FUTURE NOISE POLICY - European Commission Green Paper
Date: 1996-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU policy, noise, noise pollution, noise protection, public awareness campaign

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

•ft- 

* 

Brussels,  04.11.1996 
COM(96)  540  final 

FUTURE  NOISE  POLICY 

European  Commission 
Green  Paper 

EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY 

Environmental noise, caused by traffic,  industrial and recreational activities is one of the main 
local environmental problems in Europe and the source of an increasing number of complaints 
from  the  public.  Generally  however  action  to  reduce  environmental  noise  has  had  a  lower 
priority  than  that  taken  to  address  other  environmental  problems  such  as  air  and  water 
pollution. 

The  1993  Fifth  Environmental  Action  Programme  started  to  remedy  this  and  included  a 
number  of basic  targets  for  noise  exposure  to  be  reached  by the  year  2000,  while  the  recent 
proposal  on  the  review  of  the  Fifth  Action  Programme  (COM(95)647)  announces 
the 
development  of  a  noise  abatement  programme  for  action  to  meet  these  targets. 

This  Green  Paper  is  the  first  step  in  the  development  of  such  a  programme  and  aims  to 
stimulate public discussion on the future  approach to noise policy. It reviews the overall  noise 
situation  and  Community  and  national  action  taken  to  date  followed  by  the  outline  of  a 
framework  for  action  covering  the  improvement  of  information  and  its  comparability  and 
future  options  for  the  reduction  of  noise  from  different  sources. 

The  Noise  Situation  in  the  European  Union 

The  data  available  on  noise  exposure  is  generally  poor  in  comparison  to  that  collected  to 
measure  other  environmental  problems  and  often  difficult  to  compare  due  to  the  different 
measurement and assessment methods. However  it has been estimated that  around  20 percent 
of the Union's population or close on 80 million people suffer  from  noise levels that  scientists 
and  health  experts  consider  to  be  unacceptable,  where  most  people  become  annoyed,  where 
sleep is disturbed and where adverse health effects  are to be feared.  An additional  170 million 
citizens  are  living  in  so-called  'grey  areas'  where  the  noise  levels  are  such  to  cause  serious 
annoyance  during  the  daytime. 

A wide variety  of studies have examined the question of the external  costs of noise to  society 
especially  transport  noise. The estimates range from  0.2% to 2% of  GDP. The  Commission's 
Green Paper 'Fair and  Efficient  Pricing in Transport' used the lower estimate of 0.2% of GDP 
which  represents  an  annual  cost  to  society  of  over  12 billion  ECU. 

Analysis  of  Existing  Noise  Abatement  Actions  in  the  European  Union 

For more than twenty  years  Community  environmental  noise policy  has  essentially  consisted 
of  legislation  fixing  maximum  sound  levels  for  vehicles,  aeroplanes  and  machines  with  a 
single market  aim,  or to  implement  international  agreements  in the  case  of  aircraft,  linked  to 
certification  procedures  to  ensure  that  new  vehicles  and  equipment  are,  at  the  time  of 
manufacture  complying  with  the  noise  limits  laid  down  in  directives. 

Thanks  to  this  legislation  and  technological  progress  significant  reductions  of  noise  from 
individual  sources have  been  achieved.  For  example  the noise  from  individual  cars has  been 
reduced  by 85% since  1970 and the noise from  lorries by 90%. Likewise for  aircraft  the noise 
footprint  around an airport made by a modern jet has been reduced  by  a factor  of 9 compared 
to  an  aircraft  with  1970s  technology. 

However  data  covering  the past  15 years  do  not  show  significant  improvements  in  exposure 
to environmental  noise especially road traffic  noise. The growth and spread of traffic  in space 

and  time  and  the  development  of  leisure  activities  and  tourism  have  partly  offset  the 
technological  improvements.  Forecast  road  and  air  traffic  growth  and  the  expansion  of  high 
speed rail risk exacerbating  the noise problem.  In the case of motor  vehicles other factors  are 
also important  such as the dominance  of tyre noise above quite low speeds (50 km/h) and the 
absence  of  regular  noise  inspection  and  maintenance  procedures. 

For  some  sources  such as railways and  a wide range  of noisy  equipment  used  outdoors  there 
are  no  Community  or  international  standards  setting  emission  limits.  A  number  of  Member 
States  are  planning  national  legislation  for  these  products,  which  could  cause  problems  for 
the  functioning  of  the  single  market. 

Most  Member  States  have  adopted  legislation  or  recommendations  setting  immission  limits 
for  noise exposure in  sensitive areas. These are often  integrated  into  national  abatement  laws 
and used in land use plans especially  for  new infrastructure  developments. A survey done  for 
the Commission has shown a considerable degree  of convergence  between  Member  States in 
the establishment  of  such quality  criteria  for  road,  rail  and industrial  noise. The  situation  for 
aircraft  noise  indices  and  exposure  levels  is more  divergent. 

A New  Framework  for  Noise  Policy 

In the  light of the poor  state of data on noise exposure  and the  shortcomings identified  in the 
analysis  of  existing  policy  measures,  the  Commission  believes  that  changes  in  the  overall 
approach  are  required  if  a  noise  abatement  policy  is  to  be  successful.  This  requires  a 
framework  based on shared responsibility involving target setting, monitoring  of progress and 
measures to improve  the  accuracy  and  standardisation of data to help  improve  the  coherency 
of  different  actions. 

The  local  nature  of  noise  problems  does not  mean that  all  action  is  best  taken  at  local  level, 
as for example  generally  the sources of environmental noise are not of local origin.  However 
effective  action  is very  dependent  on  strong  local  and  national  policies  and these  need  to  be 
more  closely  related  to the measures  to be decided  at Community  level.  In this context there 
is  scope  for  cooperation  across  the  Community  to  improve  the  data  situation  and  the 
comparability  of  information  and  in addition the  Community  could  assist in the  exchange  of 
experience  in  noise  abatement  between  Member  States.  The  main  area  for  Community 
involvement will remain linked to the reduction of noise from  products. Here the  Commission 
will  be  looking  to  broaden  the  range  of  instruments  applied  and  paying  particular  attention 
to  the  potential  of  economic  instruments,  whose  use  to  date  is  not  widespread  in  noise 
abatement. 

The  proposed  new  framework  outlines  options  for  future  action  : 

1. 

2. 

A proposal  for  a directive  providing  for  the  harmonization  of  methods  of  assessment 
of  noise  exposure  and  the  mutual  exchange  of  information.  The  proposal  could 
include recommendations  on noise mapping and the provision of information  on noise 
exposure  to  the  public.  In  a  second  stage  consideration  could  be  given  to  the 
establishment  of  target  values  and  the  obligation  to  take  action  to  reach  the  targets. 

The next  phase  of  action to  reduce  road traffic  noise will  address tyre noise and  look 
at  the  possibilities  of  integrating  noise  costs  into  fiscal  instruments,  amending 
Community  legislation on road-worthiness tests to include  noise and  at the  promotion 
of  low  noise  surfaces  through  Community  funding. 

3. 

4. 

5 

More attention needs to be paid to rail noise where some Member  States are  planning 
national  legislation and where there is considerable opposition to the expansion of rail 
capacity  due  to  excessive  noise.  In  addition  to  supporting  research  in  this  field  the 
Commission will  investigate the feasibility  of introducing  legislation  setting  emission 
limit  values,  negotiated  agreements  with  the  rail  industry  on  targets  for  emission 
values  and  economic  instruments  such  as  a variable  track  charge. 

In  air  transport  the  Commission  is  also  looking  at  a  combination  of  instruments. 
These  would  include  greater  stringency  in  emission  values  and  the  use  of  economic 
instruments to encourage  the development  and use of lower  noise aircraft,  as well  the 
contribution  local  measures  such  as  land  use  planning  could  make.  A  specific 
framework  directive  on airport  charges  is planned  for  1996. A  consultation  paper  on 
stringency  in  emission  values  is to  be  presented  in the  near  future. 

The  Commission plans  to  simplify  the  existing  legislation  setting  emission limits  for 
a  limited  range  of  outdoor  equipment  and  will  propose  a  framework  directive 
covering  a  wider  range  of  equipment  including  construction  machinery,  garden 
equipment  and  others  and  incorporate  the  existing  seven  directives.  The  principal 
feature  of  the new  legislation  will  be  the requirement  to  label  all  equipment  with  the 
guaranteed  noise  level.  Limit  values  will  only  be  proposed  for  equipment  for  which 
there  is  already  noise  legislation  and  a  limited  range  of  highly  noisy  equipment. 

Conclusion 

One  of  the  main  aims  of  this  paper  is  to  help  to  give  noise  abatement  a  higher  priority  in 
policy  making.  It  is  focusing  on  the  areas  where  Community  action  in  cooperation  with 
Member  States  and  local  authorities  can  be  of  added  value.  The  options  for  action  on 
measurement  methods  and  exchange  of 
the 
establishment  of  an  overall  framework  for  action.  More  work  is  required  to  assess the  best 
combination  of  instruments  to  be  applied  to  the  different  modes  of  transport. 

important  steps  for 

information  cover 

/L r 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

is  seriously  disturbed  and  even  adverse  effects  on 

Many  Europeans  consider  environmental  noise,  caused  by  traffic,  industrial  and  recreational 
activities  as  their  main  local  environmental  problem  especially  in  urban  areas.  It  has  been 
estimated that around 20 percent of inhabitants in western Europe suffer  from  noise levels that 
scientists and health experts consider to be unacceptable, where most people become  annoyed, 
sleep 
the  cardiovascular  and 
psychophysiological  systems are to be feared.  The increasing number  of complaints from  the 
public  about  noise 
is  evidence  of  the  growing  concern  of  citizens.  For  example  the  1995 
Eurobarometer  environment  survey  showed  that  noise  was  the  fifth  most  important  area  of 
complaint  about  the  local  environment  (after  traffic,  air  pollution,  landscape  and  waste)  but 
was the  only  issue  about  which the  public's  complaints  had  increased  since  1992. The  same 
survey  showed  a significant  rise in the public's willingness to take action to  reduce  noise.  A 
number  of recent  publications  on the problem - such as those by WHO, EEA,and the Nordic 
Council  show  that  greater  attention  is being  paid  to  noise  issues  at  international  level. 

European  Community  measures  to  address  environmental  noise  problems  have  been  in 
existence  for  over  twenty  five  years  and  have  essentially  consisted  of  legislation  fixing 
maximum  sound  levels  for  vehicles,  aeroplanes  and  machines  with  single  market  aims  and 
as  such  have  not  been  conceived  as  part  of  an  overall  environmental  noise  abatement 
programme.  The  Member  States have  enacted  a multitude  of  supplementary  regulations  and 
other  measures  aiming  to  reduce  environmental  noise  problems  and  although  there  is  some 
evidence  to  show  that  noise  levels  in  the  worst  'blackspots'  have  been  reduced,  recent  data 
show  that  the  overall  noise  problem  is  worsening  and  the  numbers  of  people  living  in  so-
called  'grey  areas' has increased.  In particular  the  continuing  growth  in traffic  volume  in  all 
modes  coupled  with  suburban  development  have  led  high  levels  of  noise  exposure  to  be 
spread ever wider  over both space and time  and  are part  of the reason for  this worsening.  In 
addition  over  the past two  decades  leisure  activities  and tourism  have  created  new  spots and 
new  sources  of  noise.  As  a result  of  these  developments  the  impact  of  the  policy  measures 
implemented  to  date  to  address  the  noise  problem  are  being  offset. 

Generally  action  by  the  Community  and  the Member  States  on environmental  noise has had 
a lower priority  than that taken to solve other problems such as air and water pollution  despite 
the  fact  that  opinion  polls  show that  noise  is considered  one  of  the  main  causes  of  declining 
quality  of  life.  Some  of  the  reasons  may  be  that  decision  makers  are  not  aware  of  the 
problems  or familiar  with the effects  of noise, which are unspectacular: noise is insidious not 
catastrophic.  As far  as the Community  is concerned,  the lower priority  accorded  to noise has 
in  part  been  due  to  the  fact  that  noise  is  very  much  a  local  problem  with  very  varied 
perceptions  in  different  parts  of  the  Community  as  to  the  acceptability  of  the  problem. 
However  the  sources  of  many  of  the  causes  of  environmental  noise  are  not  of  local  origin. 
In  addition  despite  the  local  dimension  to  environmental  noise  problems  there  is  a  general 
international  consensus  on  the  levels  of  unacceptable  noise  to  which  the  public  should  not 
be  exposed  in  order  to  protect  health  and  quality  of  life. 

In  1993  the  European  Community  announced  the  beginings  of  a  change  to  environmental 
noise policy  in line with the major  changes to Community  environment policy  included  in the 
Fifth  Environmental  Action  Programme.  For  noise  the  Programme  established  as  a  basic 
objective  the  situation  where  no  person  should  be  exposed  to  noise  levels  which  endanger 
health  and  quality  of  life.  It puts forward  a a number  of targets  for  noise  exposure  levels  to 
be  reached  by  the  year  2000  (see annexe  1). 

1  -

In  order  to  meet  the  targets  the  Fifth  Action  Programme  lists  a  number  of  measures 
for 
implementation  by the different  actors in the Community,  depending  on their  responsibilities 
and  competencies,  covering  information,  technological,  planning,  economic  and  educational 
issues.  There  is  a  clear  recognition  as  in  other  areas  of  environment  policy  that  the 
Community needs to broaden the range of instruments to be applied, rather than relying  solely 
on  legislation  of  emissions  at  source  if  progress  is  to  be  made  in  protecting  people  from 
increasing  noise  exposure. 

The  recent  progress  report  on the  Fifth  Action  Programme  (COM(95)624)  called  for  more 
intensified  efforts.  Following  on from  the progress report,  the proposal  on the  review  of the 
Programme  (COM(95)647)  announces  that  particular  attention  will  be  given  to  the 
development  of  a  noise  abatement  programme,  which  will  address  comprehensively  the 
provision  of  information  to  the  public,  common  noise  exposure  indices,  targets  for  noise 
quality  and  noise  emission  from  products. 

To  this  end  the  Commission's  1996  work-programme  announces  the  first  step  in  the 
development  of  such  a programme  through  a  Green  Paper  to  stimulate  public  discussion  on 
future  noise  policy. 
focusing  on  the  areas  where  the  Commission  believes  the 
Community's  involvement  in cooperation with Member States and local authorities  can bring 
added  value  and  be  of  particular  benefit  for  the public  at  large. 

It  is 

The  Green  Paper  includes  in  Chapter  2  some  basic  information  on  the  problem  of 
environmental  noise  and  its  effects  followed  by  a  brief  review  of  the  noise  situation  in  the 
Community  and  estimates of external  costs to  society  of noise pollution.  Chapter  3  analyses 
the  approach  taken  to  noise  abatement  to  date  in  the  Member  States  and  the  Community. 
Chapter 4 outlines options for  action covering  a framework  for  the assessment and  reduction 
of noise  exposure  and  future  action  to reduce  noise  from  different  sources. 

This paper  is addressing  noise  as an environmental  problem  and  therefore  does  not  directly 
deal  with  the  issue  of  noise  control  in  workplaces  for  which  legislation  has  been  in  place 
since  1986  (Directive  86/188/EEC)  and  whose  revision  is  pending  at  Council  level. 
Furthermore  it  does  not  deal  with  neighbourhood  noise.  Here  the  provisions  of  the 
Construction  Products  Directive  (89/106/EEC)  can  be  of  relevance  as  far  as  technical 
solutions  are  concerned.  A  large  part  of  the  solutions  for  such  'social'  noise  however  are 
educational  and  these  problems  are  generally  regulated  locally. 

2. 

THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF NOISE AND THE NOISE  SITUATION 
IN  THE  EUROPEAN  UNION 

Noise is often  defined  as 'unwanted  sound'  or  'sound  that is  loud,  unpleasant  or  unexpected'. 
Its  origins  are  in  human  activities  and  it  is  especially  associated  with  the  process  of 
urbanization  and  the  development  of  transport  and  industry.  Although  primarily  an  urban 
problem,  due to  topographic  conditions  it can  also be a source  of  annoyance  in rural  areas. 

Annex 2 describes the  main  indices used  in this paper  for  the measurement  of  noise,  namely 
the  decibel  (dB), the  most  commonly  used  index  to  express  noise  exposure  the  'A'  weighted 
sound  pressure  level  dB(A)  and  the  method  of  averaging  results  over  time  the  so-called 
equivalent  continuous  sound  pressure  level  LA  . 

The  Sources  of  Environmental  Noise 

All  the  Member  States  have  similar  classifications  of  the  sources  of  environmental  noise 
related  to  the  different  human  activities:  road  traffic,  rail  traffic,  air  traffic,  industry,  civil 
engineering  and  building  site  activities,  recreational  activities,  outdoor  equipment  (such  as 
gardening equipment). These classes differ  from  a phenomenological  point of view and as the 
public's  attitudes  to  noise  from  the  different  sources  vary,  are  perceived  differently.  (Annex 
3  describes  the  nature  of  noise  in more  detail). 

Effects  of  noise 

The effects  of noise are difficult  to quantify  as people's tolerance to noise levels and  different 
types  of  noise  vary  considerably.  However  there  is  a  large  amount  of  scientific  literature 
analysing  and  assessing  the  effects  of  noise  on  human  beings.  The  most  recent  and  most 
comprehensive is the  WHO report (soon to be published) 'Community Noise - Environmental 
Health  Criteria'  which  points  out  that  environmental  noise  may  have  a  number  of  direct 
adverse effects  on exposed people  including  disturbance  of  sleep, auditory  and  non-auditory 
physiological  -  basically  cardiovascular  -  effects,  interference  with  communication  and 
general  annoyance  (more  details  are  included  in  annex  4).  Environmental  noise  exposure 
does  not  normally  cause  noise  induced  hearing  loss  except  where  exposure  is  exceptionally 
high  over  a  long  period. 

Magnitude  of  the  environmental  noise  problem 

Exposure 

Generally  data on the overall exposure of the population  of European  countries  is patchy  and 
often  difficult  to  compare  due  to  the  use  of  different  methods  of  obtaining  the  data  and 
different  descriptors.  The most comprehensive  data on exposure to noise in Europe has been 
collated  by  the  OECD  in  1993  and  includes  data  from  14 European  countries. 

A  variety  of  studies  carried  out  recently  have  built  on  this  work  and  estimate  that  between 
17 and 22% (close on  80 million people) of the Union's population are exposed to continuous 
day-time  outdoor  noise levels caused  by transport  above  what  are  generally  considered  to be 
acceptable - more than 65 dB(A) (INRETS  1994, von Meier  1994, INFRAS/IWW 1994).  An 
additional  170 million citizens are exposed to noise levels between  55-65  dB(A), which is the 
level  at which  people  become  seriously  annoyed  during  the  daytime. 

Road  transport  noise  is the  dominant  source  accounting  for  nine  tenths  of  the  proportion  of 
the  Union's  population  exposed  to  levels  of  noise  over  65  dB(A).  As  for  rail  1.7%  of  the 
population  and air transport  a further  1% of  the population  are exposed to these high levels. 

Annoyance 

Data  for  expressed  annoyance  are  even  more  insufficient  than  those  for  exposure.  National 
surveys  do  not  always  use  the  same  wordings  of  questions  to  enable  assessment  of  the  way 
in  which  noise  is  perceived  (disturbed,  annoyed  or  affected).  Comparable  data  are  only 
available  for  four  countries  -  Germany,  France,  Netherlands,  United  Kingdom.  This  shows 
that  road  traffic  seems  to  annoy  between  20  and  25%  of  the  population  and  railway  noise 
between  2  and  4%.  Data  from  a  number  of  countries  indicate  that  people  have  a  greater 
tolerance  of  rail  noise  than  road  noise  and  in  some  countries  this  is taken  into  consideration 

-  3  -

in  the  setting  of  standards,  guidelines  or  recommendations,  which  are  set  around  5  dB(A) 
higher  for  rail  than  for  roads. 

Recently  investigations  have  started  looking  at  the  effect-dose  relation,  whereby  a  certain 
percentage  of  the  annoyed  population  is  related  to  a given  noise  exposure.  The  effect-dose 
relation  will  depend  on the noise source causing the exposure and  it  should  make  it  possible 
to  compare  the  annoyance  caused  by  different  noise  sources.  Another  aim  of  this  research 
is  to  investigate  the  cumulative  effects  of  exposure  to  different  noise  sources. 

Trends: 

Data  over  the  past  15  years  do  not  show  significant  improvements  in  exposure  to 
environmental  noise  especially  road  traffic  noise.  Although  exposure  levels  remained  fairly 
stable  at  beginning  of  1980s  and  action  on  'black  spots' over  70 dB(A)  has  been  successful, 
as  indicated  above  the  proportion  of  the  population  exposed  to  levels  above  65  dB(A) 
remained high and increases have been experienced by the end of the decade in many  western 
European countries in the range  55-65 dB(A) the so-called 'grey' zone apparently  as the result 
of  fast  growing  volume  of road  traffic  (INRETS  1994).  The data  show that  the  numbers  of 
those acutely exposed are decreasing but the overall problem is getting worse.  In many  urban 
areas,  traffic  noise  peaks  are  not  increasing  but  the  period  of  high  noise  exposure  is 
increasing.  Whereas  in the past the  day-time  period  between  800  and  1800 was the  noisiest 
time,  now  the  night-time  period  is also  becoming  more  and  more  noisy  (CEST  1993). 

In  the  case  of  air  traffic,  there  is  some  evidence  of 
improvements  in  exposure  to  aircraft 
noise  since  the  1970s.  This  is  due  largely  to  the  introduction  of  stricter  noise  certification 
standards but also due to other non technical measures (restrictions on night time movements, 
controlled  take-off  and  landing  flight  paths, air  traffic  control  procedures).  For  example  the 
population  around  Heathrow  exposed  to  noise  levels  above  60 dB(A)  has  more  than  halved 
between  1975  and  1989,  when  there  has  been  a  significant  growth  in  traffic  over  the  same 
period.  Large  decreases  have  also  been  experienced  at  Copenhagen,  Schipol  (Amsterdam). 

Noise emissions from  individual  trains have also fallen  and is associated with the  changeover 
from  diesel  to  electrically  powered  passenger trains, the gradual  introduction  of welded  rails 
to  replace jointed  rail  and  the  greater  use  of  disc braked  rolling  stock. 

The  development  of  high  speed rail  is an issue of particular  concern  as far  as  future  railway 
noise is concerned  and  is the  main subject  of  complaint  from  the public, when new  lines are 
under discussion. Current practice  is to include noise abatement measures in the planning  and 
construction  of  such  lines. 

Available data on the current state and forecasts of the noise environment,  which have serious 
shortcomings,  show  that  in  the  absence  of  ambitious  abatement  policies,  the  noise 
environment  risks  remaining  unsatisfactory  or even deteriorating  especially  exposure to road 
traffic  noise.  The  main  general  trends  influencing  the  current  and  future  situation  are: 

The  increase  in  vehicles  and  vehicle  mileage;  the  forecasts  to  2010  indicate  a  near 
doubling  of  road  freight  transport  (in  tonne-kilometres)  and  an  increase  in  aviation 
traffic  by  over  180%; 
The  development  of  high  speed  rail; 
The  spread  of  traffic  noise  spatially  to  affect  rural  and  suburban  areas; 
The  spread  of  noise  over  time  as  the  period  of  annoying  levels  of  transport  noise 

-  4 -

expands  with  24  hour  freight  distribution. 

Estimates  of  the  external  costs  of  noise 

The  economic  costs of  noise  have  been  examined  in  numerous  different  ways  and  there  are 
no  benchmarks  for  standardised  evaluation  of  costs.  Almost  all  this  research  is  limited  to 
transportation  noise.  The  most  common  methods  used  have  been  (INFRAS/IWW  1994): 

Willingness  to  pay  based  on  surveys  -
Change  of  the  market  value  of  properties;  hedonic  pricing 
Cost  for  abatement  measures 
Cost  of  avoidance  or  prevention 
Cost  of  medical  care  and  production  losses 

. 

An overview  of these  studies produced  in  1993  (Quinet  1993) found  that the estimated  costs 
of  noise  pollution  vary  between  0.2%  and  2%  of  GDP.  Generally  studies  based  on  the 
avoidance  cost approach  give low values for  noise costs - below  0.1%  of GDP, while  studies 
using  the  willingness  to  pay  approach  give  higher  values.  All  the  studies  on  willingness  to 
pay  have  been  carried  out  in  countries  with  a high  per  capita  income.  Willingness  to  pay  is 
undoubtedly  dependent on the ability to pay and therefore  noise would probably not be valued 
so  high  in  less  rich  countries. 

In  Germany  a number  of studies have been based  on the willingness to pay  for  a better  noise 
environment  approach  and  show  that  on  average  an  individual  would  be  prepared  to  pay 
around  10 ECU  per  1 dB(A)  improvement  per  person  per  year  if  the  noise  levels  exceed  43 
dB(A).  On this basis the annual  costs of traffic  noise in Germany  were estimated to  be  7.8 -
9.6  Billion  ECU. 

The  study  carried  out  for  the  UIC  by  IFRAS/IWW  (1994)  made  an  overall  estimate  for  17 
European  countries  based  on  the  willingness  to  pay  approach  which  shows the  total  cost  of 
transport  noise  to  be  38  billion  ECU  per  year  (EUR15  plus  Norway  and  Switzerland)  or 
0.65%  of  GDP.  The  cost  figures  for  each  country  were  adjusted  to  individual  national 
situations  using  purchasing  power  parities. 

These  annual  costs  related  to  transport  volume  break  down  as  follows: 
Passenger transport - cars 4.5 ECU/1000 passenger kilometre compared to 4.2 ECU/1000 pkm 
for  buses,  3.1  ECU/1000 pkm  for  rail  and  3.0  ECU/1000  pkm  for  air  transport.  The  figure 
calculated  for  two  wheelers  gave the highest cost coefficient  of all modes  of  60.3  ECU/1000 
pkm. 
Freight  transport -  12.7 ECU/1000 tonne kilometre  for  road transport and 4.7 ECU/1000 tkm 
for  rail  transport. 

Studies  into  the  decrease  in  housing  value  depending  on  noise  exposure  for  a  variety  of 
countries over the past 25 years have shown that  in the  1980s the average rate of  depreciation 
can  be estimated  at approximately  1% per dB(A)  if the noise exceeds  55 dB(A), whereas  the 
studies  covering  the  1970s  show  a  depreciation  rate  of  0.3  to  0.8%  per  dB(A)  (INRETS 
1994).  On the basis of these depreciation  rates global  evaluations  of total damage  caused by 
road  traffic  noise  have  been  undertaken  for  cities  and  countries.  For  France  this  was 
estimated  to  be  800  million  ECU  per  year  or  an  average  of  around  30  ECU  per  inhabitant 
exposed  to  over  55  dB(A). 

5  -

Data  on  the  noise  costs  caused  by  aviation  noise  often  relate  to  the  costs  of  insulation 
schemes in properties around airports.  These costs vary widely depending on local  labour and 
materials costs, the scope of the insulation scheme, the actual  indoor noise level to be reached 
and  the  technical  measures  used.  This  is  illustrated  by  the  following  data:  for  Schipol  the 
average cost per apartment is around 23650 ECU, for Frankfurt  around 3800 ECU, Kôln/Bonn 
6600  ECU  (for  3 bedrooms)  and  Manchester  2300  ECU. 

There  is little  data  on  actual  damage  costs of noise  in terms  of monetary  estimates of  health 
costs.  Some  work  in  Germany  has  estimated  that  the  annual  cost  of  noise  on  public  health 
is of the order  of  500 to  1900  million  ECU per  annum  for  road  noise  and  100 million  ECU 
for  rail  noise. 

3. 

EXISTING  POLICIES  TO  REDUCE  NOISE  EXPOSURE  AND  THEIR 
APPLICATION 

3.1  Methods  and  Instruments  for  Reducing  Noise  Exposure 

There  are three  basic  approaches  to  reducing  environmental  noise  exposure: 

i. 

ii. 

iii. 

Reducing noise at source - from  machines, engines, tyres and surface,  reducing  speeds 
and  reducing  traffic  volume  and  use  of  equipment, 
Limiting  the  transmission of noise  by placing  barriers  between  the  source and  people 
affected, 
Reducing  noise  at  the  reception  point  such  as  through  noise  insulation  of  buildings. 

The  policy  instruments  developed  to  implement  these  methods  include:  Emission  standards 
for  individual  sources generally  laid down  in legislation,  immission standards based on noise 
quality criteria, land use planning, infrastructure  measures, economic  instruments, operational 
procedures,  research  and  development  and  education  and  information  actions.  Annex  5 
contains  a more  detailed  outline  of  the  different  policy  instruments. 

Analysis  of  Existing  Noise  Abatement  Actions  in  the  European  Union 

The  following  sections  of  this  chapter  analyses  use  of  these  policy  instruments  in  the 
European  Union  and  briefly  assesses  the  impact  their  application  has  had  on  the  noise 
situation.  Most  of  these  instruments  have  been  developed  and  implemented  at  the  national 
and local level. The European  Community and international  involvement has essentially been 
in the  establishment  of emission standards to control  noise from  individual  sources  although 
there  is  increasing  cooperation  at  the  Community  and  at  international  level  in  research  into 
the  effects  of  noise,  noise  abatement  methods  and  in  the  determination  of  noise  exposure 
levels. 

3.2 

Legislation  on  Emission  Standards 

For more than twenty  years Community  environmental  noise policy  has essentially  consisted 
of  legislation  fixing  maximum  sound  levels  for  vehicles,  aeroplanes  and  machines  with  a 
single  market  aim  linked  to  third  party  certification  procedures  to  ensure  that  new  vehicles 
and  equipment  are,  at  the  time  of manufacture  complying  with  the noise  limits  laid  down  in 
directives.  The  evolution  of  the  emission  limits  over  time  is  shown  in  tables  in  annex  6. 

6-

Transport  sources 

Road  Transport 

Motor  Vehicles:  The  original  legislation  governing  sound  levels  for  motor  vehicles  (Cars, 
Lorries and Buses) was adopted  in  1970 (directive  70/157/EEC) and has since been  amended 
nine  times.  The  latest  amendment  by  directive  92/97/EEC  comes  into  force  in  1996.  The 
type  approval  test  for  this  directive  seeks  to  limit  noise  produced  in  a  typical  urban  traffic 
situation.  All  vehicles  must  meet  the  limits  and  therefore  production  models  need  to  be 
designed to  -ldB(A)  below  the  limits to allow  for  production  tolerances.  As the  limits  have 
fallen,  tyre  noise  has  become  more  significant  and  with  the  new  limits  will  be  the  main 
source  at  speeds  above  50  km/h.The  point  has  now  been  reached  where  without  action  to 
address  tyre/road  noise,  a  further  lowering  of  the  limits  would  not  be  effective.  The  1992 
amendment  therefore  calls  on the  Commission  to  present  a proposal  to  address  the  problem 
of  tyre/road  noise. 

Two  and  Three  Wheelers:  Legislation  setting  limits  for  the  permissible  sound  level  of 
motorcycles  has  been  in  existence  since  1978  (78/1015/EEC) and  since  amended  on  several 
occasions  in order to  introduce  lower  limit values, the latest being  in  1989 (89/235/EEC).  In 
1993  the  Commission  proposed  a  draft  amendment  to  the  directive  as  part  of  an  overall 
proposal  concerning  type  approval  of  two  and  three  wheel  vehicles  (COM(93)449).  This 
would make the optional  second stage limit values  set out in the  1989 amendment  mandatory 
as  of  1  January  1997  and  would  also  introduce  provisions  concerning  anti-tampering  of 
silencers.  The  Council  reached  a common  position  on this proposal  in November  1995  and 
final  adoption  is  expected  in  1996. 

Assessment  of  the  impact  of  the  legislation 

Following implementation of the latest amendment this year, the legislation will have resulted 
in  a  reduction  of  noise  of  85%  for  individual  cars  (8  dB(A))  and  over  90%  for  individual 
heavy  lorries  (11  dB(A)).  However  studies  have  shown  that  the  reduction  in  actual  road 
traffic  noise levels thanks to this legislation has been much less: only  1-2  dB(A).  The reasons 
for  this  low  level  of  effectiveness  have  been  identified  as: relaxed  limits  in  the  early  years, 
a  slow  replacement  of  older  noisier  vehicles,  significant  growth  in  traffic  and  a  lower 
threshold  to  achievable  noise  reductions  caused  by  the  interaction  of  tyre  and. road 
(Sandberg  1993).  In addition  the test procedure  (ISO  R 362) doesn't  reflect  realistic  driving 
conditions and  without a regular inspection procedure to ensure maintenance of the acoustical 
the  noise  levels  of  the  vehicle  may  increase  over  time.  For  example 
design  features 
tampering  with  the  exhaust  silencers  on motorcycles  can  increase  noise  levels  by  10 dB(A). 

Directive 77/143/EEC sets out the basic provisions for roadworthiness tests and includes noise 
as one  of  the  items  to  be part  of the  test.  However  this  is generally  only  a  subjective  check 
to  ensure  that  the  exhaust  silencers  are  intact  and  there  is  no  specific  legislation  as  there  is 
for  air  pollution.  Some  countries  outside  the  Union  have  had  success  with  roadworthiness 
testing for noise.  In Japan for example there are periodic noise inspections for in-use vehicles 
in  the  street,  while  in  some  Australian  states  vehicles  are  subject  to  on-road  'spotting  and 
subsequent testing  (OECD  1991).  In New  South Wales thousands of vehicles  are tested each 
year  and  average  reductions  of  emission  of  9  dB(A)  have  been  achieved  at  a  relatively  low 
cost. 

-  7 -

Rail  Transport 

In  1983 the Commission proposed  a directive  relating to maximum  permitted  noise  emission 
levels of rail-mounted vehicles.  This proposal, although approved by the European Parliament 
was  withdrawn  by  the  Commission  in  1993.  The  withdrawal  was  partly  due  to  unresolved 
technical  issues  but  mainly  related  to  the  unrestricted  access  of  third  country  rail  vehicles, 
which  would  not  have  been  subject  to  the  European  Community  emission  levels. 

In the  meantime  a number  of  Member  States have  started  to  consider  introducing  their  own 
controls  on railway  noise emissions. In  1993 Austria enacted  legislation  on the  admittance  of 
rail  wagons  for  use  by  Austrian  railways  which  require  as  of  1995  a  noise  reduction  of  5 
dB(A)  for  freight  wagons. 

Air  Transport 

Directive  92/14/EEC  ,  which  came  into  force  in  April  1995,  is  the  latest  in  a  series  of 
legislative  measures  begun  in  1979  (Directives  80/51/EEC  and  89/629/EEC)  aimed  at 
limitation  of  aircraft  noise.  These  directives,  like  broadly  similar  legislation  in  other  'noise 
restrictive states' (most of non-EU  Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand,  and the USA), 
use  the  benchmark  standards  specified  by  the  International  Civil  Aviation  Organisation  ( 
ICAO)  in  the  Environmental  Protection  Annexe  (Annex  16,  Volume  I)  to  the  Chicago 
Convention,  to  which  most  countries  in  the  world  adhere.  The  limit  values  for  individual 
aircraft  types during  take-off  and landing  are specified  in terms of Effective  Perceived  Noise 
Levels  (EPNL)  in  dB(A),  and  depend  on  the  aircraft  weight  and  number  of  engines.  The 
oldest, noisiest jet transport aircraft  are 'non noise certificated'  (NNC), the second  generation's 
characteristics  are reflected  in Chapter  2 of Annex  16, and the most modern,  quietest  aircraft 
meet  Chapter  3  standards. 

Subsonic  non  noise  certificated  (NNC)  aircraft  have been  excluded  from  airports  for  several 
years  and  under  the terms  of Directive  92/14  Chapter  2 aircraft  over  25 years  old  have  been 
banned  from  European  Community  airports  since  April  1995  unless  granted  exemptions 
designed  to  avoid  unreasonable  economic  hardship  to  the  airlines  of  developing  nations  for 
instance.  Chapter 2 aircraft  are being systematically phased out over the  1995 to 2002 period, 
and  as  of  1 April  2002  only  Chapter  3  aircraft  will  be  allowed  to  use  Community  airports. 
Meanwhile,  increased  stringency  is  being  considered  in  international  fora  such  as  ICAO's 
Committee  on  Aviation  Environmental  Protection  (CAEP)  and  the  European  Civil  Aviation 
Conference  (ECAC). 

Assessment  of  the  impact  of  the  legislation 

Like  individual  motor  vehicles,  individual  aircraft,  when  comparing  those  of  the  same  size, 
have  become  much  quieter  over  the  past  twenty  years.  The  noise  footprint  area  around  an 
airport  made  by  a  modern  jet  aircraft  has  been  reduced  by  a  factor  of  9  compared  to  an 
aircraft  with  1970s technology.  In the turboprop segment the noise footprint  has been reduced 
by a factor  of 4.5 over the past twenty five years.  In Europe the changeover  to an all  Chapter 
3  fleet  has  advanced  steadily  but  at  the  same  time  the  average  size  of  individual  aircraft  is 
increasing.  These developments  coupled  with the high growth  in the past  and projected  high 
growth  for the  future  may  mean that  only  short to medium  term  benefit  will  be  gained  from 
the  phase  out  of  chapter  2  aircraft  and  that  after  2002  the  overall  noise  emissions  and 

consequently the overall noise footprints  may  not be contained  within the reduced  boundaries 
expected  to  be  achieved  by  that  date. 

Construction  Plant  and  Equipment,  Lawnmowers 

The  Community's  policy  towards  the  control  of  noise  from  a  limited  number  of  types  of 
equipment  used  outdoors  has  consisted  of  directives  relating  to  permissable  noise  emission 
values,  noise  test  codes  and  the  labelling  of  equipment  with  its  guaranteed  noise  emission 
values.  Most noise emission values have been  strengthened  in a second step and since  entry 
into  force  of  the  various  pieces  of  legislation  noise  emission  levels  of  the  types  of  machine 
covered  has  been  reduced  by  1 to  5 dB(A). 

This approach  has resulted in 6 directives relating to noise of individual types of  construction 
plant and equipment  (compressors; tower cranes; welding generators; power generators; hand 
held  concrete  breakers  and  picks;  hydraulic  excavators,  rope-operated  excavators,  dozers, 
loaders  and  excavator-loaders),  and  one  relating  to  noise  from  lawn  mowers. 

Directive  89/392/EEC commonly  known as the Machinery  Directive lays down provisions on 
health  and  safety  concerning  the  design  and  construction  of  machinery  including  noise 
emissions  .  It states that machinery  be designed  and  constructed  so that risks resulting  from 
the  emission  of  airborne  noise  are  reduced  to  the  lowest  level  taking  account  of  technical 
progress  and  the  means  available  to  reduce  noise,  in  particular  at  source.  As  the  emphasis 
is on  the  workplace  it  does  not  deal  directly  with  environmental  noise. 

Assessment  of  the  impact  of  the  legislation 

These  directives  only  cover  a  very  small  range  of  noisy  outdoor  equipment  and  in  recent 
years  there  have  been  calls  from  several  Member  States  to  extend  the  legislation  to  cover 
other  products  in  particular  to  ensure  that  national  legislation  that  has  developed  on  noise 
emissions  from  outdoor  equipment  does  not  lead  to restrictions  on trade  and  cause  problems 
for the functioning  of the single market.  For example there is legislation in France  controlling 
the  noise  of  construction  machines,  in  Germany  governing  concrete  pumps  and  mixers  and 
controls  in the  Netherlands  on  motor  chain  saws. 

In  order  to  address  the  noise  problem  of  outdoor  equipment  in  an  integrated  manner  the 
Commission  together  with  experts  from  the  Member  States  have  been  developing  a  new 
framework  directive  to bring together the machinery  already  covered  by  EC noise  legislation 
and  a wide  range  of  other  products. The  outline  of  the new proposal  is presented  in  Chapter 
4. 

Industrial  Noise 

There  is  no  Community  legislation  laying  down  noise  emission  limits  from  industrial 
installations.  However, the proposed directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control 
(IPPC)  on  which  the  Council  reached  a  common  position  in  1995  is  relevant  for  noise 
reduction.  It  provides  for  the  control  of  emissions  including  noise  by  means  of  a  permit, 
taking  into  account  local  circumstances.  The  permit  application  must  include  a  description 
of  the  likely  effects  and  both  the  application  and  the  final  permit  are  subject  to  public 
scrutiny.  In 
the  competent  authority  ensures,  that  any  relevant 
environmental  quality standards are observed.  Thus the IPPC will form  a framework  in which 

issuing  the  permit 

-  9 -

the emissions of noise from  industry can be controlled  if the  local circumstances require  such 
control.  It also provides that the Council  shall adopt  emission  limits  at  European  level  if the 
need  arises. 

3.3 

Immission  Standards  and  Planning  Procedures:  Noise  Quality  Criteria 

International  Work  on  Noise  Quality  Criteria 

As mentioned  in the  introduction, a large degree of international  consensus has emerged  over 
the  years  as  what  constitute  unacceptable  levels  of  noise  exposure  and  what  should  be  the 
maximum  levels  of  exposure  for  certain  specific  situations.  At  the  international  level  the 
World  Health  Organization  together  with  the  OECD  are the  main  bodies  that  have  collected 
data and developed  their  own assessments on the effects  of exposure  to  environmental  noise. 
On  the  basis  of  these  assessments guideline  values  for  different  time  periods  and  situations 
have  been  suggested. 

In  the  mid  1980s  the  OECD  (OECD  1986)  reported  the  thresholds  for  noise  nuisance  as 
follows  (in  day-time  LAeq): 

at  55-60  dB(A)  noise  creates  annoyance; 
at  60-65  dB(A)  annoyance  increases  considerably; 
above  65  dB(A)  constrained  behaviour  patterns,  symptomatic  of  serious  damage 
caused  by  noise  arise. 

The World Health  Organization  has suggested a standard  guideline  value  for  average  outdoor 
noise  levels  of  55  dB(A),  applied  during  normal  daytime  in  order  to  prevent  significant 
interference  with the normal activities of local  communities.  Additional  guideline  values are 
suggested  for  specific  environments  (WHO  1996  forthcoming): 
All  figures  are  in  LAeq 

Dwellings 
Bedrooms 

Schools 
Hospitals 

general 
ward  rooms 

Concert  Halls 
Discotheques 

Daytime 

Inside 
50  dB(A) 

Outside 
55  dB(A) 

35  dB(A) 

55  dB(A) 

35  dB(A) 
30  dB(A) 
100 dB(A)  for  4h  period 
90  dB(A)  for  4h  period 

Nighttime 

Inside 

Outside 

30  dB(A)' 
45  dBLAmax 

45  dB(A)1 

35  dB(A)  45  dB(A)max 
30  dB(A)  40  dB(A)max 
100 dB(A)  for  4h  period 
90  dB(A)  for  4h  period 

The  Fifth  Environmental  Action Programme  established  a number  of  broad  targets on  which 
to  base  action  up  to  the  year  2000  in  night-time  LAeq : 

to phase  out  average  exposure  above  65  dB(A); 
to  ensure  that  at  no  point  in  time  a  level  of  85  dB(A)  should  be  exceeded  coupled 
with  the  aim  of  ensuring  that  the  proportions  of  the  population  exposed  to  average 
levels  between  55  and  65  dB(A)  should  not  increase 
exposure  in  quiet  areas  should  not  increase  beyond  55  dB(A). 

even  lower  sound  pressure  levels  may  disturb  sleep  depending  on  the  noise  source  and  the 
overall  noise  situation 

10 

Noise  Quality  Criteria  applied  in  the  Member  States 

A survey  of the  situation  in  Community  countries  has  shown  that  most  Member  States  have 
adopted  legislation  or  recommendations  aiming  for  immission  limits  in noise sensitive areas 
similar  to  these  guideline  values.  (INRETS  1994).  The  national  regulations  were  initially 
developed in the  1970s and  1980s in northern  Member  States and  somewhat later in southern 
Member  States.  Generally  the limits  are more  detailed  and specific  about  the noise sources, 
the  current  noise  situation,  the  kind  of  living  area  than  the  WHO  guideline  values. 

Increasingly  these regulations  are being  integrated  into national  abatement  laws and are used 
in land use plans.  Noise immission standards for  new developments are normally  set by local 
authorities  as  part  of  planning  policy  and  are  used  as  a  reference  in  environmental  impact 
assessments.  They  serve  as  a  means  of  ensuring  that  appropriate  measures  are  taken  to 
minimize the noise  impact  of  a site.  Where  an acceptable  level  of noise cannot  be  achieved, 
planning permission may be refused  or action may be required to improve  insulation from  the 
noise  sources. 

As  far  as  road  traffic  noise  is  concerned  the  limits  generally  apply  to  new  roads  and  major 
modifications  to  existing  roads  in  national  road  networks.  Communal  and  urban  roads  are 
rarely  covered  by  limit  values,  the  decision  being  left  up  to  the  local  authority  to  apply  the 
limit  or  not.  Only  a  few  countries  have  adopted  measures to  improve  existing  critical  noise 
problems  along  existing  roads.  The  problems  of  funding  for  these  actions  has  limited  their 
adoption.  On  a  technical  level  the  LAeq  (equivalent  noise  level)  index  has  been  almost 
universally  adopted  for  road  noise  assessment. 

The  immission  limits  are  generally  applied  to  daytime  and  night-time  periods,  although  the 
definitions  of day  and night vary.  The most common definition  is 6-22h  for  daytime and 22-
6h  for  night  time.  Sometimes  the  evening  is  added  as  a  third  period  as  it  is  an  extremely 
sensitive  period  for  local  residents.  The  Nordic  countries  use  a  single  24  hour  period,  the 
night-time  values  being  raised  by  10  dB(A)  in  order  to  calculate  the  daily  average.  Apart 
from  the daytime  period noise  immission  limits depend  on the  sensitivity  of the  areas where 
they apply: hospitals, schools, residential  areas, industrial areas and commercial  areas as well 
as the development phase  of  infrastructure  and buildings.  Differences  of  10 to  15 dB(A) are 
frequently  found  in  the  limits  between  the  most  and  least  sensitive  areas.  The  situations  in 
the different  Member  States are diverse  and difficult  to compare.  However  the survey of the 
situation  in the  Community  done  for  the  Commission  showed  that  the  58  to  62  dB(A)  limit 
measured  in  LAeq  by  day  at  the  facades  of  buildings  and  48  to  55  at  night-time  seem  to  be 
ranges  of  the  basic  limits  applied  to  zones  bordering  new  roads  in  residential  areas. 
Differences  of 5 to  10 dB(A) are also commonly  observed  between the  limits applied to new 
developments  and  those  for  the  correction  of  existing  situations. 

The  limits  applied  to  railway  noise  are  similar  to  those  for  road  noise  in that  they  generally 
aim to protect people  living near new lines, are applied for  similar periods of the day and are 
index.  Some countries use LAmax, particularly  at night-times to 
by and  large based  on the LA 
limit the effects  of noise on sleep.  Other countries such as Germany, Austria and  Switzerland 
use a rating  value  Lr, that  is calculated  from  LAeq by  subtracting  the  so-called  railway  bonus 
that  has  been  given  to  railway  noise  on the  basis of  surveys that  show that  railways noise  at 
a  given  LAeq is considered  less  annoying  than  road  noise.  Again  the  limits  often  depend  on 
the  sensitivity  of  the  area  affected.  For  new  railway  lines  in  residential  areas  the  limits 
surveyed  are  in  the  62  to  69  dB(A)  range  for  daytime  and  53  to  62  dB(A)  for  night-time. 

11 

Noise limits have been fixed for aircraft  noise to ensure that rules are followed  when  building 
new dwellings and other noise sensitive installations close to existing  airports and to be taken 
into  consideration  for  airport  capacity  expansion.  Zones  are  generally  designed  to  separate 
land uses and  is done by mapping noise contours and relating permissible land use to  ambient 
noise levels.  Unlike road and rail noise, there is a wide variety of noise indices for  such rules 
or  guidelines.  Two  basic  approaches  are  generally  followed.  One  uses the  LAcq as  for  road 
and rail, the other  uses indices that consider  the number  of aircraft  movements  and the peak 
noise  level  of  each  movement,  with  weightings  for  different  periods  of  the  day.  In  view  of 
the  diversity  of  the  indices,  it  is difficult  to  compare  immission  limits. 

Most  Member  States  apply  noise  limits  for  noisy  industrial  establishments  using  the  LA 
index.  Sometimes  'penalties'  are  added  to  take  into  account  the  particular  character  of  the 
noise.  As  for  road  and  rail  noise  these  apply  to  day  and  night  time periods  and  sometimes 
the  evening period,  and vary  depending  on the sensitivity of the zone. In residential areas the 
limits  range  from  45  to  55  dB(A)  by  day  and  35 to  45  dB(A)  at  night. 

This  survey  done  for  the  Commission  and  other  similar  surveys  show  a considerable  degree 
of convergence between Member States in the establishment of quality criteria with immission 
limits  related  to  sources  and  locations.  While  there  are  differences  between  the  Member 
States  in  the  levels  of  the  limits  applied,  the  ranges  of  the  limits  especially  those  for  road 
traffic  and  industrial  noise  for  new  developments  are  relatively  small.  On  a  technical  level 
the  virtually  universal  adoption  of  the  LA 
index  for  road,  rail  and  industrial  noise  is  an 
important  element  in  convergence.  There  are  however  wide  differences  between  Member 
States  in  the  methods  used  to  assess  noise  exposure,  which  greater  hampers  making 
comparisons  between  the  data. 

3.4 

Infrastructure  Measures 

Road  Surfaces 

Low-noise porous  road  surfaces  have  been the  subject  of  much  research.  These  porous  road 
surfaces  reduce  both  the  generation  and  propagation  of  noise  by  a  range  of  mechanisms 
which  can  be related  to the  open  structure  of the  surface  layer.  Results have  shown that the 
emission  noise  levels  can  be  reduced  from  levels  generated  on  equivalent  non-porous  road 
surfaces  by  between  3  to  5  dB(A)  on  average  and  by  optimising  the  surface  design  larger 
noise  reductions  are  feasible.  At present  the  cost  of porous  asphalt  surfacing  is  higher  than 
conventional  surfaces,  by  around  4.5  ECU  per  m2  (for  resurfacing,  for  new  roads  the 
increased  cost  is  marginal)  but  they  may  fall  as  contractors  gain  experience  with  laying 
surface.  The  material  is  also  less  durable.  However  improvements  are  being  made  to 
durability  and already  in many countries these materials are being used as part of normal road 
construction  in  noise  sensitive  areas  (INRETS  1994). 

The  Commission  has  been  involved  in  some of  the research  activities  for  low  noise  surfaces 
and  at  present  in  cooperation  with  the  Federation  of  European  Road  Research  Laboratories 
is undertaking  research on road design and construction techniques which may  form  the basis 
of future  standards and includes noise generation.  Also the CEN standardisation  organisation 
is  working  on  a  standard  for  porous  asphalt  which  will  include  noise  criterion. 

12 

3.5 

Use  of  Economic  Instruments 

Use of  economic  instruments  for  noise  abatement  is not  widespread  in  Europe.  The  OECD 
in its report  "Fighting noise in the  1990s" (OECD  1991)  concluded  that  economic  incentives 
for noise reduction have shown their effectiveness  in relation to road vehicles in the few cases 
where  they  have  been  used  and  argued  for  much  more  general  use.  Noise  charges  -  except 
in the  field  of aircraft  noise - have been used even  less than  incentives  and where these  have 
been  used  have  generally  been  set  too  low  to  encourage  noise  reduction.  Their  main 
function  has  been  to  raise  funds  for  noise  control  measures  such  as  insulation  of  buildings. 

Taxes  and  Charges 

The  inclusion  of  a  noise  charge  component  as  part  of  the  landing  fee  for  aircraft  is  a 
relatively  widely  used  economic  instrument.  Their  use  was  first  introduced  in  Europe  in 
1970s  and  is  growing.  Recently  29  out  of  99  surveyed  airports  in  Europe  reported  having 
noise related  charges  and some 27 more indicated  that such charges were planned  in the  near 
future  as  an  instrument  to  influence  the  use  of  aircraft  (ACI  Europe  1995). 

In most countries the proceeds of the noise charge go to finance insulation programmes  round 
the airport.  The impact  of these charges on reducing noise has been mixed  with the  OECD's 
1990 evaluation  arguing  that the  efficacy  had  been low and  not  influenced  airlines  choice  of 
aircraft,  whereas  reports  from  Germany  indicate  that  charges  have  helped  accelerate  the 
changeover  to  Chaper  3 aircraft  (Umweltbundesamt  1996). 

In  1996  Austria  is  planning  to  introduce  a  road  user  charge  that  differentiates  according  to 
the  noise  and  air  pollution  emissions of  the  vehicle. 

Economic  incentives  to  encourage  noise  reductions 

Incentives  in the form  of grants to purchase low noise goods vehicles have been in  operation 
in  Germany  and  the  Netherlands  but  are  currently  not  in  use.  In  1981  in  the  Netherlands 
operators  of  heavy  goods  vehicles  are  offered  a  two  tier  subsidy  if  they  purchase  and  use 
vehicles  fitted  with  'hush  kits' which  result  in  specified  lower  noise  levels.  Subsidy  levels 
were  7.5% and 5% for noise reductions of 6dB(A) and 3dB(A) respectively.  The costs of the 
quietening  measures  are  borne  by  the  operators.  In  1988  because  of reduced  availability  of 
funds,  only  heavy  vehicles  (over  12 tonnes)  with  drive-by  noise  levels  of  79  dB(A)  or  less 
were  eligible,  receiving  a maximum  subsidy  of  4.5%.  More  than  60% of the  lorries  now  in 
use  in  the Netherlands  have  noise  levels  5dB(A)  below  current  standards. 

3.6 

Operational  Procedures 

Restrictions  on  the  use  of  noisv  vehicles  and  products 

The  most  widely  practised  restriction  of  this  type  has  been  limits  on  lorries,  especially  at 
night,  in numerous  towns  in Europe.  The bans have been total  or partial.  Examples  include 
the  French  quiet  town  scheme  of the  1980s, a night  time  lorry  ban  with  exemptions  for  low 
noise vehicles operates in German spa towns, a lorry ban  in  Salzburg,  again with  exemptions 
for  low noise vehicles, the Greater London night time and weekend  lorry ban again associated 
with  incentives,  and  a night-time  ban  on  lorries  on  the  Tauern  autobahn  in  Austria. 

The  OECD  (OECD  1991)  assessed a number  of these  schemes  and  concluded  that  a  number 

-  13 -

of  conditions  are  necessary  for  a  scheme  to  be  successful: 

a  legal  framework  which  does  not  conflict  with  supranational  legislation  including  a 
definition  of  low-noise  vehicles; 
clear  delineation  of  the  restricted  zone  and  identifiable  exempted  vehicles; 
a  means  of  policing  and  enforcing  the  bans, where  the  public  is  an  important  actor; 
co-operation  from  manufactures  and  operators; 
public  awareness  of  the  noise  issue,  which  can  help  operators  of  low  noise  vehicles 
perceive  the  benefits  gained  from  enhanced  public  relations. 

3.7 

Community  support  for  research  into  noise  abatement 

Through  actions  under  the  Community's  3rd  and  4th  Framework  Programmes  for  Research 
and Technological Development, an increasing number of projects have been supported, aimed 
either  at  understanding  fundamental  concepts  or  developing  solutions  to  technological 
problems  relating  to  noise. 

More  specifically  the  following  research  activities  have  been  supported: 

-  measurements  of  noise  and  vibration  in  the  Standards,  Measurements  and  Testing 
programme; 

- reduction  of noise from  equipment  in the Industrial  and Materials Technologies  programme 
especially  noise  from  motor  vehicles,  railways  and  aircraft. 

-  research  in  the  telematics  applications  programme,  testing  the  effects  of  advanced  road 
traffic  management  strategies  on  noise  levels,  and  supporting  pilot  projects  providing 
environmental  information  on  noise  levels  in urban  areas. 

Assessment  of  the  impact 

Although  there has  been considerable  Community  input  into noise research in the past many 
of the actions were scattered  across various specific programmes  and  not sufficiently  geared 
to environment policy objectives. However  under the 4th Framework Programme efforts  have 
been  made  to  achieve  better  coordination  between  specific  programmes.  Task  Forces 
gathering views from  operators, legislators and users have helped  further  identify  RTD  needs 
in areas of importance  for  industry. In particular, the Task Forces on the aircraft  of the  future 
and  trains  and  railway  systems  of  the  future  are  giving  research  on  noise  reduction  a  high 
priority.  A  close  coordination  of  Community  research  on  noise abatement  based  on  a  clear 
noise  policy  can  benefit  European  industry  in  generating  momentum  to  exploit  potentially 
large  markets  in  quieter  products,  instrumentation,  sensors, actuators  and  other  materials.  A 
shift  in  emphasis  could  permit  a  strong  European  leadership  with  mass  production  facilities 
and  with  potential  for job  creation  and  export  outside  the  EU. 

3.8 

Information  and  Education 

Information  and  education  programmes  have  long  been  an  important  instrument  in  Member 
States  noise  policies.  The  OECD  in  1991  reported  that  experience  in  several  countries 
showed  that  ongoing  campaigns  of  a  limited  scope  related  to  advances  of  noise  abatement 
were more  effective  than  major  but  occasional  and  short  lived  national  campaigns,  unrelated 

-  14-

to  progress  achieved  and  also  that  awareness  campaigns  undertaken  locally  were  more 
effective  than  national  campaigns. 

4. 

TOWARDS  A  NEW  FRAMEWORK  FOR  EC  NOISE  POLICY 

Based on  the analysis of the noise situation and the implementation  of current  policies in the 
previous two chapters the  following  section discusses the options for  future  policy  measures. 
As  a  first  step  however  it  is  important  to  set  out  clearly  what  the  Commission  sees  as  the 
Community's  role  in  noise  abatement. 

4.1 

The  future  European  Community  role 

Perhaps  to  a  greater  extent  than  in  any  of  the  other  environmental  themes  included  in  the 
Fifth  Action  Programme  shared  responsibility  is  the  key  to  an  effective  noise  policy.  The 
local  impact  of noise  means  that  proposing  and  implementing  solutions  are  essentially  local 
responsibilities.  The sources of the noise problems are however diverse and often  not of local 
origin.  Therefore  there has been a long involvement  of international  organizations in product 
standard  setting  and  increasingly  in  cooperation  in  R&D  related  to  noise  abatements  for 
products  and  the  effects  of  noise  exposure. 

However  to  date  this  shared  responsibility,  which requires  all  actors  to  be  working  towards 
a  common  goal  has  not  functioned  effectively.  There  is  evidence  of  a  lack  of  overall 
coherency  in  the  multitude  of  actions  developed  to  reduce  noise.  The  work  done  at  the 
Community  level is somewhat hampered  in this respect as there  is no overall noise abatement 
programme.  Responsibilities for environmental noise actions are dispersed in the Commission 
and in different  instances  in the  Council.  The legislation on noise standards  for  cars, lorries, 
buses  and  motorcycles  have  been  dealt  with  by  the  Economic  Affairs/Internal  Market 
Council,  legislation  on  aircraft  noise  is  decided  by the  Transport  Council,  while  noise  from 
construction  machinery  has  been  addressed  in  the  Environment  Council.  In  addition  the 
effectiveness  of  noise  abatement  measures  has  been  reduced  by  a  lack  of  reliable  and 
comparable  data  on the  overall  noise  situation against  which  progress  can  be  monitored  and 
also by insufficient  integration between  action taken at the Community  level and action taken 
at  national  and  local  levels. 

The  Commission  believes  that  it  is  necessary  to  reassess  the  current  approach 
to  noise 
policy  in  order  to  increase  its effectiveness  by  improving  the  coherency  of  the  multitude  of 
actions  being  undertaken  for  the  different  sources.  Furthermore  greater  integration  and 
coordination  is  necessary  to  ensure  that  the  actions  proposed  under  Community  policies, 
which  can  directly  or  indirectly  influence  the  noise  environment,  will  make  a  positive 
contribution  to  noise  abatement. 

The  reassessment  and  any  changes  in  approach  would  not  mean  extending  Community 
responsibilities  to include actions best decided at national and local level.  There are however 
a number of areas in noise abatement  where a consensus is emerging  across the Union on the 
need  of  a  common  approach  in  order  to  achieve  more  effective  action.  These  include  the 
establishment  of  common  noise  assessment  methods  and  the  determination  of  common 
exposure  indices  as  necessary  steps  to  improve  the  currently  poor  data  situation  on 
environmental  noise  and  the  exchange  of  information  on  noise  exposure.  The  provision  of 
information  to  the  public  in  order  to  raise  awareness  and  involve  citizens  more  closely  in 
abatement actions is another potential area of cooperation.  Over the medium term there could 
also  be  agreement  on  a  limited  number  of  minimum  noise  quality  target  values. 

-  15 -

The main area for  Community  involvement  will continue to be action  linked  to the  reduction 
of  noise  from  different  sources.  Chapter  3  has  shown  some  of  the  limitations  of  relying 
principally  on  legislation  on  emission  limits  and  the  potentials  of  some  other  instruments. 
The  Commission  therefore  will  look  in  detail  at  options  for  cost  effective  combinations  of 
instruments  consistent  with  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty  and  the  principles  of  the  Single 
Market to  be applied  to the  different  sources.  The potential  for  using  economic  instruments 
to  address  noise  problems  from  transport  sources  has  been  addressed  in  the  Commission's 
1995 Green Paper 'Towards Fair and Efficient  Pricing in Transport'.  The paper suggested that 
for  road  noise  incentive  schemes  based  on  annual  taxes  or  road  pricing  could  be  a  way 
forward,  while for  railways  a modulation of track  charges to take account  of noise  should  be 
investigated.  The  paper  also  announced  a  Commission  initiative  on  airport  charges. 

Another  area  where  there  is  scope  for  the  Community  to  play  a  greater  role  is  through 
encouraging exchanges of experience  in noise abatement which can assist Member  States and 
local  authorities  in the  implementation  of  actions. 

The  remainder  of  the  chapter  outlines  the  actions  that  are  proposed  for  discussion. 
It  is 
divided into three parts, the first covering  options for  an overall  framework  for  the  reduction 
of  noise exposure  and the  second  options for  future  action on the key  priority  noise  sources 
and the third areas where the  Community  could  assist Member  States and  local authorities  in 
the  implementation  of  policies. 

4.2 

A  Framework  for  Noise  Exposure  Assessment 

'Compared  to  the  measurements  made  and  data  available for  some  components  of  the 
environment  which  directly  affect  man, such  as  air  or  water,  observation  of  the  noise 
environment  is still  highly  inadequate'. 

This  statement  which  appeared  in  the  OECD  report  'Fighting  Noise  in  the  1990s'  published 
in  1991 is still very true five years later.  The measurements  of noise exposure  levels and the 
exposure of populations remain far  from  comprehensive and the data are infrequently  updated 
often  using simplistic models.  Without better information  it is impossible to measure to what 
extent  progress  is  being  made  towards  the  overall  targets  such  as  those  set  out  in  the  5th 
Environmental Action Programme.  This was made clear in the  1995 state of the  environment 
report  of the European  Environment  Agency.  In addition without better  information  choices 
about the most cost effective  instruments  for  future  action  are made  much  more  difficult  i.e. 
whether  to  continue  strengthening  the  Community  wide  emission  limits  or  to  rely  more  on 
local  actions. 

The Commission believes  that improvements in  noise data, its comparability and  monitoring 
and  the  provision  of  information  to the public  are the main  priorities  for  short  and  medium 
term  action  and  is considering  proposing  legislation  in  the  form  of  a  directive  to  establish a 
framework  for  such  actions.  The  results  could  help  overcome  the  shortcomings  mentioned 
above and can assist national  and local  authorities and the Community  to take more  informed 
decisions  about  the  noise  measures  for  which  they  are  responsible.  The  Commission  would 
therefore  like  to  launch  a  debate  on the  scope  of  any  legisation. 

The  types  of  measures  that  could  be  included  in  a directive  proposal  include: 

The  establishment  of  a  common  'EC  noise  exposure  index  to  ensure  that  data  on 
environmental  noise  exposure  are  made  available  using  the  same  noise  units. 

-  16 

The  Commission  believes  that  the  A-weighted  equivalent  continuous  sound  pressure  level 
LAeqT  in  dB(A)  (as  defined  in  annex  2)  should  be  the  'EC  index.  This  is  already  the  most 
commonly  used  exposure  descriptor  and 
is  gaining  world  wide  acceptance  as  the  scale  for 
long  term  noise  exposure. 

Provisions  for  the  development  and  use  of  harmonized  prediction  and  measurement 
methods  for  assessing environmental  noise  from  different  source  categories. 

Cooperation on the development of common methods  is already underway  between a number 
of  European  countries  and  would  need  to  be  taken  into  account. 

Provisions  for  the  exchange  of  comparable  information  on  noise  exposure  between 
Member  States. 

The  data  could  be  collected  and  made  available  by  the  European  Environment  Agency. 

Assessment  of  environmental  noise  exposure  by 
Member  States  and  provision  of  the  information  on  exposure  to  the  public. 

the  competent  authorities  in  the 

The  Commission  believes  that  noise  mapping  has  the  potential  to  be  an  effective  and 
relatively  inexpensive  method  for  the  assessment  of  noise  data  and  for  presentation  to  the 
public and to serve as a basic planning  tool.  Such maps present ranges  of noise exposure  for 
a  particular  area  in  for  example  5 dB(A)  steps  by  the  use  of  different  colours.  They  make 
it easy to recognise the noise exposure and thereby  identify  areas where action is required  and 
other  quiet  areas  where  exposure  should  not  increase. 

These  measures  could  be  proposed  together  with  the  data  harmonization  actions  as part  of 
a  directive  or  presented  separately  in  the  form  of  recommendations  to  Member  States. 

Alternatively  the  requirement  to  inform  the public  on noise  exposure  could  form  part  of  a 
second  phase  of  action  depending  on  an assessment of the  outcome  of the  first  phase.  The 
second  phase  could  also  include  the  establishment  of  a  limited  number  of  minimum  target 
values and to the obligation  to take action  at the most appropriate  level to meet these targets. 

4.3 

Action  on  the  different  sources 

The following  section outlines  briefly  the options that the  Commission is considering  for  the 
future  for  the  main  priority  noise  sources  for  which  there  is already  Community  legislation. 
In assessing the  options  the  Commission will  focus  on broadening  the range  of  instruments, 
cost  effectiveness/cost  benefit  and  the  polluter  pays  principle.  The  framework  for  the 
improvement  of  data  will  assist the  identification  of  the  best  options. 

i) 

Future  options  for  road  traffic  noise 

The  setting  of  noise  emission  limit  values  for  vehicles  is  the  main  area  of  EC  involvement 
in environmental  noise  abatement  to  date  due  to  the  importance  of  road  noise  with  the  limit 
values being  revised  every  five  or  so years.  Studies  have  estimated  that  the  new  1996  limit 
values  will  lead  to  an  average  reduction  of  noise  levels  of  road  traffic  in  urban  areas  of  2 
dB(A)  compared  to  the  previous  1988  limit  values.  Such  reductions  are  dependent  on  the 
complete  replacement  of  the  vehicle  park  and  therefore  would  take  10-15  years  and  the 
growth  of vehicles  over  this time  may  therefore  partly  offset  this reduction.  There  would  be 

-  17 -

no reduction in rural  areas and where speeds are over  60 km/h due to importance  of  tyre/road 
noise.  The  additional  costs  of  vehicles  associated  with  the  introduction  of  these  limits  are 
estimated  to  be  3%  for  cars, 2% for  buses  and  4%  for  lorries. 

Further  reductions  in  limit  values  of  2 dB(A)  are technically  feasible  but  likely  to be  costly. 
One  estimate  forecast  that  such  limit  values, which  would  require  increased  use  of  acoustic 
shields could  add  5% to cost of cars, 4% to buses and  7% to  lorries  (Favre  and Tyler  1987), 
which could represent  an annual  cost of the order  of  5-6  billion ECU to industry. This  could 
also  have  implications  for  the  weight  of  vehicles  and  thereby  fuel  economy  and  C02 
emissions. 

The  Commission  has  been  asked  to  come  forward  with  a  proposal  on  tyre  noise  and 
Commission services are currently working on the preparation of such a proposal.  In addition 
to  focusing  on  tyre/road  noise,  which  will  have  to  take  into  account  the  balance  between 
reducing tyre noise and maintaining wet adhesion, the Commission believes that future  action 
to  reduce  vehicle  noise  needs  look  for  a  cost/effective  combination  of  instruments  and  in 
particular  to  address  the  weaknesses  in the  current  approach  identified  in  chapter  3. 

To  this  end  for  the  next  phase  of  action  to  reduce  road  traffic  noise  the  Commission  will 
focus  on  cost/effectiveness  assessments of  a variety  of  options  and  in  addition  to  addressing 
tyre/road  noise  and  whether  any  new  emission  limit  values  are  appropriate,  will  consider: 

in the  context  of the  current  review  of  vehicle  taxation,  whether  more  differentiation 
in  existing  annual  vehicle  and  fuel  taxes  to  take  account  of  noise  costs  could  be  an 
effective  instrument. 
a technical  revision of the test procedure  (ISO R362)  to make it better  reflect  realistic 
driving  conditions 
amending  Community  legislation  on  road-worthiness  tests  to  include  specific  noise 
testing  of  in-use  vehicles. 
actions  to  promote  the  use  of  low  noise  surfacing.  As  indicated  in  chapter  3  the 
Community  is  supporting  research  in  this  area  and  CEN  is  working  on  surface 
standards  .  This  work  should  be  accelerated. 
In  addition  the  Community  is  an 
important  source  of  finance  for  road  building  through  the  Structural  and  Cohesion 
Funds  and  the  Trans-European  Networks  budget  line,  which  should  be  built  to  the 
highest environmental  and safety  standards possible.  The  Commission will  therefore 
promote  the  use  of  low  noise  surfaces  for  road  projects  in  noise  sensitive  areas 
receiving Community funding,  where this is feasible  and cost-effective  and where such 
surfacing  can  offer  the  same  level  of  safety  and  durability. 

ii) 

Options  to  reduce  railway  noise 

A  priority  for  Community  transport  policy  is to  achieve  a better  balance  between  different 
modes, which will  mean achieving  a greater role for  rail.  This in turn will require  increasing 
capacity  and  more  infrastructure  in certain  areas.  However  as the  public's  main  criticism  of 
rail transport is the excessive noise level, which could be exacerbated  with the growth of high 
speed  rail,  there  is  considerable  opposition  in many  areas  to  the  expansion  of  infrastructure 
or  capacity.  Therefore  increased  noise  abatement  efforts  are  required  if  the  expansion  of 
traffic  is to  gain  wider  acceptance. 

Two  areas  are  of  particular  concern:  high  speed  rail  and  freight  wagons. 

-  l; 

The problem  of  noise  from  high  speed  rail  is being  addressed in Council  Directive  96/48/EC 
of  23.7.96  (OJ  No.  L  235)  on  interoperability  on  the  high  speed  network.  This  Directive 
includes  a  specification  that  'operation  of  the  trans-European  high  speed  rail  network  must 
remain  within  the  statutory  noise  nuisance  limits'.  It  sets  up  a  joint  body  representing 
infrastructure  managers,  the  railway  companies  and  industry  ,  amongst  whose  task  will  be 
to propose noise emission limits to be met by trains on the high speed network  for  a decision 
by  the  committee  of  Member  States  set  up  by  the  Directive. 

In  the  area  of  freight  less  progress  has  been  made  compared  to  passenger  wagons.  The 
international  railway  industry  organisation  (UNIFE) has established a medium term target of 
reducing  noise  emissions  from  freight  wagons  by  8-10  dB(A),  which  it  regards  as  feasible 
although with significant  cost implications.  As mentioned  in Chapter 3, some Member  States 
are  considering  national  legislation  to  fix  emission  levels  and  there  have  been  calls  from 
industry  and  railway  operators  for  international  action. 

Noise  abatement  has  long  been  an  important  subject  of  research  supported  by  the  railway 
industry  and  the  Community  which  is  making  an  increase  effort  through  the  'Trains  and 
Railway  Systems  of  the  Future'  programme  for  both  freight  and  passenger  systems. 

In  parallel  to  supporting  the  research  efforts,  the  Commission  in  cooperation  with  the 
interested  parties  and  other  international  organisations  will  investigate  the  possibilities  of 
introducing  other  instruments.  Among  these  possibilities  are  economic  instruments  such  as 
a  variable  track  charge  which  would  enable  the  infrastructure  fee  for  the  use  of  track  to  be 
differentiated  according  to  the  noise  levels  of  the  wagons,  legislation  on  emission  limits,  a 
negotiated  agreement  between  the railways  industry  and  the  Community  on targets  for  noise 
reductions and measures to ensure maintenance of in-use equipment. The assessment will look 
at the  possibilities  of  using  a mix  of  these  instruments.  Agreement  on  harmonised  methods 
of assessment and prediction  of railway noise would greatly facilitate  the introduction  of such 
instruments. 

iii) 

Future  options  to  reduce  aircraft  noise 

In air  transport,  as  for  the  other  modes, the  Commission  is  looking  to  develop  an  integrated 
approach  to  noise  reductions'based  on  an  assessment of  a  combination  of  instruments.  The 
assessment  will  include  greater  stringency  in  emission  values  and  the  use  of  economic 
instruments  to  encourage  the  development  and  use  of  lower  noise  aircraft,  as  well  the 
contribution  local  measures  such  as  land  use  planning  could  make. 

As  for  emission  limits,  greater  stringency  has  been  under  study  for  several  years  at 
international  level  by  the  Committee  on  Aviation  Environmental  Protection  (CAEP),  which 
has  the  task  of  making  recommendations  to  the  International  Civil  Aviation  Council.  The 
latest  session  of  CAEP  held  at  the  end  of  1995  failed  to  agree  on  a  recommendation  for 
increased  noise  stringency  for  aircraft,  although  there  was  a  majority  of  countries  on  the 
Committee  in favour  of  greater  stringency.  Following  the  failure  of  CAEP, the  Commission 
aims  to  issue a  consultation  paper  in the  near  future  and  to  continue  to  work  for  agreement 
within 
harmonised 
measurement.  . 

international  bodies  on  more  stringent  emission  standards  and 

The  consultation  paper will  also include  consideration  of the  contribution  land  use planning 
around  airports  could  make  in  line  with  the  provision  in  the  Common  Transport  Action 
Programme (COM(95)302)) for the development  of  a common framework  for  land use rules. 

-  19 -

In  the  air  transport  sector,  economic  instruments  in  the  form  of  airport  charges  are  already 
widely  used  to  promote  environmental  aims  as  well  as  for  other  purposes.  An  analysis  of 
airport  charging  systems  in  airports  in  the  Community  by  the  Commission  has  shown  that 
many  of  the  existing  systems  do  not  ensure  fair  and  equal  treatment  of  users  as required  in 
the Single Market. Therefore  in the course of  1996 a specific  Commission proposal is planned 
on airport charges in general, based on the principles of non-discrimination,  cost-relatedness, 
transparency  and  will  include  provisions  for  modulation  of  charges  to  contribute  to 
environment  improvements  such  as noise  abatement. 

An acoustic classification  of  aircraft  types  in accordance  with  actual  operational  noise  rather 
than the criteria of the Annex  16 to the Chicago Convention on certification  noise could make 
the  introduction  of  such  modulations  easier  in  practice  and  contribute  to  the  overall 
transparency  of charging  systems. The Commission together  with  airports  and  manufacturers 
will  study  such  a  classification. 

iv) 

Outdoor  machinery 

As  indicated  in chapter  3 in recent  years there  have  been  calls on the  Commission to  extend 
the  noise  legislation  currently  applying  to  a  limited  number  of types  of  outdoor  equipment. 
However,  if the  Cornmunity  were  to  embark  on  the  same  approach  to  controlling  the  noise 
emissions  from  other  types  of machinery  as for  the  seven  existing  directives,  it  would  mean 
a vast  increase  in legislation,  which would  be time  consuming  and not cost effective  in terms 
of its impact on  industry and  in the use of man-power.  In  addition there  is no guarantee  that 
such an  approach  would  bring  about the environmental  improvements that the  Community  is 
seeking.  The  Commission  services have  therefore  been  working  together  with  experts  from 
the  Member  States  on  a new  approach  to  control  noise emissions  of  a  much  wider  range  of 
outdoor  equipment,  which  will  extend  but  at  the  same time  simplify  the  legislation. 

In  1997  the  Commission  intends  to  propose  a  framework  directive  to  cover  more  than  60 
types  of  equipment  used  outdoors,  not  only  construction  plant,  but  also  garden  equipment, 
equipment  used  on specific  vehicles  (such  as refuse  collection  vehicles  and  glass  containers) 
and which would incorporate  the existing  seven directives for  noise from  outdoor  equipment. 
The principal feature  of the new directive will be a requirement  for  manufacturers  to  label all 
equipment  to be placed  on the market  with the guaranteed  noise emission  level.  The  OECD 
reported  in  1991  that  labelling  products  with  standardized  information  on  noise  emission 
levels  has  attracted  interest  as  an  inexpensive  means  of  creating  a  market  for  low  noise 
products  (OECD  1991).  Noise  limit values will be proposed  only  for  the  equipment  already 
covered  by  noise  legislation  and  a  limited  range  of  highly  noisy  equipment  on  the  basis  of 
appropriate  cost  effectiveness  analyses.  The  draft  directive  will  include  provisions  for  the 
addition  of  other  pieces  of  equipment  at  a  later  date.  Another  important  feature  will  be  the 
collection  of  information  on the range  of  noise emission values  of equipment  on the  market, 
their  populations  and  contribution  to  noise  exposure.  This  would  make  it  possible  if 
necessary  to  take  other  measures  at  a  later  stage  such  as  additional  limit  values,  criteria  for 
eco-label  awards  or  economic  incentives.  In  addition  the  labelling  could  assist those  at  the 
local  level  in  decisions  on  the  use  of  certain  equipment  in  noise  sensitive  areas. 

4.4 

Contributions  from  the  Community  to  Noise  Abatement  Action  in  the  Member 
States  -Promoting  exchanges  of  experience 

Land  use  planning,  education  and  awareness  raising  are  instruments  of  noise  policy  where 
the  Community  can  play  a  role  in  assisting  Member  States  and  local  authorities  in  the 

- 20  -

implementation  of  abatement  actions  essentially  by  promoting  exchanges  of  experience  and 
dissemination of  good  practice.  In comparison  with  other  environmental  issues, there  seems 
to have been less exchange of experience  on noise actions among local authorities  in Europe. 
However,  the  many  initiatives  for  cooperation  on  urban  transport  issues  between  local 
authorities  in Europe  will  have  a beneficial  impact  on  noise  abatement. 

As  part  of  the  review  of  the  Fifth  Environmental  Action  Programme,  the  Commission  in 
cooperation  with  experts  from  the  Member  States  and  associations  of  local  authorities,  is 
intending  to  prepare  a  guide  concerning  the  implementation  of  the  Programme  at  the  local 
level  and  its implications  for  local authorities.  Noise abatement  will be an  important  feature 
in  this  guide. 

The  Community  also  has  several  financial  instruments  through  which  cooperative  ventures 
between  Member  States  and  particularly  local  authorities  are  supported  and  where  noise 
abatement  could  be  given  a higher  priority. 

These  include: 

the  LIFE  programme,  the  Community's  financial  instrument  for  environmental  protection, 
where  assistance  can  be  requested  for  demonstration,  promotion  and  technical  assistance 
actions  for  local  authorities  in  order  to  encourage  the  integration  of  environmental 
considerations  in land use development  and planning.  Noise  along  with air,  water  and  waste 
are  the  priority  themes. 

Assistance  for  environmental  awareness  measures, from  the  financial  resources  available  for 
environment  policy. 

the Telematics Applications Programme, Sector Environment, where pilot projects to improve 
environmental  information  systems  for the public and environmental managers on topics such 
as noise  are  supported. 

Assistance  for  networking  and  cooperation  projects  between  urban  areas  and  urban  pilot 
projects  provided  for  under  article  10  of  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund 
regulation,  where  noise  abatement  could  be  part  of  integrated  projects  for  urban  areas. 

5. 

CONCLUSION 

In  this  Green  Paper  the  Commission  is  outlining  a possible  step  by  step  approach  to  the 
development  of  a new  framework  for  Community  noise policy,  which  up  to now  has been a 
part  of  environment  policy  that  has  perhaps  not  been  given  the  priority  it  deserves.  The 
problem  of  noise  is  complex  and  action  to  reduce  noise  needs  to  be  set  within  a  long-term 
context.  One  of  the  aims  of  this  paper  therefore  is  to  contribute  to  the  efforts  being  made 
elsewhere  to  give  noise  abatement  a higher  priority  in  environment  policy  making. 

The  paper  does  not  attempt  to  present  in  detail  the  complete  range  of  the  solutions  to 
environmental  noise problems  but rather  is focusing  on the  areas  where  it  is appropriate  and 
seems  cost  effective  for  the  Community  to  be  involved  in  cooperation  with  Member  States 
and  local  authorities. 

The  options  for  action  on  measurement  methods,  monitoring  and  exchange  of  information 
and  its  provision  to  the  public  cover  important  steps  for  the  establishment  of  an  overall 

-  21  -

framework  for  action.  In particular  providing  better  information  to the public  will help  raise 
awareness  about  the  real  extent  of  the  problem  and  can  thereby  influence  changes  in 
behaviour and is an area where cooperation  across the Community can be of significant  added 
value. 

In  addition  these  actions  could  assist the  Community,  Member  States  and  local  authorities 
to evaluate the  optimal  combination of  instruments to apply to the different  sources of noise. 
As is pointed  out in  Chapter 4 there is work to be done to evaluate  the optimal  combinations 
of  instruments. 

The Commission invites comments on these ideas from the Council, Parliament, the Economic 
and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  Regions  and  other  interested  parties  by  31 
March  1997.  Observations  should  be  submitted  to: 

The  European  Commission 
Directorate  General  for  Environment,  Nuclear  Safety  and  Civil  Protection 
"Green  Paper  on  Future  Noise  Policy" 
Rue  de  la  Loi/Wetstraat  200 
B  1049  Brussels 
Belgium 

-  ??  _ 

References 

ACI Europe  (1995) 

"Environmental  Handbook" 

Airports  Council  International -
1995 

CEST(1993) 

Favre/Tyler 

The  Future Road  Transport 
Noise  Agenda  in the UK 

Centre for  the  Exploitation  of 
Science and  Technology  -  1993 

Quiet  Vehicle  Development.  In 
Nelson,  PM(ed)  Transportation 
Noise  Reference Book 

Butterworths, London  -  1987 

INFRASIWW(1994) 

"External  Effects  of Transport" 

ECOPLAN  and  T&E  -  1993 

INRETS (1994) 

Study  related to the  preparation 
of  a Communication  on  a  future 
Noise  Policy 

Institut  National  de  Recherche 
sur  les Transports  et  leur 
Sécurité-  1994 

OECD  (1986) 

"Fighting Noise" 

OECD  Paris-  1986 

OECD  (1991) 

"Fighting Noise  in the  1990"s" 

OECD  Paris-  1991 

Quinet(1993) 

SandbergU(1993) 

Umweltbundesamt 
(1996) 

Von  Meier  (1994) 

"The  Social Costs  of  Transport: 
Evaluation  and  Links  with 
Internalisation Policies in: 
Internalising the  Social Costs  of 
Transport" 

"Action  Plan  against  exterior 
tyre/road  noise" Proceedings of 
Inter-Noise  1993  - Vol 2 

ECMT/OECD  P31-76,  Paris 
1993 

Leuven, Belgium  -  1993 

Daten  zur Umwelt 

Umweltbundesamt,  Berlin  -1996 

"Europe's  Environment  1993 -
Noise  Pollution" 

M+P  Raadgevende ingénieurs 
bv,  Aalsmeer,  NL  (1994) 

WHO  (forthcoming) 

"Community  Noise" 

Geneva 

-  23 

ANNEXES 

1 

Table on Noise from the Fifth  Environmental Action Programme 

Table  12: Noise 

Objective 

EC targets  up  to  2000 

Actions 

Time-frame 

Sectors/actors 

No  person  should  be 
exposed  to  noise  levels 
which  endanger  health  and 
quality of  life 

Night-time exposure  levels 
in leq  dB(A) 

exposure  of  the  population 
to noise  levels  in excess  of 
65  should  be  phased  out;  at 
no  point  in time a  level  of 
85 should  be  exceeded 

proportion  of  population  at 
present  exposed  to  levels 
between  55-65  should  not 
suffer  any  increase 

proportion  of  population  at 
present exposed  to  levels 
less than  55 should  not 
suffer  any  increase  above 
that  level 

Transport  and  industry 

before  1994 

EEA  +  MS  +  LAs 

before  1995 

MS  +  LAs 

before  1995 

EC +  MS  +  industry 

continuous 

EEA  +  EC +  MS 

idem 

MS  +  LAs  +  EC 

idem 

MS  +  LAs 

Inventory  of  exposure  levels 
in the  EC 

Noise  abatement  programme 
to  be  set  up 

Further  reductions  of  noise 
emissions  (cars, trucks, 
aircraft,  cranes,  mowers,  etc). 
Directives to  be  presented 
progressively, aiming  at 
implementation not  later than 
2000 

Standardization  of  noise 
measurement  and  ratines 

measures  to  influence 
behaviour,  such  as  driving 
cars,  flight  procedures, 
industrial  processes  operating 
at  night  time 

measures  related  to 
infrastructure  and  physical 
planning, such  as  better 
zoning  around  airports, 
industrial  areas,  main  roads 
and  railways 

2 

The  Measurement  of  Noise 

To  a  large  extent  Noise  is determined  by  the  subjective  perception  of  people  which  is  varying 
from  one individual the other and often  even for one individual depending  on its current attitude. 
Because  of  its  subjective  nature  it  cannot  be  measured  by  objective  units. 
But  in  order  to  classify  and  compare  different  noise  events  it  is  necessary  to  give  at  least  an 
approximate  description  by  quantitative  values.  For  this  purpose  the  "sound",  that  is  the 
physical  part  of  noise,  is  described  by  quantitative  values  concerning 

o 

its  strength 

The strength of a sound is expressed in terms of the mean amplitude  of the sound pressure waves 
p  and  is usually  stated  as sound  pressure  level  L  in  decibels  (dB)  determined  by  the  following 
equation  (p0  being  the  reference  sound  pressure  of  20  u. Pa): 

Lp  =  10  log  (p/p0)2 

indB 

The  decibel  scale  ranges  from  -°° to  +°°,  but  the  human  ear  can  only  perceive  sound  pressure 
levels  from  0  dB  (the  threshold  of  normal  human  audibility)  to  about  130  dB  (the  threshold  of 

-  24  -

pain).  The way in which the dB scale corresponds to everyday  noises in the outdoor  environment 
is shown in figure  1 where it can be seen that this range varies  from  roughly  35 dB to about  110 
dB. 
Because  of  the  logarithmic  nature  of  sound  pressure  level  values the addition  of  sound  pressure 
levels  is  different  from  the  usual  way  of  addition:  adding  2  (10,  20,  100)  equal  sound  pressure 
levels  results  in  an  increase  of  3 (10,  13,  20)  dB. 
Corresponding to the subjectively  perceived  loudness of sounds of different  strength an  increase 
of  sound  pressure  level  of  10 dB  of  a  steady  state  pure  tone  will  result  in  a  twofold  change  in 
loudness. 

o 

its  frequency  or  frequency  composition 

Most  sounds consist  of  a mixture  of tones with various pitches  and  frequencies,  the  frequencies 
being  measured  in  Hertz  (Hz).  The  human  ear  has  got  a  different  sensitivity  for  tones  of 
different  frequency:  it  is  most  sensitive  for  tones  between  1kHz  and  5kHz,  less  sensitive  for 
higher  frequencies  and  even more  less for  lower  frequencies.  Therefore  for  most purposes  the 
measured  sound  pressure  level  is weighted  with  the  so called  'A'-weighting  and  transformed  in 
the  'A'-weighted  sound  pressure  level LpA 

LpA  =  10  log  (p/p0)2  in  dB  (A) 

o 

its  time  history 

Mostly  sound  is fluctuating  with time,  it  may  fluctuate  in  a very  small  range  (in  some  distance 
of  a  motorway)  or  in  a  very  wide  range  (near  to  an  airport).  All  these  different  sound  events 
should  be  described  by  one  unit.  The  description  of  all  the  different  noises  is  based-on  the 
hypothesis that  equal  noise doses (that means  sound energy times exposure-time)  result in  equal 
noise  burdens.  This  method  of  time  averaging  results  in the  so  called 

equivalent  continuous  sound  pressure  level  LA 

in  dB(A). 

The  equivalent  continuous  sound pressure  level  is  gaining  widespread  acceptance  as  a scale  for 
It  is  used  in  most  of  the  legislation  in  the 
the  measurement  of  long-term  noise  exposure. 
Member  States  and  on  the  international  level. 
It  has  been  adopted  by  the  ISO  for  the 
measurement  of both  environmental  noise exposure and hearing  damage risk.  But there  are still 
problems concerning the description of very fast fluctuating  sound and of sound events that occur 
rarely  by  LAeq.  To  overcome  these problems  several  (supplementary)  units to  describe the  time 
history  are  used:  e.g.  the  maximum  sound  pressure  Level  Lmax,  the  statistical  noise  levels  Ln 
(indicating  the  level  that  is  exceeded  in  (100-n)%  of  time),  the  noise  and  number  index  NNI 
(taking into account also the number of noise events), and 'penalties' added to  the LA  . Research 
is  going  on  trying  to  improve  the  current  averaging  method. 

o 

its  particular  character 

If  sound  contains  single  tones  or very  low  frequencies  this may  be perceived  as very  annoying. 
Therefore  sometimes  'penalties'  are  added  to  the  LAcq in  order  to  consider  this  annoyance. 

-  25  -

Figure 1: 
Noise  levels of different  noise sources 

A-weighted sound  pressure level (dB(A)) 

Auditory threshold at  lOOOhz 
Felt as complete quietness 
Slight rising of leaves 
Calm urban area in a city between 2 and 4 am 
Normal conversation (indoor) 
Passenger car, idling  7.5m (Otto engine) 
Passenger car 50 km/h, 7.5m 
Heavy goods vehicle 50 km/h, 7.5m 
Motorcycle 50 km/h, 7.5m 
Peak level of a passing freight train  100 km/h, 7.5m (diesel engine) 
Discotheque (indoor, Leq) 
Peak level of a passenger train (Intercity, 200 km/h, 7.5m) 
Peak level of a passenger train (ICE, 250 km/h, 7.5m) 
Peak level of a high-speed train (TGV, 300 km/h, 7.5m) 
Jet aeroplane (> 100 t, take off,  100 m) 
Military low-level flights 
Hearing damage possible even for short-term noise exposure 

0 
0-20 
25-30 
35-45 
45-55 
45-55 
60-80 
80-95 
75-100 
95-100 
85-100 
95-100 
95-100 
105-110 
110-115 
105-120 
>  120 

Source: Europe's Environment 'The Dobris Assessment' European Environment Agency (Box  16B from 
Miiller, DGXI, CEC, personal communication based on US EPA,  1979) 
Note:  For modes of transport, the speed, distance from  source and weight of carrier are indicated 

3. 

The  Nature  of  Environmental  Noise 

Road  and  rail traffic  are  considered  as  line  sources with  the  area  of  noise  impact  parallel  to  the 
routes.  The  radiated  noise  can  be  related  to  traffic  parameters  and  to  the  acoustically  relevant 
properties  of  the  surface  or  superstructure.  The  assessment  of  air  traffic  noise  is  more 
complicated  as the impact depends on the height of the aircraft,  the noise emission characteristics 
of  the  engines  and  its  track.  It  is  generally  presented  in  the  form  of  noise  exposure  contours 
around  airports. 

Road  noise,  especially  at  some  distance  from  the  road  can  be  described  as  a  steady  state  noise 
that  does  not  fluctuate  much.  In  contrast  to  road  noise,  rail  and  aircraft  noise  are  acoustically 
characterized  by  high  noise  levels  of  relative  short  duration. 

Noise from  industrial installations, construction  sites and fixed  recreation  facilities  radiates  from 
a  point  source  and  the  shape  of  the  exposure  area  is  generally  a  circle.  The  radiated  noise  is 
generally  related  to  the  installed  power  of  the  installation  and  other  acoustically  relevant 
parameters.  Depending  on the nature of the installation noise from these  sources may  be  steady 
for  long  periods  or  fluctuate  considerably  and  then  rise  for  a  certain  time. 

The noise caused  by  outdoor  equipment  such as that  used  on  construction  sites is not  related  to 
a  fixed  piece  of  infrastructure  like  road  or  industrial  noise.  The  equipment  may  be  used  in 
different  places  and  at  different  times  by  different  people  all  of  which  makes  regulation  of  the 
noise  caused  by  these  products  more  difficult. 

26 

The  basic  level  of  road  traffic  noise  emissions  is  determined  by  engine  noise  and  the  exhaust 
system.  The  noise  produced  in the  contact  between  tyres  and  the  road  surface  increases  rapidly 
with higher speeds and with light vehicles tyres and the surface are the dominant  source at speeds 
above  60 km/h.  This threshold  is likely  to  fall  to  50 km/h  and  even  lower,  when  more  stringent 
vehicle  emission  limits  are  enforced.  In  future  therefore  tyre  to  surface  noise  will  become  an 
important  issue to  be  addressed  in noise  abatement  strategies.  In  urban  areas  behaviour  behind 
the  wheel  is an  important  factor  influencing  noise  emissions. Fast  acceleration  and  revving  the 
engine  in  traffic  may  result  in  emissions  up  to  15  dB(A)  higher  than  the  normal  levels  of 
emission resulting  from  smooth  driving. 

Road  infrastructure  is  used  equally  by  passenger  and  freight  transport,  although  the  percentage 
of heavy  goods vehicles tends to vary  considerably:  it can represent up to 45% of traffic  at night 
on  a  national  motorway  and  less  than  10%  of  traffic  during  the  day  in  urban  areas.  Whereas 
assessing the  shares  of  lorries  and  cars  as  far  as their  physical  noise  impact  is  concerned  poses 
no  problem,  it  is difficult  to  apportion  the  effects  between  both  sources. However  studies  have 
shown  that people  perceive  the  noise  emitted  by  one heavy  lorry  to  be  as  loud  as  that  of  seven 
light goods vehicles  and  in urban  areas  where  speeds are not  constant  to  that  of  at least  10 cars. 

At  low  speed the  main  source  of  railway  noise  is the  engine,  while  at travelling  speed the  noise 
produced  by the  interaction  of  the track  and  the wheels  exceeds that  of  the  engine.  The  level  of 
this  noise  is  dependent  on  factors  such  as  the  condition  of  the  wheel,  its  characteristics,  the 
construction  of the  rolling  stock,  speed  plus the  condition  of  the track.  The  emissions of  freight 
trains at travelling  speeds of  100 km/h  are  about 4-5  dB(A)  higher  than  that  of passenger  trains 
at  speeds  of  200  km/h.  At  very  high  speeds  aerodynamic  noise  will  be  the  most  important 
problem  and  will  require  particular  measures. 

Aviation  noise,  whose  main  source  is  aircraft  engines, has  the  most  impact  during  take-off  and 
landing,  and  is  generally  recognised  to  be  a  significant  source  of  annoyance  at  relatively  low 
operating  heights.  Therefore  aviation  noise  is  generally  related  to  movements  around  airports. 

Examples  of  comparisons  between  different  stationary  and  mobile  sources: 

the  sound  power  output  from  a  modern  300  MW  electrical  power  plant  is  more  than 
three  times  less than  that  of  one  low  noise  heavy  goods  vehicle  (measured  under  a  type 
approval  test  code),  while  the  noise  of  a  large  waste  incineration  plant  is  equivalent  to 
3  passenger  cars  accelerating  from  a  green  traffic  light. 

4. 

Effects  of  Noise 

Sleep  disturbance 

Sleep  disturbance  starts  at  noise  levels  of  30  dB(A)  for  steady  state  continuous  noise  at  the 
sleeper's  ear.  In  special  situations  even  lower  levels  may  disturb  sleep.  The  most  important 
noise  exposure  parameter  for  sleep  disturbance  however  is  the  maximum  peak  level  of  the 
exposure, which points to the importance of avoiding noise from  lorries and aircraft  in residential 
areas  at  night.  From  study  findings  the  general  conclusion  can  be  drawn  that  to  ensure 
undisturbed  sleep the maximum  sound pressure level  should not exceed  45  dB(A).  Field  studies 
indicate  deterioration  in  mood  or  symptoms  such  as  tiredness,  headache  and  nervous  stomach 
where  heavy  traffic  occurs  at  night  and  the  recommended  values  are  exceeded. 

27 -

Hxtra-auditorv  effects 

A. great number  of  these  mainly  psycho-physiological  effects  of  noise  have  been  reported  in the 
subject  literature.  The  most  important  of  them  manifest  themselves  in  physiological  stress 
responses and,  particularly  at higher  levels, in cardio-vascular  reactions.  But also mental  health 
effects  and  influences  on  performance  and  productivity  have  been  observed  and  documented. 
Intensive  research  on  these  subjects  is  still  ongoing.  It  can  be  generally  concluded  from  the 
present  state  of  knowledge  that  exposure  to  environmental  noise  acts  as  a  stressor to  health  as 
it may  lead  to  measurable  changes  in e.g.  blood  pressure, heart  rate, vasoconstriction,  endocrine 
excretion  levels  and  admission  rates  to  mental  hospitals. 

Interference  with  Communication 

Noise levels frequently  attained  in streets, gardens and on balconies interfere  with  speech. Noise 
levels  inside  buildings  usually  cause  occupiers  to  close  windows  if  they  wish  to  hold  a 
conversation once the external  continuous noise level reaches 70 dB(A).  It is generally  accepted 
that  noise  levels  in  homes  should  not  exceed  40-45  dB(A),  levels  that  are  often  exceeded  by 
traffic  noise  even  with  the  windows  closed. 

General  Annoyance 

A  less  specific,  but  nevertheless  serious  effect  of  environmental  noise  is that  it  simply  disturbs 
and  annoys  people.  The  feeling  of  annoyance  results  not  only  from  sleep  disturbance  and 
interference  with communication,  but also from  less well defined  feelings  of being disturbed  and 
affected  during  all kinds of activities as well  as during periods of rest.  Because of the  subjective 
nature  of  annoyance,  evaluation  must  be  carried  out  using  survey  techniques  such  as 
questionnaires.  Studies  to  date  show  the  importance  of  traffic  noise  as  an  annoyance  factor  in 
the  general  population. 

5. 

Instruments  for  Reducing  Noise  Exposure 

Emission  Standards 

These  are  generally  laid  down  by  governments  and  consist  of  emission  limit  values  applicable 
to  individual  sources  and  included  in  type  approval  procedures  to ensure  that  new  products  are 
at  the  time  of  manufacture  complying  with  the  noise  limits. 

Immission  Standards 

Immission  standards  are  based  on  noise  quality  criteria  or  guideline  values  for  noise  exposure 
to  be  applied  to  specific  locations  and  are  generally  built  into  planning  procedures. 

Planning  Measures 

Land  use  planning  procedures  are  one  of  the  means  of  putting  immissions  regulations  into 
practice  and  are a key tool  for  noise abatement to ensure separation  of dwellings  and other  noise 
sensitive buildings  from  noise sources.  Over the long term  land use planning  is one of the  most 
efficient  ways  of  reducing  noise  as  it  can  be  used  to  prevent  new  problems  occurring. 
In 
particular  noise abatement  through  land use planning  can  include: restricting the use of land  that 

-  28  -

is already  subject  to  high  levels  of  noise,  restricting  the  siting  of  new  noise  generators  such  as 
traffic  routes or industrial installations in order to protect existing developments  and  encouraging 
noise  generating  activities  to  cluster together  in  order  to  preserve  other  low  noise  areas.  Noise 
is  one  of  the  considerations  to  be  dealt  with  in  environmental  statements  for  developments 
requiring  an environmental  impact  assessment. 

Infrastructure  Measures 

There  are essentially two  broad categories  of  infrastructure  measures to abate  noise: those that 
limit the transmission of noise: noise protection walls, tunnels, cuttings, noise  attenuation  dams, 
passive protection  of buildings through insulation; and those that can contribute  to the  reduction 
of  noise  at  source  through  for  example  the  design  of  road  surfaces  and  railway  tracks. 

Economic  instruments 

The  types  of  economic  measures  that  are  and  could  be  used  in  noise  abatement  policy  include 
taxes and charges on noise emissions, economic incentives to encourage noise reductions and the 
development  of  low  noise  products,  and  the  payment  of  compensation  to  people  affected  by 
noise. 

Operational  Procedures 

Among the  widely  used  measures are speed  limits  on  sensitive road  and  rail  sections,  enforcing 
operational  flight  take-off-landing  procedures  for  aircraft  and  noise  preferential  routes,  as  well 
as restrictions  on  the  use of  noisy  products  and  vehicles  in  sensitive  areas  and  during  sensitive 
times. 

Research  and  Development 

Scientific  research  into the effects  of environmental  noise, the methods  of  noise abatement  and 
low noise technologies  and the development  of  special  low noise products  are  a vital  supporting 
instruments  and  often  initiate  improvements  in  the  state  of  art  of  noise  reduction.  Financial 
support to pilot projects  are useful  in showing the advantages of technical  and planning  measures 
to  reduce  the  noise  exposure  of  citizens. 

Information  and  Education 

Education  and  information  activities  are  important  in  promoting  acceptance  of  and  compliance 
with noise regulations and to encourage changes in behaviour. They can also be used in their  own 
right  to  encourage  noise  abatement  and  awareness  raising  amongst  decision  makers  and  the 
general  public. 

- 29  -

6. 

EC noise  emission  limits  for selected vehicles  and products 

Motor Vehicles 

Vehicle 
Category 

1972 

1982 

1988/90 

1995/96 

Passenger  Car 

82  dB(A) 

Urban  Bus 

89  dB(A) 

80  dB(A) 

82  dB(A) 

77  dB(A) 

80  dB(A) 

Heavy  Lorry 

91  dB(A) 

88  dB(A) 

84  dB(A) 

74  dB(A) 

78  dB(A) 

80  dB(A) 

Two  and three  wheelers 

Motorcycles  and 
Three  Wheelers 

<80  cm3 

>80<175  cm3 

>175  cm3 

1980 

78 

80-83 

83-86 

1989 

Proposal 

77 

79 

82 

75 

77 

80 

Construction  machineiy  and lawnmowers 

Type  of  Equipment 

classification 

1986 

1987 

1991 

compressors 

tower  cranes 

welding  generators 

power  generators 

hand-held  concrete-
breakers  and  picks 

lawnmowers 

101 
102 
104 
106 

102 

104 
101 

104 
104 
103 
105 

110 
113 
116 

nominal  airflow  in mVmin 
Q  <;  5 
5  <Q  s  10 
10 <Q  <.  30 
Q > 30 

maximum  welding  current 
s  200 A 
>200  A 

electric  power  in  kVA 
P  *2 
2  <P  <;  8 
8  < P  <;  240 
P > 2 40 

mass  of  appliance  in  kg 
m  < 20 
20  <.  m  <;  35 
m > 35 

cutting  width  in  cm 
L  s  50 
50  < L  <; 120 
L>  120 

96 
100 
105 

100 
100 
102 
104 

100 

101 
100 

102 
100 
100 
100 

108 
111 
114 

Earth-moving  machinery  <  500  kW 
(noise  limits  existed  since  1986;  1996  legislation  has  enacted  a new  approach  that  reduced  old 
limits  by  approximately  3  dB(A)) 

type  of  equipment 

classification 

tracked  machines 
(except  excavators) 

wheeled  dozers, 
loaders,  excavator-
loaders, 

excavators 

P  s  65 

P>  65 

P  *55 

P>  55 

P  ^  15 

P>  15 

1997 

107 

2001 

104 

LWA=87+11  logP 

LWA=  84+11  logP 

104 

101 

LWA=  85+11  logP 

LWA=  82+11  logP 

96 

93 

LWA=83  +11  logP 

LWA=  80+11  logP 

- 31 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(96) 540  final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

14 

Catalogue  number  :  CB-CO-96-548-EN-C 

ISBN  92-78-10730-1 

Office  for  Official  Publications of the European  Communities 

L-2985  Luxembourg