COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic consequence, environmental impact, health risk, motor vehicle, motor vehicle industry, noise, noise protection

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 9.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1504 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a Regulation 

on the sound level of motor vehicles 

{COM(2011) 856 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1505 final} 

Disclaimer: This executive summary commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation and does not 
prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission. 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
1. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

1.1. 

Policy context 

The  Motor  Vehicle  Noise  Directive  (Directive  70/157/EEC)  and  its  amendments 
cover the requirements for motor vehicle exterior pass-by noise under test conditions, 
i.e.  they  describe  the  testing  procedure  and  set  noise  limits.  The  original  Directive 
and  subsequent  amendments  had  two  objectives.  Firstly,  they  aimed  to  ensure  that 
for  certain  categories  of  motor  vehicles,  noise  limits  of  individual  Member  States 
would not form barriers to trade. The second goal was to tighten the noise limits to 
reduce  environmental  noise.  The  amending  Directive  92/97/EEC  introduced 
mandatory common noise limits applicable to all Member States. 

By  Council  Decision  97/836/EC,  the  European  Community  acceded  to  the 
Agreement  of  the  United  Nations  Economic  Commission  for  Europe  (UN/ECE) 
concerning  the  adoption  of  uniform  technical  prescriptions  for  wheeled  vehicles. 
This ensures that the EU vehicle type approval is harmonised with a broader range of 
countries outside the EU so that EU producers can use the same production lines for 
these  export  markets  as  for  the  internal  market.  The  test  procedure  and  the  limit 
values of UN-ECE Regulation No. 51 are equivalent to those of the EU Directive. 

Although  the  70/157/EEC  Directive  succeeded  in  harmonising  the  type  testing 
procedure and noise limits, it failed in reducing real traffic noise levels, as especially 
for cars, real conditions differ from the test conditions, tyre noise increased relative 
to  power  train  noise  and  the  volume  of  traffic  continuously  increased  and  it  will 
continue in the future. For this reason noise from road traffic was also approached in 
the  more  recent  Directive  2001/43/EC  and  Regulation  No  661/2009  covering  tyre 
noise and in Directive 2002/49/EC regarding the assessment of environmental noise.  

The  exposure  of  people  to  traffic  noise  can  be  reduced  in  different  ways:  through 
reducing noise limits at the source, i.e. directly reducing noise limits emitted by cars 
or  through  other  indirect  measures  such  as  tax  relief  schemes  for  environmentally 
friendly  investments  (e.g.  Vamil  and  MIA  in  the  Netherlands)1,  standards  for 
acquisition of quiet delivery vehicles (e.g. PIEK2 standard),  traffic restrictions  (e.g. 
the low noise truck sign as required on alpine transit routes in Austria), rerouting and 
speed  restrictions  or  noise  abatement  solutions  (noise  barriers,  quiet  road  surfaces, 
façade  insulation).  However,  those  measures  are  most  effective  in  technical  and 
economical terms if combined with noise reduction at the source. 

The  Communication  from  the  Commission  regarding  a  European  strategy  on  clean 
and  energy  efficient  vehicles  of  28.04.2010  announced  that  the  Commission  will 
present  a  proposal  in  2011  to  amend  the  respective  legislation  to  reduce  the  noise 
emissions of motor vehicles. 

1 
2 

http://www.senternovem.nl/vamil_mia/English.asp 
http://www.bmwt.nl/files_content/Certificatie-%20en%20toezichtprocedures%20PIEK.pdf 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
1.2. 

Identified problems 

Inadequate methods for measuring road traffic noise 

The  latest  amendment  to  the  vehicle  noise  legislation  in  1995  led  to  a  reduction  of 
noise emissions of 85 % for cars (-8 dB(A)) and of over 90% for heavy lorries (-11 
dB(A))  compared  to  the  initial  limit  values  established  in  1970.  However  studies 
have shown that the reduction in actual road traffic noise levels has been much less: 
only 1 - 2 dB(A). The reasons for this low level of effectiveness can be attributed to: 
relaxed  limits  in  the  early  years,  a  slow  replacement  of  older  and  noisier  vehicles 
with  newer  ones,  significant  growth  in  traffic,  the  use  of  wider  tyres  with  different 
characteristics  for  higher  speeds  and  to  the  test  procedure  that  does  not  reflect 
realistic driving conditions. 

Following  the  adoption  of  the  Regulation  661/2009  which  lays  down  new  noise 
requirements  for  motor  vehicle  tyres,  the  next  step  to  further  reduce  vehicle  noise 
emissions in the future is through improving the type-approval requirements for the 
whole vehicle. This includes the reduction of the overall limit values by looking at all 
noise  sources  of  motor  vehicles,  from  the  air  intake  over  the  power  train  to  the 
exhaust  with  special  consideration  of  the  tyre  contribution,  together  with  an 
improved test procedure. 

The current noise test protocol, which has been in force since 1970 with subsequent 
amendments,  requires  a  full  throttle  acceleration  of  the  test  vehicle.  However,  this 
does  no  longer  reflect  the  real  life  driving  behaviour.  Due  to  changes  in  vehicle 
technology  and  the  increase  in  traffic,  partial  throttle  acceleration  is  nowadays 
mainly  applied.  Therefore,  an  updated  test  methodology  that  allows  for  setting  of 
optimal limit values appears as the main way forward to reduce noise levels. 

In  response  to  the  identified  problem,  the  UN-ECE  Working  Party  on  Noise 
developed a new test method which was published in 2007 and monitored in parallel 
with  the  existing  test  method  for  the  past  three  years.  The  monitoring  allowed  for 
collecting a database of parallel test results necessary for assessing the new method 
and quantifying the differences between the two methods. 

In comparison to the old method the new one is design independent and corresponds 
better  to  current  urban  driving  conditions.  It  consists  of  both  acceleration  and  a 
constant speed test. Further differences are related to applicable allowances and the 
choice of tyres for the test. 

Negative health effects from road traffic noise 

According  to  the  EEA  report  ‘Transport  at  a  crossroads  2008',  almost  67  million 
people (i.e. 55 % of the population living in agglomerations with more than 250 000 
3.  This 
inhabitants)  are  exposed  to  daily  road  noise  levels  exceeding  55  dB  LDEN

3 

LDEN is a measure of noise exposure at a specific local spot, e.g. a street. It is defined as the weighted 
energy  average  of  day-evening-night  levels  and  strongly  depends  on  the  road  type,  the  location  and 
traffic variation during a 24 hour period. In many cases, the numbers of cars are so much larger than 
other vehicle types that they tend to determine the overall LDEN level, often dominated by the evening or 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
figure  is  a  commonly  established  'threshold  value'  above  which  there  is  a  higher 
likelihood of adverse health effects. Almost 48 million people are exposed to levels 
4 with road noise being by far the largest source of exposure to 
exceeding 50 dB Lnight
night  time  transport  noise.  Almost  21  million  people  (i.e.  17  %  of  the  population 
living in urban agglomerations) live in areas where night-time road noise levels have 
detrimental effects on health. 

Traffic noise in urban areas in Europe is a major environmental stressor. In the first 
place,  noise  exposure  can  lead  to  disturbance  of  sleep  and  daily  activities,  to 
annoyance  and to stress.  Over a prolonged period of exposure these effects may in 
their  turn  increase  the  risk  of  cardiovascular  disease  and  psychiatric  disorders.  The 
2008  WHO-report  ‘Economic  valuation  of  transport-related  health  effects,  with  a 
special  focus  on  children’5  identified  the  following  health  endpoints  for  noise 
exposure:  severe  annoyance,  reduced  sleep  quality,  severe  sleep  disturbance, 
insomnia,  ischemic  heart  disease  (e.g.  hypertension).  Given  the  known  effects  on 
health, quality of life and consequential costs, real reductions in noise exposure are 
highly desirable. 

Potential risk of fragmentation of the internal market 

If the technical requirements regarding the noise emissions of motor vehicles are not 
updated  to  technical  progress  by  using  an  adequate  test  methodology  and  applying 
acceptable  limit  values  there  is  a  risk  of  fragmentation  of  the  internal  market. 
Member  States  might  see  a  need  to  introduce  other  measures  to  eliminate  negative 
health effects for their citizens. This could be the introduction of special zones only 
accessible for low noise vehicles or other local measures. 

1.3.  Who is affected, in what ways and to what extent? 

Current  noise  emissions  from  motor  vehicles  affect  all  citizens,  in  particular  urban 
inhabitants  of  areas  with  high  traffic.  Other  stakeholders  affected  by  the  Motor 
Vehicle  Noise  Directive  include:  road  authorities,  local  and  national  authorities, 
health authorities, the automotive industry including suppliers, type approval bodies, 
the  consumer  market  for  road  vehicles,  the  professional  market  for  road  vehicles 
(lease  and  rental  companies),  truck,  van  and  taxi  fleet  owners.  Once  the  legislation 
on  noise  emissions  has  been  adopted  at  the  EU  level  and  approved  under  the  UN-
ECE all parties to the 1958 UN-ECE Agreement would be affected. 

2. 

ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY 

The legal basis of this initiative is Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union on the approximation of laws. 

As  noise  emission  limits  and  the  type-approval  procedure  for  motor  vehicles  are 
already harmonised any modifications to the Motor Vehicle Noise Directive can only 
be  done  at  the  EU  level.  This  does  not  only  prevent  fragmentation  of  the  internal 

night levels as these have stronger weighting. Along some roads heavily used by freight vehicles, lorries 
and heavy goods vehicles can sometimes dominate the LDEN 
Lnight  is  mostly  dominated  by  the  higher  numbers  of  cars,  as  most  traffic  on  urban  roads  runs  in  the 
daytime.  It  contains  a  mix  of  power  train  and  tyre  noise,  but  more  power  train  noise  for  intermittent 
traffic flow. On routes with significant night time freight traffic such as some motorways, lorries and 
heavy goods vehicles can sometimes dominate the Lnight. 
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2003/action3/action3_2003_08_en.htm#3 

4 

5 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
market, but also ensures equal health, safety and environmental standards across the 
EU as well as it offers advantages of economies of scale: products can be made for 
the  whole  European  market,  instead  of  being  customised  to  obtain  national  type-
approval for every single Member State. 

Given the current levels of environmental noise and affected citizens and the fact that 
EU noise limits have not changed in the last decade despite increasing traffic levels, 
a change in limits to remedy this situation is considered proportional. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

GENERAL 
1.  To  ensure  a  high  level  of 
health 
environmental 
protection 

and 

2.  To 
market for motor vehicles 

safeguard 

internal 

exposure 

SPECIFIC 
1. To reduce the negative impact of 
noise 
of  European 
citizens  caused  by  motor  vehicle 
traffic 
2.  To  ensure  the  good  functioning 
of  the  internal  market  for  motor 
vehicles  with  regard  to  their  noise 
emissions 

OPERATIONAL 

improve 
test  methods 

the 
To  modify  and 
applicable 
and 
requirements  within  the  European 
system  for  the  type-approval  of 
motor  vehicles  with  regard  to  their 
noise emissions 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Option 1: No policy change: old test method and the existing limit values 

In this option the current limit values together with the allowances will remain valid, 
as well as the old measurement method. 

Option 2: New test method and the existing limit values  

In this option the new measurement method will be combined with the current set of 
limit values.  

Option 3: New test method and limit values equivalent to old ones 

This  option  aims  at  the  use  of  the  new  test  method  in  combination  with  limit 
values, such that they do not lead to more severe requirements than incorporated in 
the  current  test  method  and  applicable  limit  values.  This  option  foresees  new  limit 
values that will not modify the level of stringency compared to the old system. 

Option 4: New test method and reduced limit values introduced in one stage 

Option 4 proposes new limit values in combination with the new test method in such 
a  way  that  a  reduction  of  the  authorised  noise  emissions  per  motor  vehicle  may  be 
expected.  The  proposed  reduction  of  the  vehicle  noise  limit  values  by  3  dB(A)  for 
light vehicles and 2 dB(A) for heavy vehicles might take effect from 1 January 2014.  

Option 5: New test method and reduced limit values introduced in two stages 

In comparison to Policy Option 4, in Policy Option 5 a more ambitious final target 
for noise reduction is pursued. This would be achieved in two stages. The first step is 
a reduction of 2 dB(A) for light vehicles and 1 dB(A) for heavy vehicles and can be 
introduced  on  1  January  2013.  The  second  step  is  a  reduction  of  2  dB(A)  for  light 
vehicles and 2 dB(A) for heavy vehicles. It will require more development effort and 
a more drastic set of technical measures: this step can be introduced from 1 January 

EN 

5 

   EN 

2015. The total reduction would be 4 dB(A) for light vehicles and 3 dB(A) for heavy 
vehicles. 

5. 

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 

5.1. 

Approach 

The  present  impact  assessment  covers  the  environmental,  social  and  economic 
aspects of the five policy options. 

The environmental impact is defined in terms of reduction of LDEN, Lnight and single 
event  levels.  The  social  impact  takes  into  account  the  influence  of  noise  on 
annoyance,  sleep  disturbance,  health  effects  and  quality  of  life.  The  economic 
impacts  include  their  monetisation,  reduced  need  for  traffic  noise  abatement 
solutions and costs to industry, following guidelines on cost benefit analysis. 

5.2. 

Environmental impact 

In terms of current legislation the impact of environmental noise is the time averaged 
equivalent noise level LDEN and the averaged night time noise level Lnight at facades 
of  dwellings,  calculated  as  required  by  the  Environmental  Noise  Directive 
2002/49/EC.  

Analysis 

The differences between the policy options are set out in the table below. Option 2 
shows an increase in impact due to the fact that effectively higher noise levels would 
be allowed (average increase 1,7 dB(A). The average reduction in traffic noise levels 
is  2,5  dB(A)  for  option  4  and  3,1  dB  for  option  5.  These  reductions  are  higher  for 
intermittent  traffic,  2,8  dB(A)  for  option  4  and  4,1  dB(A)  for  option  56.  They  take 
effect only gradually, and are only fully in place after all vehicles are replaced, i.e. 13 
years  after  coming  into  force  of  the  new  limits.  Part  of  the  reduction  may  occur 
earlier due to the changes in tyre noise levels, especially for free flowing traffic. 

dLDEN 

Option 1 
Option 2 
Option 3 
Option 4 
Option 5 
dLnight 
Option 1 
Option 2 
Option 3 
Option 4 
Option 5 

Residential 
road with 
intermittent 
traffic 

Residential 
road with free 
flow traffic 

Main road 
with 
intermittent 
traffic 

Main 
road with 
free flow 
traffic 

Arterial 
road with 
free flow 
traffic 

Urban 
motor way 
with free 
flow traffic 

Rural 
motor way 
with free 
flow 
traffic 

Rural 
road with 
free flow 
traffic 

0,0 
+ 1,8 
0,0 
- 2,8 
- 4,0 

0,0 
+ 1,8 
0,0 
- 2,7 
- 3,8 

0,0 
+ 1,8 
0,0 
- 2,5 
- 2,9 

0,0 
+ 1,8 
0,0 
- 2,5 
- 3,1 

0,0
+ 1,5
0,0
- 2,9
- 4,2

0,0
+ 1,4
0,0
- 2,8
- 4,0

0,0
+ 1,7
0,0
- 2,4
- 2,6

0,0
+ 1,6
0,0
- 2,4
- 2,7

0,0
+ 1,6
0,0
- 2,4
- 2,7

0,0
+ 1,6
0,0
- 2,4
- 2,7

0,0 
+ 1,6 
0,0 
- 2,4 
- 2,7 

0,0 
+ 1,5 
0,0 
- 2,4 
- 2,7 

0,0 
+ 1,7 
0,0 
- 2,4 
- 2,7 

0,0 
+ 1,6 
0,0 
- 2,4 
- 2,7 

0,0
+ 1,5
0,0
- 2,4
- 2,7

0,0
+ 1,5
0,0
- 2,3
- 2,7

6 

Figures calculated as average of the values in table 7 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.3. 

Social and health impacts 

The social impact of road traffic noise is commonly measured as the percentage of 
seriously annoyed people with LDEN ≥ 55 dB at the dwelling facade. The annoyance 
levels may affect quality of life and health in general. 

Quality  of  life  covers  a  range  of  factors  including  concentration  and  speech 
intelligibility at work, home and school, which are difficult to quantify, and quality 
of  residential,  recreational  and  preservation  areas,  where  a  quiet  environment  is 
valued.  Although  high  noise  levels  in  urban  areas  affect  most  people,  increasingly 
effort  is  also  made  to  protect  those  rural  areas  from  traffic  noise  where  it  is  often 
present.  In  terms  of  health,  links  have  been  made  to  the  occurrence  of  myocardial 
heart  disease,  hypertension  and  stress  and  sleep  disturbance.  Also  estimates  have 
been  made  of  the  number  of  Disability  Adjusted  Life  Years  (DALYs)7  due  to 
environmental factors including noise exposure. 

The annoyance level has been demonstrated to correlate well with LDEN for different 
types  of  traffic  noise  source.  In  a  similar  way,  sleep  disturbance  is  correlated  with 
Lnight. 

Building  on  the  previously  calculated  LDEN  and  Lnight  levels,  exposed  numbers  of 
people  and  the  dose-effect  relationships  the  following  calculations  have  been  made 
with regard to the number of annoyed, highly annoyed and sleep disturbed people for 
each policy option. 

Millio
n 
highly 
annoye
d 

Opti
on 1 

Opti
on 2 

Opti
on 3 

Opti

55 

64 

55 

44 

M
ill
io
n 
hi
g
hl
y 
sl
ee
p 
di
st
ur
be
d 

2
7 

3
0 

2
7 

2

Mill
ion 
ann
oye
d 

119

133

119

99 

Mill
ion 
slee
p 
distu
rbed 

60 

66 

60 

51 

7 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability-adjusted_life_year 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
 
on 4 

Opti
on 5 

41 

2

2
2 

95 

49 

5.4. 

Economic impacts 

Economic impact for industry 

The  technical-economic  impact  of  changing  the  directive  is  mainly  for  the  car 
industry (manufacturers, suppliers and tyre industry) and consists of changes to the 
test  method  and  the  limits,  resulting  in  costs  incurred  to  achieve  noise  reductions. 
These  costs  include  production  costs  per  unit  and  development-,  engineering-  and 
testing-costs, which are relevant for new models or model upgrades. The future noise 
reduction  due  to  quieter  tyres  is  assumed  to  be  ensured  by  the  tyre  noise  directive, 
and although some costs may be borne by the tyre industry, quieter tyres are already 
available on the market for no or little additional cost and will be compulsory after 
2016. The costs for complying with the Regulation on tyre noise8 are not included in 
this analysis. 

Analysis 

The combined development and production costs show that the production costs are 
generally much higher than the development costs when taken over a 79 year period. 
The following table shows the costs for options 4 and 5. The options 1 to 3 do not 
require  a  change  in  the  automotive  production  therefore  no  additional  development 
and production costs are considered. Those are assumed to be 0 and only options 4 
and  5  are  looked  at  more  closely  in  the  tables  below  showing  the  additional 
discounted development and production costs in million Euros. 

The  impact  on  the  vehicle  industry  amounts  to  4  billion  Euros  for  option  4  and  6 
billion  Euros  for  option  510.  These  costs  are  incurred  over  a  development  and 
production  cycle  of  3  +  7  years  and  consist  mainly  of  additional  production  costs 
which are no longer incurred after 10 years. 

8 
9 

10 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:200:0001:0024:EN:PDF 
This implies that fundamental design changes may only come into production after 5 years, and that all 
existing vehicle models will be fully replaced after 7 years. 
As required by the Commission Impact Assessment Guidelines, industry costs have been discounted at 
an annual rate of 4% as they are incurred in the future.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
M€ 
Year 
2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 
2023 
2024 
2025 
2026 
2027 
2028 
2029 
2030 
Total M€ 

Option 4 
Development  Production  Total 

Incl. discount 4% Development Production Total 

Option 5 

42,3 
42,3 
42,3 
42,3 
42,3 
42,3 
42,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
296 

0,0 
0,0 
0,0 

42,3 
42,3 
42,3 
1113,2  1155,5 
954,2  996,5 
795,1  837,5 
636,1  678,4 
477,1  477,1 
318,1  318,1 
159,0  159,0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
4453  4749 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

42,3
40,7
39,1
1027,3
851,8
688,3
536,2
362,5
232,4
111,7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3932

111,1
111,1
111,1
111,1
111,1
111,1
111,1
0,0
0,0
0,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
778

0,0 111,1 
0,0 111,1 
0,0 111,1 
1608,3 1719,4 
1378,5 1489,6 
1148,8 1259,9 
919,0 1030,1 
689,3 689,3 
459,5 459,5 
229,8 229,8 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
7211 

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6433

Incl. discount 4%
111,1
106,9
102,7
1528,5
1273,3
1035,5
814,1
523,8
335,8
161,4
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
5993

Economic impact for society 

The  main  elements  of  the  social-economic  impact  are  (1)  perceived  monetised 
benefits of noise reduction, (2) benefits from savings on health costs and (3) benefits 
from savings on noise abatement. Taking the above considerations into account, the 
overall  annual  benefits  are  the  sum  of  each  of  the  hedonic  pricing  benefits,  health 
savings  benefits  and  noise  abatement  savings  benefits.  The  identified  health 
problems linked to the exposure to noise lead to the following typical type of costs: 
(1)  Costs  of  medical  care  (direct  costs),  (2)  Economic  production  losses  (direct 
costs), (3) Suffering and grief (intangible costs). 

Valuation of noise reduction by hedonic pricing 

In order to value the benefits of traffic noise reduction the method given in the EU 
position paper on valuation of noise (2003) was used. It reflects how much citizens 
are  prepared  to  pay  for  noise  reduction  around  their  homes,  and  variation  in  house 
prices depending on outdoor traffic noise levels11. 

Valuation of health effects 

The estimates are derived from a Swiss study and scaled up in proportion to the ratio 
of  Swiss  population  (7.6  Million)  relative  to  that  of  the  EU27  (500  Million).  The 
annual  health  benefits  for  the  EU27  then  amount  to  84.5  million  Euros  per  dB(A) 
noise  reduction,  which  is  equivalent  to  5.92  €  per  person  per  dB(A)  per  year.

11 

The  perceived  benefit  of  noise  reduction  per  household  per  year,  based  on  willingness-to-pay  and 
hedonic  pricing  calculation  methods,  is  a  figure  of  25 €/dB/household/year  (2002).  The  benefits  are 
calculated for the number of exposed persons in the LDEN calculation, which is 451 million. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Benefits from abatement savings 

Benefits  from  savings  on  noise  abatement  due  to  quieter  traffic  are  assessed  by 
estimating  the  reduced  effective  noise  levels  along  roads  where  normally  noise 
barriers12,  quiet  road  surfaces13  or  façade  insulation14  would  be  required.  The  total 
annual savings on all abatement measures are estimated for the EU27 in 2010 at 58 
million Euros for policy option 4 and 79 million Euros for policy option 5, if the full 
noise  reduction  for  each  option  were  to  take  effect  immediately.  As  the  noise 
reduction only takes effect gradually, initial abatement benefits are zero, growing to 
a maximum at the end of the appraisal period.. 

6. 

COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 

Comparison  of  Options  in  terms  of  their  economic,  environmental  and  social 
impacts. 

Impacts 

Environmental 
impact 

Economic impact 

Social 
impact 

Costs 
for 
indus
try 
(deve
lopm
ent 
and 
prod
uctio
n 
costs
) 

No 
cost 

Benefits 
for 
society 
(hedonic 
pricing 
benefits, 
health 
and  noise 
abatemen
t  savings 
benefits) 

No 
benefits 

Negative 
impact  due 
to 
traffic 
increase 

Negative 
impact  due  to 
traffic 
increase 

(0) 

(0) 

(0) 

(0) 

Option

Option 1 

No 
policy 
change:  old 
test  method 
and 
the 
existing 
limit values 

12 

13 

14 

Noise  barriers  are  typically  only  applicable  for  motorways  and  arterial  roads  where  large  noise 
reductions of 10-15 dB(A) are necessary. 
Quiet  road  surfaces  are  a  solution  for  all  road  types  where  tyre  noise  is  predominant,  although  the 
reduction potential is limited to around 5 dB for motorways and 2.3 dB(A) for urban situations. 
Façade insulation, with potentially large reduction potential up to around 30 dB(A) is applicable in all 
situations  but  is  considered  here  as  one  of  the  few  available  solutions  for  main  and  arterial  roads  in 
urban areas. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Average 
in 
increase 
traffic noise of 
1,7 dB(A) 

No 
cost 

Negative 
Impact 

Option 2 

New 
test 
method  and 
the  existing 
limit values 

Option 3 

New 
test 
method  and 
limit  values 
equivalent to 
old ones 

Option 4 

New 
test 
method  and 
reduced 
limit  values 
in one stage 

(0) 

No 
cost 

(0) 

EUR 
3932 
milli
on 

(--) 

Negative 
impact  due  to 
traffic 
increase 

(0) 

Average 
reduction 
traffic 
between:  

of 
noise 

-  2,5  and  - 
2,8 dB(A) 

Average 
increase  of 
highly 
annoyed 
people 
16% 

by 

Average 
increase 
of  highly 
sleep 
disturbed 
people  by 
11% 

(-) 

Negative 
impact  due 
to 
traffic 
increase 

(--) 

No 
benefits 

(0) 

(0) 

Average 
reduction of 
highly 
annoyed 
people 
20% 

by 

Reduction 
of  highly 
sleep 
disturbed 
people  by 
19% 

EUR 
103207 
million  

(94707 
million 
EUR  of 
social 
benefits 
+  7831 
million 
EUR  of 
health 
benefits 
669 
+ 
million 
EUR  of 
abateme
nt 
savings) 

cost benefit ratio 26.2 

(+) 

(-) 

(+) 

(+) 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Option 5 

New 
test 
method  and 
reduced 
limit  values 
in two stages

Average 
reduction 
traffic 
between:  

of 
noise 

-  3,1  and  -
4,0 dB(A) 

EUR 
5993 
milli
on 

EUR 
123170 
million  

(112849 
million 
EUR  of 
social 
benefits 
+  9446 
million 
EUR  of 
health 
benefits 
+ 
875 
million 
EUR  of 
abateme
nt 
savings) 

highly 

Reduction 
of 
annoyed 
people 
25 % 

by 

Reduction 
of  highly 
sleep 
disturbed 
people  by 
19 % 

cost benefit ratio 20.6 

(++) 

(--) 

(++) 

(++) 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

One of the key indicators to be taken into account for evaluating the performance of 
the  proposed  action  is  the  noise  monitoring  under  the  Environmental  Noise 
Directive. A noise reduction of motor vehicles should be reflected in a reduction of 
environmental  noise  in  particular  in  urban  areas.  An  additional  indicator  is  the 
monitoring  of  the  type-approval  values  of  new  models  of  motor  vehicles.  A 
substantial reduction in the measured values is an appropriate indicator whether the 
chosen  option  has  positively  contributed  to  the  environmental  objectives  related  to 
this  policy  initiative.  Findings  from  monitoring  might  recommend  developing  a 
continuous strategy of regular limit value reductions until a considerably lower noise 
emission  level  is  attained,  that  cannot  be  further  reduced  without  fundamental 
changes in vehicle technology or in transport modalities. 

A constant dialogue with the industry, aimed at monitoring the sector and its ability 
to develop suitable solutions within the next few years will be of utmost importance. 
In view of the implementation of the improved noise emission requirements, it will 
be essential to monitor the market and the development of different approaches and 
technologies  towards  a  reduction  of  vehicle  noise.  This  includes  the  automotive 
manufacturers  and  the  suppliers  for  key  products  like  tyres,  exhaust  silencers,  gear 
boxes, engines, etc.. One suitable way of achieving this constant dialogue is to rely 
on the Working Group for Motor Vehicles (WVWG), where these stakeholders are 
represented. 

EN 

12 

   EN