EUROCITIES Position Paper on Urban Transport Noise

Mr Henk Wolferta Centre for Environmental Expertise, DCMR EPA, P.O. Box 843, 3100AV SCHIEDAM, The Netherlands Findings of the first round of Noise Mapping, according to the Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC, showed that traffic noise is the most dominant noise source. This was also 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 as meant in the directive are exposed to noise levels higher than 55 dB LDEN resulting in annoyance and in other health effects. Due to these findings, WGN decided to set the battle against traffic noise as one of their main priorities. Therefore, numerous actions were undertaken such as requests to the European Commission to strengthen the Emission Limit Values of vehicles, lorries, motorized two and three wheelers and tires. Besides the crusade against noisy vehicles WGN also provided the cities with information on Best Practices in order to tackle the noise. Promotion of quiet road pavements by means of a leaflet, a report with recommendations how to gain political interest for noise, etc. have been important products of WGN. WGN decided to bundle all recommendations, views and standpoints in one integral paper, called Position Paper on Urban Transport Noise. 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Aim of this paper This paper gives an overview of the Position Paper on Urban Transport Noise that is drafted by EUROCITIES noise working group. The working area of this working group is Europe. Not only 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 about EUROCITIES is given in 1-3. 1.2 Regarding cities In these eras of urbanization and re-urbanization a high percentage of people is living in urban areas and their numbers will increase in the decades to come. Currently almost seventy
a

email: henk.wolfert@dcmr.nl

percent of the people are living in cities. Their share will grow to eighty percent in 20504 which means 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 MOBILITY

Many 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 not reported. 2.1 Globalization Globalization, 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 is propelled by an increasingly trade and investments all over the world. This phenomena has exist for long times however, last decades this goes faster and faster due to new and improved technologies and reducing barriers like geographical, physical, political and economical boundaries. This globalization offers many benefits for people all over the world like increased life expectancy, better quality of life but it also let us some drawbacks. One of these disadvantages is that it leads to more transportation of people and goods. Most of the transportation modes have detrimental effects on the environment like air pollution, CO 2 emissions 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 in those cities. Not only as a result of inbound and outbound transport but also due to the transportation of the people or the goods to the hinterland that is passing through5. 2.2 Urbanization From 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 the countryside or whether they live in deprived areas. Influx from migrants have shaped cities into what they currently are. The most important drivers for people to move to cities is their economical and desperate situation in their place of origin. What happened in early years in Europe, seeing peasants flowing to cities is now going on in large parts of Africa. The second movement, or better the first explosion of influx, in the late 18th and 19th century, at the beginning of the industrial era, resulted in fast growing cities as e.g. Manchester, London and Paris. Due to a better immunity and better nourishment ,resulting in lower death rates, cities in Europe started to grew faster than they ever did. The third movement started in the 20th century due to several factors such as economic, labor shortage, political and safety reasons, etc. and is still going on. The changes from an agricultural, to an industrial and subsequently to a knowledge based economy has strengthening this influx. Policies to hold urban sprawl, due to the 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 capita are higher in urban areas. Creating and enlarging cities result in efficiency benefits. Cities gain 15% 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 sprawled dwellings or villages. However, there are also some drawbacks. These cities are confronted with 15% more crime, aids per capita, poorer air quality, shortage on biodiversity and noise. 2.3 Demographics Demographic, 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, the time and the motives for transportation. Other factors that affect mobility growth are welfare, car ownership and improvement of the infrastructure, see figure 1. Demographic factors as smaller households, changes in commuting and influx of immigrants are also relevant. Due to these factors traffic grows, especially in urban areas. The most catching demographic, social and culture factors are, apart from the urbanization and globalization mentioned above, computerization, intensification and informalization of society. Computerization has led and leads to e-commerce, e-shopping, e-working, e-learning, e-conferencing, etc. which should save car use. However, sometimes it increases because employees tend to work or live on larger distances, 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 their own transport, more car movements will be made compared to physical shopping. From surveys reported on e-working it has been reported that e-workers make almost the same mileage as normal workers however, its more spread over the day 8. Computerization makes it able to levy electronically toll, electronically road control in order to smooth traffic flow and prevent from traffic jams. Informalization could lead to lower thresholds of morality and behavior which leads 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 bolides producing a lot of droning music. Changing behavior is an ultimate challenge, especially in younger groups. The combination of computerization and informalization has led and will lead to vanishing borders between home and work. Overtime work has increased last years and has led to intensification. It could lead to increased car use, especially when overtime is spent in the evening hours at work. Also the smart phone has accelerate this development. Individualization leads to smaller households and more participation of women in labor which leads in turn to more transport9. It was found that women, participating in labor tend to seek their leisure and recreation activities outside instead inside their residences10. Intensification is the increase of combining task or activities. It leads, among other things, to more trips, often by car like driving to school (bringing the kids) and subsequently driving to work. After work driving for shopping to buy food and drinks and subsequently fetching the kids from school bringing them at home and in the evening, after diner driving to sports of other social events. This phenomena is called journey chains. Due to the many activities to be done in the remaining 8 hours (assuming that one needs 8 hours of sleep and work 8 hours) it is the most convenient, flexible and fast way to do this by car people think. Besides above mentioned factors it is important to distinguish the size and composition of the population and within it the specific age groups. The phenomena of ageing is well known in a lot of European countries. People are getting older, remaining healthier and especially the just retired ones (65-75 years) do have the money, the time, the drive and 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 to their 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 to elderly people is increasing. In The Netherlands, a tendency is found that car use among elderly people is not increased in terms of number of trips but distances increased 12. The rate of car license 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 mileage because life expectancy grow every year with about 3 months13. In particularly elderly people with physical limitations (slightly disabled) and living in the rural areas, with a poor coverage of public transport, tend to travel by car, taxi, bus on demand, etc. in order to visit social and health services, cultural events or exhibitions because they are not able to do this by walking or biking anymore. Cultural habits that could play a role among youngsters that are grown up in families with one or more cars and are used to move by car because their parents took them everywhere by car. The holiday trips are increasing as well. A 50 years ago just a few (the happy few) could afford a holiday trip to Asian or Oceania. Today it's available for a broad segment of the EU citizens. However, the current financial downturn gives a dip in traveling but it can be assumed that this removes when the downturn is over. Shrinking numbers of urbanites do not have any effect on mobility. The effect of shrinking communities does not gives only a slight effect on mobility and car use14. A last factor that could be reported is that high incomes, high educated people and households with kids often use cars more than low incomes and low educated people. High incomes enable people to choose for the houses and surroundings they desire (natural, rural, safe, etc) and put aside the longer distances they have to make as commuters. The own more cars or other motorized vehicles and the are able to have more holiday or weekend trips. 3 THE ENVIRONMENTAL HERITAGE

3.1 Seize of environmental noise burden in European cities Traffic Noise is the most dominant sort of noise, especially in urban areas. In 2008, a noise questionnaire was set out by Working Group Noise EUROCITIES which showed that around 55% of the citizens of European cities are exposed to noise levels above 55 dB LDEN. See figure 3. These noise exposure is mainly caused by traffic noise (more than 95%) and is in line with the provisional findings of the first round of noise mapping according the Environmental Noise Directive EU, see figure 4 elsewhere in this paper. It is known that car use is increasing and mileage 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 a few 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 to the air pollution emissions (NOx, CO, PM, CO2, benzene, etc.) which are decreased last decade(s), noise pollution has increased. Cars have become noisier because of the increase in weight, increase in tire width and less insulation15. The first round of noise mapping findings showed us that a remarkable share (more than 100 million) 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 major railways, major roads and major airports obliged to draft noise maps in the first round. Which means that just a part, although an important part, of the noise misere is mapped. The real seize is 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 that the report, given by cities during the questionnaire of EUROCITIES, is confirmed. Traffic noise is the dominant noise problem in European cities. This was felt by cities in the noise questionnaire of EUROCITIES and is shown by the data of the first round of noise mapping. 3.2 Health effects Noise 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 important effects to be mentioned and explained here are aannoyance, mental health effects, cardiovascular and other physiological effects, sleep disturbance, general distraction, speech interference and disruption of mental activity.Figure 5 illustrates how exposure to noise affects health and wellbeing. Of a total population exposed to long lasting noise, many people will notice it and develop adverse feelings to this. Within a part of this exposed population, stress reactions, sleep stage changes and other biological and biophysical effects could occur. This, in turn could increase risk factors like blood pressure. For a relatively small part of the population these factors may then develop into clinical symptoms like insomnia and cardiovascular diseases which, as a consequence, can even increase the death rate. The most widespread problem created by noise is annoyance. In the urban environment road traffic is the dominant source of noise annoyance. There is plenty of scientific evidence that sleep is a biological necessity, and disturbed sleep is associated with a number of health problems. Studies of sleep disturbance in children and in shift workers clearly show adverse effects. Noise disturbs sleep by a number of direct and indirect pathways. Even at very low levels physiological reactions (increase in heart rate, body movements and arousals) can be reliably measured. Also, it was shown that awakening reactions are relatively rare, occurring at a much higher level than the physiological reactions. 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 various types of heart disease (e.g. ischemic heart diseases, angina pectoris, myocardial infarction). Noise-induced cardiovascular diseases are considered to be the consequence of stress. Exposure to 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 as hypertension, higher cholesterol, etc. These risk factors can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. Long lasting exposure to environmental noise could therefore result in permanent changes 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 task complex or mentally demanding. Repetitive and simple tasks are not affected by road trafficcm noise. The influence of noise on cognitive functioning depends on a persons perceived control of the noise and its predictability. In general, the following effects were found for children exposed to high levels of traffic noise: o o o o o Difficulties in keeping attention; Difficulties in concentrating; Poorer discrimination between sounds and poorer perception of speech; Difficulties in remembering, especially complex issues; and Poorer reading abilities and school performance.

It is known that ambient noise leads to a loss in the content of a teachers instruction, and consequently children may have problems with speech perception and language acquisition. 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 memory for complex issues. The European Environmental Agency17 presented a summary of the noise level threshold values associated with the onset of a range of health effects. These are shown in Table 2. Recent reports of the World Health Organization (Night Noise Guidelines and Environmental Burden of Disease on Noise) have shown that at least 1 million DALYs per annum are lost in EU27+ and that the noise levels in agglomerations are far beyond the health standards, proposed by 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 noise and strokes18 above the age of 64,5 years a higher risk for strokes occurs for people exposed to residential road traffic noise. It is remarkable that vulnerable groups like school children, elderly people, disabled and ill people and noise sensitive people are not identified within the END as a special target group. 3.3 Economic effects Last decades more and more is known about the economic effects of noise. At least one can distinguish the costs mentioned below. For some of them there is enough evidence, for others it is assumed, because sufficient scientific evidence is (still) missing. o o o o o o o costs of harmful health effects caused by long lasting noise exposure costs of production loss (concentration loss and interference of communication) costs of measures that must be taken in order to mitigate the noise at sensitive objects costs of administration (officers, allowances, permitting, enforcement, prosecution, e.g.) costs caused by value loss of real estate properties less income for the communities (harvest property tax drops) costs of learning disabilities (drop outs that must repeat their year)

o o o

lack of income due to lots that are exposed to high noise levels and are unusable for housing. wage-risks (firing personnel because of productivity loss) costs of accidents related to noise (tiredness, concentration loss e.g.)

As already mentioned health effects can turn in irreversible effects, Pursuant to these effects economic 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 are harmful19 in EU25. This is more than the extrapolated 180 million in paragraph 3.1. After the second round of noise mapping and improvements of the accuracy this could be true. When taking in consideration that only agglomerations and major roads will be mapped this 210 million could be a rather good estimation! According to some institutes like the Health Council of the Netherlands, the World bank and the pan-European program ExternE costs of health amount around 75.000- 80.000 per annum. In 2007 Transport and Environment have commissioned CE Delft to explore the costs of noise in Europe. The CE report found that the total amount of costs caused by DALY's amounts 40 billion per annum in EU2519. More than 90% of these costs are caused by passenger cars and trucks. High noise levels, especially at night, disturb sleep and as a result people are not fit and have to deal with concentration loss and miscommunication. This leads to production loss because faults are being made due to these effects. In spots where noise levels occur that exceed the limit values of the ruling legislation, measures have to be taken. Noise barriers, quiet road surfaces, traffic smoothing, tunnels, insulation, e.g. must be put up. The costs of these measures are huge. E.g. in the Netherlands the total costs of the acoustic house insulation amounts 45 million.

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 living outside agglomerations. This is due to the higher density of people, their economical function and the availability of all kind of services and facilities. A lot of measures have been devised and invented in last decades. However, their applicability in urban areas is limited and when applicable, the effect is limited too. In general noise measures can be divided in groups. Per group 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 levels below 55 dB or even 60 dB in urban areas. From16 it is known that numerous cities and agglomerations deal with noise levels above 75dB LDEN which means that reductions of 20 dB and even more are needed. Almost one million of the European urbanites are exposed above 75 dB 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 or cannot be installed due to limited space (barriers), financial or for visual/esthetic reasons. Traffic management (speed reduction, smoothing traffic flow, less sensitive routings, DRIPS with information, 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. technical measures like quiet road pavement give a reduction of about 3 dB, traffic management and better road design 2 dB. A shift of 10-20 percent to public transport gives 0,4 -1,0 dB. Curbing lorries from the city could result in 1-2 dB reduction, depending on the share of lorries. All reductions are averages for a rather busy road in a city. European Commission's White Paper on Urban Transport20 was published with numerous intentions to make transport in cities quieter, cleaner and de-carbonized. By 2030 the numbers of conventionally fueled vehicles should be halved and by 2050 conventionally fuelled vehicles are not allowed to enter the urban area. This means that by 2050 only electric vehicles are allowed to enter 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 low speeds (35km/hr) the effect is noticeable21. For lorries the effect is greater however, their share is in general rather low in urban areas. Initiatives to provide electric and hybrids vehicles with additional noise at low speeds could annihilated the reduction at the receivers when applied careless. 5 CONCLUSIONS

Due 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 level are not sufficient to solve the noise problems in cities. Even when combining all kind of measures to lower the noise at the faade of the dwellings it will be a drop in the ocean. To reduce the noise with more than 10-15 dB, using end of pipe measures, is an mission impossible for various reasons. At specific point solutions could be mitigate the noise burden of local residents. 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 and tires. Reductions of 5 dB are viable for both and in time, after research, reductions up to 10 dB could be possible changing to other concepts. Electric and hybrid vehicles could accelerate the drop of emission values unless additional noise stays limited, has a certain directivity, short distance propagation and is, temporarily (until 2050). The Working Group Noise embraces the actions proposed in the White Paper on Urban Transport EU phasing out conventional fueled vehicles from urban areas and pleas for a tighter schedule. More intelligent solutions should be imaginable. A tough measure to be taken is to forget people exposed to noise levels above 75 dB dont apply measures, because high levels remain, it would be better move them! Better planning and use of ICT/ITS could mitigate the noise burden due to better flows, shorter travel times 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 more resilient and economically stronger. Promoting production and use of local product contribute as well 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 kilometers than migrants, so withholding immigration is contra productive for reducing traffic noise and is contrary to the function and history of cities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge the members of working group noise for contributing to the numerous activities and support to our lobbies to European Commission, European Parliament and European Council. 6 1. 2. 3. 4 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. REFERENCES http://www.eurocities.eu http://workinggroupnoise.weblog.nl Activities of Working Group Noise INTERNOISE2012 by H.Wolfert http://www.eurostat.eu http://www.worldbank.com Why the future of humanity and the long term sustainability of the planet are inextricably linked to the fate of our cities by Geoff West, SEED may 2012. Monitoring van de mobiliteit 1986-1993, Korver en Vanderschuren 1995 ICT, Ruimte en Mobiliteit, Dutch Ministry of Transport, Raspe et al, 2002 Mobiel in de tijd, SPB, Harms, 2003

10. Environment and emancipation in the Netherlands, Prof. R. van Schendelen, 1992 11. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/mortality_and_life_expectancy_ statistics 12. Dutch Journal, Verkeer en Vervoer 13. http://www.eurostat.eu 14. Mobility, Dutch Ministry of Transport, 2008 15. 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 2010 18. Danish Institute of Cancer Epidemiology, Mette Srensen, 2011 19. Traffic Noise Reduction in Europe, CE Delft 2007 20. White Paper on Transport, European Union 2010 21. Stimulation of low noise road vehicles in The Netherland, G.J. Blokland at all, INTERNOISE2011

factors influencing car use

25%

car-ownership and welfare improvements infrastucture 50% 25% demographic

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: 40-49 years 50-59 years 60-64 years 65-74 years > 75 years

License holders: 91% 87% 85% 66% 35%

Table 2: Effects of noise on health and wellbeing with sufficient evidence (EEA Technical report No 11/2010)

Table 3: Measures that can be taken to reduce the noise (limited) PREVENTION Spatial planning Urban planning Road design House design Availability Public transport Quiet vehicles like hybrids, electrics Stricter ELVs for vehicles Soft modes ADAPTATION Compensation (money, facilities, quality of life factors, etc) Soundscaping MITIGATION Faade insulation Technical measures Improve logistics E-facilities (elearning, eshopping, teleworking, ect) Quiet routes Traffic management e-driving REPRESSIVE Limiting parking space Restrictive zones Financial regime Time windows Slots CURATIVE Re-designing roads, houses, etc. End-of-pipe measures