REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL On the Implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 2002/49/EC
Date: 2017-03-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: action programme, air transport, noise level, noise pollution, noise protection, public health, rail transport, road transport, vehicle

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.3.2017  COM(2017) 151 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL On the Implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 2002/49/EC   
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

On the Implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive in accordance with Article 
11 of Directive 2002/49/EC 

1. 

Introduction 

Article 11 of the Environmental Noise Directive (hereinafter "the Directive")1 provides for an 
implementation report to be prepared by the European Commission every 5 years. In addition 
to addressing the implementation, the Directive requires that this report should also include a 
review  of  the  acoustic  environment,  goals  and  measures  for  the  reduction  of  environmental 
noise (legislation at source), and assess the need for further Community actions. This second 
implementation report reviews the situation since the publication of the first report2, and also 
represents the action plan following the evaluation of the Directive, which took place in 2016 
under the Commission's Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT) programme. It should 
therefore  be  read  in  conjunction  with  the  respective  supporting  study  and  Staff  Working 
Document3. 

Noise  pollution  continues  to  constitute  a  major  environmental  health  problem  in  Europe. 
Scientific evidence shows that prolonged exposure to high levels of noise pollution can lead 
to serious health effects in areas controlled by the human endocrine system and by the brain, 
such  as  cardiovascular  diseases,  sleep  disturbance  and  annoyance  (a  feeling  of  discomfort 
affecting  general  well-being).  According  to  the  World  Health  Organisation  (WHO),  noise 
pollution leads to a disease burden that is second only to air pollution among the environment-
related causes in Europe. 

Environment-related  pressures  and  risks  to  health  and  well-being  are  also  at  the  heart  of 
citizens'  preoccupations4,  and  the  Union  has  a  role  to  play  in  safeguarding  its  citizens  from 
such pressures and risks, also making the Union's cities more sustainable. A goal to reduce the 
number  of  people  harmfully  affected  by  environmental  noise  –  to  be  reported  according  to 
Article 11 (2) of the Directive - has been set in the 7th Environment Action Programme5. For 
this,  innovative  solutions  are  needed  and  will  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the 
Commission's general priority No. 1: A New Boost for Jobs, Growth and Investment. 

At  EU  level,  Directive  2002/49/EC  relating  to  the  assessment  and  management  of 
environmental  noise  is  the  key  legislative  instrument  for  protecting  citizens  from  excessive 
noise  pollution  caused  by  road,  rail  and  airport  traffic,  as  well  as  by  large  industrial 
installations.  Its  purpose  is  twofold:  (1)  to  define  a  common  approach  intended  to  avoid, 

1 OJ L 189, 18.7.2002 
2 COM(2011) 321 final 
3 All reports are available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/evaluation_en.htm 
4 Eurostat "Urban Europe: Statistics on Cities, Towns and Suburbs", 2016, p.135; available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Proportion_of_people_who_are_satisfied with the 
level_of_noise_in_their_city,_2015_(%C2%B9)_(%25)_Cities16.png  
5 calling for a significant decrease in noise pollution and for ensuring that by 2020 noise pollution in the EU has 
significantly decreased, moving closer to levels recommended by the WHO 

2 

 
 
                                                            
prevent  or  reduce  the  harmful  effects  of  environmental  noise  and  (2)  to  provide  a  basis  for 
developing measures to reduce noise emitted by the major sources. 

2. 

The acoustic environment quality in the EU and the impact on public health 

An assessment of the exposure of European citizens to noise was carried out by the EEA for 
the  European  Union  Member  States,  covering  467  agglomerations  (where  roads,  railways, 
airports and industrial installations are considered), 86 major airports as well as 186 600 km 
of  major  roads  and  44  320  km  of  major  railways  outside  agglomerations.  As  reporting  by 
Member  States  is  still  incomplete,  missing  data  have  been  filled  using  a  special  gap-filling 
methodology6. Figure 1 shows the results, separately for inside and outside agglomerations.7 

n
i
(
B
d
5
5
>
n
e
d
L
o
t
d
e
s
o
p
x
e
e
p
o
e
p
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

l

)
s
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

Lden > 55 dB 

Gap filled

Reported

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Road

Rail

Air

Industry Major Road Major Rail Major Air

Inside agglomerations                     │      Outside agglomerations 

Figure 1: Number of people exposed to environmental noise in Europe > 55 dB Lden in the 28 
EU Member States, 2012, inside and outside agglomerations. 

Road traffic noise, both inside and outside agglomerations, remains the most dominant source 
affecting  human  exposure  above  the  reporting  levels  defined  by  the  Directive,  with  an 
estimated total (inside and outside agglomerations) of around 100 million people (nearly 70 
million  inside  and  30  million  outside  agglomerations)  being  exposed  to  road  traffic  noise 
above 55 dB Lden. Railways are the second most important noise source with a total of more 
than  18  million  people  (around  10  million  inside  and  8  million  outside  agglomerations) 
exposed above 55 dB Lden, followed by aircraft noise with a total of nearly 4 million people 
(nearly  3  million  inside  and  1  million  outside  agglomerations)  exposed  above  55  dB  Lden. 

6 Gap filing has been carried out based on the methodology published in "Noise in Europe 2014", available at 
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/noise-in-europe-2014 
7 The Directives requires separated noise mapping inside and outside agglomerations  

3 

 
 
  
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Industrial noise within urban areas exposes around 1 million people to noise levels above 55 
dB Lden. 

This  exposure data implies8 that  14,1  million adults are severely annoyed by environmental 
noise,  5,9  million  adults  are  highly  sleep  disturbed,  69  000  hospital  admissions  and  15  900 
cases of premature mortality occur annually, due to environmental noise . 

This data is limited to agglomerations, roads, railways and airports falling under the scope of 
the Directive. The total exposure and health impacts are therefore even higher. 

3. 

The implementation of the Directive 

Implementation  of  the  Directive  by  Member  States  is  progressing  but  varies  significantly, 
depending  on  Member  States'  choice  of  ambition  level,  the  resources  allocated  to 
implementation,  and  whether  implementation  is  tasked  to  more  centralised  or  more  local, 
decentralised authorities. In summary: 

Transposition  into  national  legislation  has  been  done  correctly  in  all  28  Member  States, 
either  through  the  adoption  of  new  implementing  regulations  or  through  adjustments  to 
existing legislation. 

No significant problems were identified in the designation of major roads, major railways, 
major airports and agglomerations that fall within the scope of the Directive. However, in 
some Member States, practical challenges in producing noise maps persist between national 
bodies and local authorities. 

The Directive does not set any source-specific limit values at an EU level, but leaves Member 
States free to establish national limit values if they wish to do so. Such values have been set in 
21 Member States, and non-binding targets in a further four Member States. However, so far 
there has been limited evidence of their effective enforcement. 

For the preparation of strategic noise maps, Member States have used the indicators required 
by the Directive. Member States have  however  also used other  national noise indicators for 
special cases, as provided for by Article 5(2) of the Directive. 

Data has not been comparable between reporting rounds and countries, as Member States may 
still use adapted national methods to assess noise. This will be considerably improved by the 
newly  developed  common  methods9  which  will  lead  to  comparable  data  once  their  use  is 
compulsory from 2018 onwards. 

More than 20% of the required noise maps, and around 50% of the action plans for the current 
five-year  reporting  cycle,  have  not  yet  been  reported.  Implementation  of  the  Directive  is 

8 Calculated with the same methodology /exposure-response relationships as used for the report: Noise in Europe 
2014, available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/noise-in-europe-2014 
9 Commission Directive (EU) 2015/996 of 19 May 2015 establishing common noise assessment methods 
according to Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 168, 1.7.2015 

4 

 
 
                                                            
therefore significantly delayed, as Member States were required to supply these by 2012 and 
2013, respectively. An overview of data completeness is provided in Table 1 below.  

Table 1: Completeness of reporting for current round of noise mapping and action 
planning 

In agglomerations 

Road 
noise  

Railway 
noise  

Aircraft 
noise  

Industry 
noise  

Outside agglomerations 
Major 
railways  

Major 
roads  

Major 
airports  

78% 

75% 

52% 

69% 

79%11 

73%12 

75% 

49% 

47% 
(average) 

41% 
(average) 

43% 

Entity 

Noise 
maps 
completed
10 
Action 
plans 
completed
13 

Source: Report of a service contract available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/evaluation_en.htm 

As Member States have drawn up nearly 80 % of the required noise maps – and made them 
available  through  different  website  information  portals  –  a  direct  output  of  the  Directive's 
implementation remains that we now have a much clearer understanding of the extent of the 
noise  problem  in  the  EU.  Despite  availability  of  this  information,  citizens  are  not  always 
aware of the noise situation and their related health effects. 

Approaches to action planning diverge between Member States. This is reflected in the types 
of  noise  reduction  measures  identified,  the  balance  between  expenditure  /  non-expenditure 
measures  and  the  extent  to  which  the  plans  are  only  strategic  or  also  have  an  operational 
focus. In addition, the delay in drawing up action plans indicates that many Member States 
have  not  taken  steps  to  address  noise  pollution.  The  reasons  for  this  vary:  for  instance  in 
agglomerations,  competent  authorities  responsible  for  developing  the  action  plans  may  not 
have strategic or budgetary decision-making powers to determine whether measures included 
in the action plan are realistic, feasible and can be funded. 

The  quality  and  quantity  of  the  consultation  processes  of  draft  action  plans  that  have  been 
undertaken by Member States also vary. NGOs that have participated in consultations stated 
that although action plans often include a summary of the consultation responses, it is often 
unclear how these responses have been taken into account in the plans. 

The  overriding  reasons  for  these  significant  implementation  delays  include  the  lack  of 
priority given to the issue at the national/local level when deciding on the allocation of limited 
human and financial resources. More specifically for noise mapping, challenges have included 
a  lack  of  centralised  and  consistent  input  data,  lack  of  effective  coordination  among  the 
different  competent  authorities  responsible  for  implementing  the  Directive  and  a  lack  of 
comparability of the resulting noise maps across jurisdictions. With regard to action-planning, 

10 By June 2015 
11 22 out of 28 countries 
12 19 out of 26 countries – 2 countries did not have any major railways in 2010 
13 By November 2015 

5 

 
 
                                                            
delays  were  caused  by  knock-on  effects  from  the  delays  in  noise-mapping  (as  action  plans 
need  to  be  based  on  noise  maps)  and  the  short  period  given  between  the  deadline  for  the 
preparation of noise maps and that for action plans (12 months). Overall, evidence shows that 
Member  States  with  a  highly  decentralised  approach  to  implementation  have  particularly 
struggled  to  enforce  the  timely  implementation  of  the  Directive's  measures  on  their 
authorities. 

While many Member States have made progress in developing definitions of quiet areas (in 
agglomerations and open country) and in defining selection criteria to designate them, only 13 
Member  States  have  to  date  designated  any  quiet  areas.  A  possible  reason  for  this  is  the 
perceived  uncertainty  whether  the  process  could  be  reversed  in  future  and  also  whether  a 
designated quiet area could be subject to legal restrictions. In those Member States, however, 
where quiet areas have been designated, their number has increased considerably between the 
first and the second reporting round (2007 – 2012). To facilitate the designation of quiet areas, 
Member States have asked the Commission to further develop practical guidance. 

An important implementation challenge was the broadened scope of the Directive (see Table 
2) and the considerably increased number of entities for which noise maps and action plans 
had to be produced (e.g. the number of agglomerations covered increased from 176 to 467). 
The change of scope also makes it difficult to compare data completeness between rounds. 

Table 2: Number of entities covered by the Environmental Noise Directive in reporting 
rounds 1 and 2 

Type of entity 

Reporting round 1 (2005-2009) 

Agglomerations 

Major airports 

Major roads 
(km) 
Major railways 
(km) 

176 
(> 250,000 inhabitants) 
73 
(> 50,000 movements14 per year) 
67,488 
(> 6 million vehicle passages per year) 
31,576 
(> 60,000 train passages per year) 

Reporting round 2 (2010-2014) and 
subsequent rounds 
467 
(> 100,000 inhabitants) 
92 (due to increased air traffic) 
(> 50,000 movements per year) 
154,738 
(> 3 million vehicle passages per year) 
72,341 
(> 30,000 train passages per year) 

4. 

The evaluation of the Directive 

In  2013  the  Commission  proposed  the  Directive  for  evaluation15  in  the  context  of  its 
Regulatory  Fitness  and  Performance  (REFIT)  programme,  a  part  of  its  Better  Regulation 
agenda16.  In  accordance  with  the  general  guidance  on  Better  Regulation17,  this  evaluation 
explores  whether  the  Directive  was,  and  continues  to  be,  relevant  to  tackling  the  issue  it 
addresses, while providing EU added value in comparison to Member State action alone. In 

14 A movement is defined in Article 3(p) of the Directive as a take-off or landing 
15 COM(2013) 685 final 
16 http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/democratic-change/better-regulation_en 
17 http://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/better-regulation-why-and-how_en 

6 

 
 
 
                                                            
addition,  this  evaluation  assesses  whether  the  Directive  achieved  this  in  an  effective  and 
efficient  manner,  and  whether  its  provisions  were  coherent  with  other  EU  legislation.  The 
evaluation  also  considers  the  impact  of  the  Directive  on  SMEs,  and  the  potential  for 
simplification and reduction of administrative burdens. 

The  evaluation  covers  the  period  from  the  adoption  of  the  Environmental  Noise  Directive 
(2002) to the present day. Its scope is limited to the Environmental Noise Directive, but takes 
into account the interaction of the Directive with EU legislation which tackles noise emissions 
at  their  source  (e.g.  by  regulating  the  noise  emissions  of  motor  vehicles),  whilst  not 
addressing this legislation in a detailed manner.  

The evaluation methodology included desk research which considered reporting data from the 
Member States and other relevant EU and national documents, as well as the latest scientific 
literature.  Administrative  costs  of  the  Directive's  implementation  were reviewed  and a  cost-
benefit  analysis  performed.  The  evaluation  also  involved  an  extensive  and  comprehensive 
consultation  with  competent  authorities  and  stakeholders  from  all  Member  States  through 
online surveys, in-depth interviews, a workshop, and an online public consultation.  

The  Directive  itself  and  its  two  objectives  remain  highly  relevant  to  identified  EU  policy-
making needs18. Noise pollution continues to constitute a major environmental health problem 
in  Europe.  In  order  to  tackle  this,  stakeholder  feedback  indicates  that  there  is  a  continuing 
need for a common approach to the management of noise. Moreover, collecting harmonised 
data  on  EU  level  is  important  to  provide  a  high-quality  evidence  base  for  the  further 
development  of  EU  noise-at-source  legislation,  which  is  necessary  since  local  noise 
management measures could be ineffective without additional controls over noise emitted by 
the major sources of noise. 

With  regard  to  coherence,  the  Directive  is  found  to  be  largely  internally  coherent,  although 
there  are  some  perceived  ambiguities  among  stakeholders.  Moreover,  the  Directive  has 
demonstrated external coherence with other relevant EU legislation (environmental and noise-
at-source  legislation),  and  is  considered  to  be  complementary  to  it.  Although  there  were 
practical challenges in the early stages of the Directive's transposition, national noise control 
legislation was found to be almost universally coherent with the Directive. 

Some progress has been made towards the achievement of the first objective of the Directive, 
but  effects  have  not  yet  materialised  due  to  the  long  delays  in  the  legislative  adoption  of 
common methodologies and the long delays in implementation in Member States. With regard 
to progress made towards the second objective, the Directive is increasingly drawing attention 
at  EU  level  to  the  significance  of  the  harmful  effects  of  noise  on  health.  However,  noise 
population exposure data resulting from the Directive has not yet been used by the EU for the 
design of legislation on noise at source. With regard to the overall impact of the Directive on 
noise pollution, it must be noted that the benefits of most measures to address noise can only 
be seen in the longer term as noise reduction measures take long to be implemented (e.g. over 

18 As expressed in the Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union (OJ C 326, 26.10.2012), the 
European Commission Green Paper 'Future Noise Policy' (COM(96)540 final) and the General Union 
Environment Action Programme to 2020 (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013) 

7 

 
 
                                                            
a  20-year  period),  therefore  the  impact  of  the  Directive  on  noise  pollution  cannot  be  fully 
evaluated at the moment. 

The five-year cycles for noise mapping and action planning appear to be appropriate, but the 
one-year timeframe between the finalisation of maps and adoption of associated action plans 
was  found  to  be  too  short.  The  Reporting  Mechanism  is  effective  in  enabling  the  prompt 
submission of reporting data by Member States, but its design could be further improved. 

In cases where action plans including measures for noise management have been adopted, the 
Directive  has  resulted  in  a  favourable  cost-benefit  ratio  of  1:29  identified  under  the  most 
likely  scenario  in  the  cost-benefit  analysis.  The  administrative  costs  of  implementation  are 
low, amounting to €0.15 for noise maps and €0.03 for action plans per inhabitant out of the 
total population (median values) per reporting round (i.e. every 5 years). Taking into account 
the total EU population of 508 million, the administrative costs of full implementation by all 
Member  States  are  very  low  and  amount  to  around  €91  million  every  5  years,  or 
approximately €18 million per year. There is little scope to further reduce administrative costs 
of implementing the Directive. The Directive also has no implications for SMEs.  

The Directive has the potential to generate EU added value, by creating a level playing field 
across the EU in which transport infrastructure operators can compete, and by contributing to 
a  better  understanding  of  the  presence  of  noise  pollution  and  better-informed  EU  policy-
making through the provision of comparable data on noise exposure at EU level. Despite this 
considerable  potential,  as  a  result  of  delays  in  implementation,  the  Directive  has  thus  far 
fallen short of delivering the EU added value that it could provide. 

Regarding the potential for simplification,  the evaluation found that  the requirements of the 
Directive are rather simple, and that complications arise mostly from the manner in which the 
Member  States  have  implemented  the  Directive  under  subsidiarity  (e.g.  delegating 
responsibility  for  implementation  to  several  different  levels  of  governance,  resulting  in 
complex  competency  arrangements  within  the  Member  State).  Therefore  the  potential  for 
simplification is at the level of Member State implementation, rather than at the level of the 
legal text of the Directive. Recent revisions of national legislation transposing the Directive in 
some Member States have indicated that they recognise the issue. 

5. 

Legislation regulating noise sources 

Since  the  first  Implementation  Report  from  201119,  the  EU  has  adopted  four  regulations, 
notably  Regulation  (EU)  No  540/2014  on  the  sound  level  of  motor  vehicles20,  Regulation 
(EU) No 168/2013  on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles 
and quadricycles21, Commission Regulation (EU) No 1304/2014 on the technical specification 
for interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘rolling stock - noise’22 and Regulation (EU) No 
598/2014  on  the  establishment  of  rules  and  procedures  with  regard  to  the  introduction  of 

19 COM(2011) 321 final 
20 OJ L 158/131, 27.5.2014, p. 131 
21 OJ L 60/52, 2.3.2013, p. 52 
22 OJ L 356/421, 12.12.2014, p. 421 

8 

 
 
                                                            
noise-related  operating  restrictions  at  Union  airports  within  a  Balanced  Approach23. 
Regarding  noise  from  railways,  the  Commission  has  also  published  a  Staff  Working 
Document on "Rail freight noise reduction"24 requiring Member States to draw upon available 
instruments  and  financial  means  as  extensively  as  possible.  The  Commission  also  explored 
the case for a merger between the Directive 2000/14/EC on Noise from Outdoor Equipment25 
with the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC26, but concluded that they should remain separate.  

6. 

Recommendations and next steps 

The  evaluation  and  implementation  assessment  of  the  Directive  have  demonstrated  several 
areas where activities are needed to reduce  noise impacting citizens' health in  the Union, to 
better  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  Directive  and  thereby  moving  closer  to  WHO 
recommended values. 

(1)  The  delay  in  the  implementation  of  the  Directive  has  been  highlighted  in  the  EU 
Environmental  Implementation  Review27.  This  review  also  stressed  that  Member  States  are 
responsible  for  closing  the  implementation  gaps.  To  support  this,  the  Commission  will  not 
only continue to improving implementation by targeted enforcement actions, but also provide 
scientifically  sound  guidance  to  Member  States,  in  particular  regarding  the  assessment  of 
harmful  effects  with  the  help  of  dose  effect  relationships.  The  Commission  will  also  work 
with Member States to improve the reporting mechanism in the context of the Fitness Check 
of monitoring and reporting obligations in environment policy.  

(2) As complications in the implementation of the Directive arise mostly from the manner in 
which  Member  States  have  implemented  the  Directive  under  subsidiarity,  the  Commission 
invites  Member  States  to  reconsider  their  implementation  arrangements,  including  the 
designation of quiet areas.  

(3)  EU  noise-at-source  legislation  remains  the  most  cost  effective  mean  to  address  noise28. 
With the improved implementation of the Directive, resulting in a complete database on noise 
exposure in the Union, it will be possible to better inform policy options for noise reduction 
measures in the area of transport. The Commission is committed to make full use of this in the 
future when deciding about revising the legal instruments mentioned above.  

(4) The evaluation has identified only a limited number of issues in the Directive itself, such 
as the limited scope of the Directive (to have a common approach to avoid, prevent or reduce 
harmful  effects  of  noise  rather  than  reduce  adverse  health  effects  of  environmental  noise), 
some  minor clarifications  in  some  definitions, as  well as  the need  to  adjust  the Directive to 
recent  regulatory  developments  that  have  taken  place  at  EU  level  since  the  Directive  was 

23 OJ L 173/65, 12.6.2014, p. 65 
24 SWD(2015) 300 final 
25 OJ L 162/1, 3.7.2000, p.1 
26 OJ L 157/24, 9.6.2006, p. 24 
27 COM(2017) 63 final 
28 Traffic Noise Reduction in Europe (2007), available at: 
http://www.cedelft.eu/publicatie/traffic_noise_reduction_in_europe/821  

9 

 
 
                                                            
adopted (e.g. Lisbon Treaty). In addition, new scientific evidence suggests that harmful health 
effects  can  occur  at  lower  levels  than  those  so  far  addressed  by  the  Directive,  which  the 
Commission has to consider according to Article 11(4) of the Directive. The Commission will 
therefore  engage  in  a  dialogue  with  stakeholders  to  assess  how  these  issues  can  best  be 
addressed without unnecessarily reducing the flexibility of Member States to define their own 
levels of ambition or choice of approaches.  

(5) Exposure to excessive noise can also be addressed via urban planning policy, as suggested 
in  the  7th  Environmental  Action  Programme.  While  competence  in  this  area  lies  with  the 
Member States, the Commission will stimulate and encourage activities to mitigate excessive 
noise  in  urban  areas,  for  example  by  facilitating  the  exchange  of  good  practices,  as  well  as 
supporting research and innovation in this field.  

(6) The evaluation shows that measures to directly addressing noise have high initial cost and 
long  periods  to  recover  the  financial  investment.  However,  they  are  highly  efficient  when 
comparing  their  costs  to  the  societal  benefit.  Member  States  are  therefore  encouraged  to 
implement noise mitigation measures in the context of their action plans under the Directive, 
leveraging also private investments where possible.  

(7)  In  certain  cases,  Member  States  could  use  targeted  EU  co-financing  such  as  from  the 
Cohesion Fund and the European Regional Development Fund to support the implementation 
of  noise-mitigating  measures  where  they  are  part  of  an  overarching  effort  to  improve  the 
urban environment or to develop and improve environmentally-friendly (including low-noise) 
transport systems. Support is also available from the Connecting Europe Facility.  

(8)  The  long-term  health  implications  of  excessive  transport  noise  on  human  health  are 
insufficiently  understood,  leading  to  noise  reduction  measures  not  being  given  priority  and, 
when necessary, budget. Therefore, Member States should raise the awareness of citizens and 
local and regional policy makers on such negative impacts. 

10