a noise mitigating measure) was referring to masking or shielding.
EUROCITIES Policy/Position:
WGN of EUROCITIES is considering making an inventory of all measures (projects and pilots
included) that cities take or will take in the future. This inventory will be distributed to all
EUROCITIES members. (See also recommendation 4 on page 41.)
7.b. Has your city utilised measures that were beneficial for noise
reduction and other environmental issues related to air quality
and energy saving? If yes, could you describe some of the
noticeable ones?
Figure 10
Question 7b: has your city utilised measures that
were benifical for noise reduction and other
environmental issues?
13%
13% Yes
No
Unknown
75%
Figure 10 shows the percentage of cities that have utilised measures that were beneficial
for noise reduction and other environmental issues. 75% have used such measures, while
13% haven’t. The measure mentioned most frequently was traffic management. Traffic
management could mean a broad variety of traffic measures but also a single part of traffic
management like speed reduction. Other measures that were reported are:
Remark: one city mentioned that applying air quality measures has secondary effects like
noise reduction.
EUROCITIES Policy/Position:
Cities apply most of the measures available for tackling noise and other environmental
issues. WGN noticed that not all of the measures available were applied. During the
Utrecht meeting in 2007 a lot of integrated measures were listed. It would be worthwhile
to join these measures together with the measures found in question 7a (see page 26) and
to inform the cities about their existence and implementation.
Figure 11
Question 8a: does your city have disappointing
experiences applying noise measures?
11%
23%
Yes
No
Unknown
66%
Figure 11 shows the percentage of cities that have had a disappointing experience when
applying noise measures. 23% have had results that didn’t meet expected targets while 65%
haven’t had disappointing results. 12% didn’t respond: their results are unidentifiable.
The measure that was mentioned most frequently is low noise road surface. WGN is very
familiar with this measure because the first generations of low noise asphalt had a lot of
disadvantages like ravelling and a short lifespan. They also required higher maintenance
and were more expensive than normal asphalt. Fortunately, asphalt concrete on today’s
market doesn’t demonstrate these problems. However, it cannot be laid on crossings and
near traffic lights because it is more likely to wrinkle than normal asphalt. Mostly, low
noise asphalt is combined with normal asphalt. Low asphalt is laid on crossings.
Another disappointing measure that has been reported is the ban on Heavy Good Vehicles
(HGV) for certain routes in cities. Why this measure failed is unknown. Perhaps the number
of cars increased. WGN will explore this and contact the city that raised the problem.
Restrictions were also a disappointing measure. Sometimes insulation and barriers do not
meet their specifications. Insulation installation work must be carried out with the utmost
attention. Even a minor mistake will result in its malfunctioning. Contractors and builders
need to work more precisely.
EUROCITIES Policy/Position:
The leaflet on Low Noise Road Surfaces to be published in spring 2009 will remove many of
the myths about this type of asphalt. The leaflet will not only mention the advantages of
Low Noise Road Surfaces but also the conditions that have to be considered when
constructing this type of asphalt in cities.
WGN should support cities that are trying to convince their road departments and road
services to apply Low Noise Road Surface.
Figure 12
Quesion 8b: does your city have outstanding
examples of noise measures that have been taken
in the past?
9%
Yes
No
50%
41% Unknown
Figure 1 shows that 50% of respondents have outstanding examples of noise measures; 41%
don’t. The outstanding examples reported by the cities are:
1. Rolling shutters
2. Barriers along railway, walls
3. Speed reduction
4. Traffic circulation
5. Restrictions
6. High parking rates in the city
7. Good Urban Planning
8. Tunnels and enclosures
9. Integration of Noise in new settlements
10. Enforcement by prosecution and fines
11. Low Noise Surfaces
12. Orientation of noise sources which have a directional noise field (e.g.loudspeakers)
13. Monitoring Noise Levels
14. Maintenance of rail tracks (including grinding), road surfaces
15. Replacement old noisy equipment
16. Re-accommodation of noise activities and noise sources
17. Window insulation
18. Use of building mass as an acoustic barrier
19. Legislation, permits
20. Absorbing panels in underpass
21. Noise barrier with photovoltaic (solar panels)
22. Trees
EUROCITIES Policy/Position:
WGN noticed that the cities have many successful best practices, most of which are well-
known. It is worth exploring why these are successful in certain cities and unsuccessful in
others. WGN emphasises that noise measures are largely tailored to individual conditions.
These outstanding examples could be combined with actions proposed in questions 7a and 9
on page 26 and 31.
Figure 13
Question 9: does your city monitor noise?
unknown
other
5%
4% No, we don't monitor noise and don't
answe r 11% consider it either
18% No, we don't monitor noise and have no
1 experience but have to consider it
21%
11% Yes, we monitor noise but merely based
18% on noise calculations
13% Yes, we monitor noise with a
combination of fixed and mobile NMU's
Yes, we monitor noise with mobile
0% 10% 20% 30% NMU's
pe rce ntage Yes, we monitor noise permanently with
a fixed Noise Monitoring Unit (NMU)
EUROCITIES Policy/Position:
WGN should explore setting up a European network of cities that will monitor noise by using
noise measurements. This network should have the following goals:
10. Does your city have Quiet Urban Areas and how do you preserve
them (keep them noise-free)?
Figure 14
Question 10: does your city have Quiet Urban
Areas?
5%
34%
Yes
No
Unknown
61%
Figure 14 shows if cities have quiet urban areas. 61% of the cities don’t have Quiet Urban
Areas, while 43 % do have Quiet Urban Areas.
The answers from the noise questionnaire showed that Quiet Urban Areas differ from city
to city. This is not surprising because the Environmental Noise Directive (END) does not give
a definition or criteria for Quiet Urban Areas. It is good to see that the cities with Quiet
Urban Areas have defined these areas themselves and that they have used their own
criteria. But not all of these cities have drafted rules for preserving Quiet Urban Areas. This
means that the number of Quiet Urban Areas could decrease because they are not
protected from noisy activities.
Apart from this, there are still many cities that haven’t designated Quiet Urban Areas.
EUROCITIES Policy/Position
WGN should promote the designation and preservation of Quiet Urban Areas (QUA) in
European cities. There is a need for criteria for these kinds of areas. WGN could ask the
European Commission to add criteria for Quiet Urban Areas to the END, which will be
evaluated in 2009. Or the WGN could ask for a Guideline on Quiet Urban Areas. If criteria
are not laid down in the END or a guideline WGN could consider to cooperate with the
MATRIX project that will be carried out by the city of Florence, Vie en rose (an Italian
consultant) and the University of Florence. Currently Florence is drafting a proposal for a
more harmonised approach for the designation and harmonisation of Quiet Urban Areas.
Figure 15
Question 11: does your city require information,
assistance, education or training in ordert to set
up adequate noise management?
7%
45% Yes
No
48% Unknown
Some cities asked for financial support. (It should be noted that EUROCITIES does not
provide financial support). Some of the cities say all information about noise mapping et
cetera is welcome and some cities would appreciate if there could be any kind of help,
assistance or education.
EUROCITIES Policy/Position:
WGN will contact the surveyed cities to enquire what kind of support, education or
information they would like. Possibly a link could be made with the recommendations
outlined in questions 7a, 8b and 9. If not, WGN ould consider setting up a help structure
(forum/online helpdesk or telephone) which can be consulted on working days. WGN will
also examine the possibilities for education by on-the-job training, traineeships or courses
after exploring the specific needs of the cities. WGN will explore if funding by EU or cities
is possible to cover the costs and will look for collaboration with other institutions like
universities, consultants, manufacturers of noise measurement equipment and software.
Figure 16
Question 12: is the management and/or city
government aware of the annoyance and threats
of long lasting noise?
4%
5% partly
answ er 1
13%
79% Unknown
No
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes
percentage
Figure 16 shows if the city management or government is aware of the annoyance and
dangers of long-lasting noise. Most governments are aware of the annoyance and threats
long-lasting noise can cause (79%). Only a small percentage (13%) isn’t aware of its dangers.
4% of governments are only partly aware.
However, it is very likely that cities gave politically correct answers to this question. As a
consequence of this, WGN also had to rely on a discussion held at the Brussels meeting in
2007, during which it carried out a study on Gaining Political Interest.
EUROCITIES Policy/Position:
In order to gain more interest among the public, politicians and policymakers, WGN started
the “Gaining Political Interest” project in 2008. This project is carried out by the Radboud
University Nijmegen, The Netherlands, and will provide a number of tools and strategies
that can be used to convince policymakers and politicians about the disadvantages of noise
in terms of health effects, loss of value of real estate and the effects on the quality of life.
These tools will be used in a campaign that will be launched by WGN in 2009.
WGN members will publish articles and draft reports about the harmful effects of long-
lasting noise on people and will publish the depreciation of real estate prices. The costs of
noise related health effects could also be part of the campaign WGN will carry out.
Figure 17
Question 13a: does your city think that the Environmental
Noise Directive 2002/49/EC is effective?
16%
Unknown
14%
No
answ e r 1
Conditional Yes
45%
Yes
25%
This seems very encouraging but a review of cities’ responses reveals that the Noise Maps
(which cities are compelled to have according to END) only show the extent of Europe’s
noise burden but that politicians don’t act upon them. In other words, the noise burden is
mapped but little is done to reduce noise problems. It is possible that a lack of financing
and/or a lack of urgency are the reason for this.
EUROCITIES Policy/Position
The END makes that the noise burden over a large part of Europe becomes obvious, thanks
to Noise Maps. This doesn’t automatically mean that the public, politicians and officials will
become aware of noise problems and will take actions to lower the noise burden. This has
several reasons:
- Lack of financing
- Lack of urgency
- Enforcement fails
In 2006, WGN commissioned two students form the Open University, The Netherlands to
conduct a study on the effectiveness of the END. The indicative outcomes of that study
showed that one could doubt the effectiveness of the END. Most people think the END is
effective because of the Noise Maps and Action Plans which are compelled by the END but
these plans and maps are merely means with which the END tries to attain its main goal of
reducing the number of people exposed to high noise levels.
WGN will try to make politicians act on noise problems. The link in the END about source
policies will be used to urge Directorates-General to tighten the limits for vehicles, tyres,
trams, trains and airplanes. Tackling noise at the source is a very effective way to reduce
noise in cities. This combined with low noise roads will dramatically decrease the number
of exposed people. Currently WGN is exploring if cities are willing to provide their
municipal car fleet with quiet tyres to be a shining example to other authorities, the
enterprises and the public.
13.b. Does your city support the idea of adding limits to the END?
Please describe your position in a few words.
Figure 18
Question 13b: does your city support the idea of adding limits
to the END?
38%
5% Unknown
Conditional No
answ er 1 27% No
Conditional Yes
11% Yes
20%
Figure 17 shows if cities support the idea of adding limits to the END. 38% of respondents
did not give a clear answer, did not answer the question correctly, or did not respond to
the question. 27% of the cities did not support the idea of adding limits to the END.
5% say it is too early to add limits, believing it as either unnecessary at the moment, that
the impact of action plans still needs to be evaluated, or because they are still deciding at
the regional level which noise levels to adopt.
27% do not support the idea of adding limits to the END. Several of these cities already
have limits of their own. 20% support the idea of adding limits to the END. 11% support the
idea of adding limits to the END but only if the limits are realistic, are based on common
choices and are enforceable.
Adding limits to the END has been a longstanding discussion during the preparation of the
END. Some countries wanted limits while others (such Belgium and The Netherlands) didn’t.
The countries that don’t want to add limits to the END often have national or regional/local
limits to restrict noise. They believe that EU limits will allow more noise than their national
limits permit. Cities that want to add limits to the END are often situated in countries that
don’t have (adequate) limits for noise.
Such cities think that adding limits to the END will force countries to act properly on
environmental noise.
EUROCITIES Policy/Position:
During its meeting in Florence on 19-20 March 2009, WGN should discuss the issue of adding
limits to the END. The discussion will focus on the advantages and disadvantages of having
limits in the END.
WGN will look for alternative objectives in the END, like the maximum number of exposed
people per 100,000 inhabitants and the minimal percentage of annoyed people. The
outcomes of this discussion will be forwarded to European Commission as a formal position.
14. Does your city think that the efforts made by the European
Commission to lower the noise of vehicles, tyres, trams, trains
and aircrafts are sufficient? Please describe your position in a few
words.
Figure 19
Question 14: does your city think that the efforts made by the
EC to lower the noise of vehicles, tyres, trams, trains and
aircrafts are sufficient?
45%
Unknown
4%
Conditional No
answ er 1 16% No
Conditional Yes
25% Yes
11%
Figure 18 shows cities’ views on the efforts made by the European Commission to lower the
noise of vehicles, tyres, trams, trains and aircrafts. 45% didn’t answer this question, gave
an unclear answer, or said that they had insufficient information and experience to answer.
16% of the cities think that the Commission’s efforts to lower noise aren’t sufficient. 4%
said that efforts made by the Commission to lower noise aren’t enough but indicated that it
is slowly moving in the right direction.25% think that the Commission’s efforts to lower
noise are sufficient but that it’s success depends on national government’s decision-making
policy to make things work; that there are better measures available; or that other noise
sources should be included too - not only Integrated Pollution and Prevention Control
(IPPC).
EUROCITIES Policy/Position:
To inform cities what EU source policies are, what progress has been made in the last
decade(s), and what problems have yet to be resolved. To make efforts to fill in the
conditions raised in the Noise Questionnaire. Other actions that could be taken are urging
the Commission to speed up the process of stricter limits for noise sources in general,
promoting the use of quiet equipment and so on.
Conclusions
1. About 44% of the cities responded to the noise questionnaire.
2. In general, most cities are aware of the fact that noise is a serious problem in cities but
whether there is a sense of urgency is doubtful.
3. There were a lot of answers that were not clear and even some questions left room for
other interpretations.
4. At times, it seemed like the person who filled in the noise questionnaire had inadequate
knowledge on noise issues and EU policy.
5. Many cities believe that more should be done to tackle noise problems.
6. Noise Policy, tackling noise at the source and stricter norms for vehicles, mopeds,
motors, trains, trams, air planes etc. are needed.
8. More research is needed on some subjects (budgets, support and the project proposals
done in the recommendation (ENNEM, DINOMAC).
9. Based on some of the useful answers provided, Working Group Noise has been able to
make some good recommendations (see below)
Recommendations
1. During its meetings, EUROCITIES' Working Group Noise should pay attention to
construction noise, recreational noise and neighbourhood noise. It should gather
knowledge and experience on noise and share this with EUROCITIES members by means
of newsletters, websites, web logs, leaflets and reports.
2. Follow-up questions about question 3c should be sent to the cities that filled in the
noise questionnaire. We cannot compare cities’ situations based on the current answers
on their noise budgets, because some have not included the same types of costs in their
answers.
3. WGN should explore the setting up of a European network of cities that will monitor
noise by using noise measurements. This could be called ENNEM (standing for European
Noise-monitoring Network of EUROCITIES Members). This network should have the
following goals:
- exchanging experiences and knowledge between cities
- improving the methods used
- harmonising the method
- noise measurements calculations
4. Better exchange of information on measures that could be taken to reduce noise in
urban situations and combined measures that are beneficial for noise and other
(environmental) issues like air quality, energy, road safety, urban sprawl, and making
these more accessible.
A lot of information is available in a number of EU projects like the Silence, Q-city
project, SMILE, PRONET, CALM I and II etc but EUROCITIES members also have a lot of
information. WGN is considering to support or create a project - DINOMAC - under FP7.
Disappointing experiences from cities across Europe are included as lessons for the
future and integrated measures as well. This project certainly will promote quiet road
surfaces as one of the most efficient measures.
5. WGN should promote the designation and preservation of Quiet Urban Areas in European
cities. There is a need for criteria for these kinds of areas. Possibly WGN could
cooperate with the city of Florence, Vie en rose (Italian consultant), the University of
Florence etc. which are making a proposal for a more harmonised approach to
designate and preserve quit urban areas (matrix project).
6. During the evaluation of the Environmental Noise Directive (END), EUROCITIES will ask
the European Commission to make the Good Practice Guide an official EU document
after combining this with the Good Practice guide published by the NOMEPORTS project
on industrial and harbour noise.
7. WGN will continue to pay attention to the harmful effects of noise on people and will
raise public awareness of these effects. Besides this, WGN will advocate adequate
action on all administrative levels. WGN will advise its members on the technical
outcomes of the noise questionnaire. Depending on the outcomes of the Gaining
Political Interest project, other instruments will be used.
8. WGN will set out an additional survey to explore the needs of the cities that wanted
support, information and/or education. This way, WGN could produce a good acoustic
Marshall plan for these cities. Possibly, this plan could be combined with the proposed
DINOMAC project (see recommendation 4 on page 41 )
9. During the Florence meeting a discussion will be held about including limits in the END.
The outcomes of this discussion will be reported to the EUROCITIES Environmental
Forum and the EUROCITIES Executive Committee in order to get political support for the
proposal. Following internal discussions, a report will be sent to the European
Commission. This will serve as input for the evaluation of the END.
10. WGN will continue to request stricter limits on vehicles, trains, trams, tyres, aero
planes etc. and will speed up this process in order to have these limits implemented.
WGN will explore whether cities are willing to provide their municipal car fleets with
quiet tyres to be model for other authorities, the enterprises and the public.