Noise Survey Working Group Noise EUROCITIES FINAL

Analysis of EUROCITIES’
Noise Survey 2008
EUROCITIES
EUROCITIES is the network of major European cities. Founded in 1986, the network brings together
the local governments over 135 large cities in 33 European countries. EUROCITIES represents the
interests of its members and engages in dialogue with the European institutions across a wide
range of policy areas affecting cities. These include: economic development, the environment,
transport and mobility, social affairs, culture, the information and knowledge society, and services
of general interest.
EUROCITIES website: www.eurocities.eu
November 2008
2
Table of contents
Summary 3
Introduction 5
Analysis of Noise Questionnaire 2008 7
Conclusions 40
Recommendations 41
November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

3
Summary
The main findings of this questionnaire are:
1. Conformation on the number of people exposed to noise (>50% above 55 decibels) across
the EU Noise Maps. The figures on people exposed to noise don’t differ much from the
figures given in the provisional data of the EU Noise Maps gathered by the European
Commission.
2. Generally speaking, respondents of most of the cities surveyed are aware of their
respective noise problems but little progress has been made in reducing noise. There
are some good examples but most cities lag behind.
3. Not only cities make little progress in mitigating noise. The EU is making little progress
as well, because over the past 20 years cars and Heavy Good Vehicles (HGV) have hardly
become any quieter. The process for quieter vehicles, planes, trains, tyres and outdoor
equipment goes very slow and a lot of delay is found.
The published Environmental Noise Directive (END) is helpful in showing the noise
burden in cities and member states. Mapping will make the public and politicians more
aware of the extent of the noise burden in their cities. But the effectiveness of the END
is doubtful when you look at its objective (less people annoyed by noise)
4. The END doesn’t contain limits. Whether noise limits will make the END more effective
can be doubted. Some cities think it could help other cities and other cities don’t
believe that a limit could help to make the END more effective.
5. Cities have hardly designated Quiet Urban Areas. This is a pity because these areas are
very important for relaxation and against stress. People can get away from the noisy
urban environment en relax. The Noise Questionnaire revealed that few cities take
actions to preserve Quiet Urban Areas.
6. This noise questionnaire produces a number of recommendations that can help cities to
tackle the noise in urban areas. These recommendations are:
a) Working Group Noise EUROCITIES should pay attention to construction noise,
recreational noise and neighbourhood noise during its meetings. Further WGN should
gather knowledge and experience on noise and share this with EUROCITIES members
by means of newsletters, websites, web logs, leaflets or reports.
b) Follow-up questions about question 3c should be sent to the cities that filled in the
noise questionnaire. We cannot compare cities based on the current answers on the
budgets they have, because the cities have not included same types of costs in their
answers.
c) The Working Group Noise (WGN) should explore setting up an European network of
cities that will monitor noise by using noise measurements (ENNEM, European Noise-
monitoring Network of EUROCITIES Members). This network should have the
following goals :

4
I. exchange of experiences and knowledge between cities

II. improving the methods used
III. harmonizing the methods
IV. noise measurements as validation of calculations
d) Better exchange of information on measures that could be taken to reduce noise in
urban situations and combined measures that are beneficial for noise and other
(environmental) issues like air quality, energy, road safety, urban sprawl, and
making these more accessible.
A lot of information is available in a number of EU projects like the Silence, Q-city
project, SMILE, PRONET, CALM I and II etc. but EUROCITIES members have a lot of
information as well. WGN is considering to support or create a project under FP7,
called DINOMAC. Disappointing experiences from cities all over Europe are included
as lessons for the future and integrated measures as well. This project certainly will
contain the promotion of one of the most efficient measures, quiet road surfaces.
e) WGN should promote the designation and preservation of Quiet Urban Areas in
European cities. There is a need for criteria for these kinds of areas. Possibly WGN
could cooperate with the city of Florence, Vie en rose (Italian consultant), the
University of Florence etc. who are making a proposal for a more harmonized
approach to designate and preserve quit urban areas (matrix project).
f) During the evaluation of the END EUROCITIES will ask the European Commission (EC)
to make the Good Practice guide an official EU document after combining this with
the Good Practice guide published by the NOMEPORTS project on industrial and
harbour noise.
g) WGN will always pay attention to the harmful effects of noise on people and will
make people aware of these effects. Besides this, WGN will urge for adequate
action on all administrative levels. WGN will advise its members about the technical
outcomes of the noise questionnaire. Depending on the outcomes of the Gaining
Political Interest other instruments will be used
h) WGN will set out an additional survey to explore the needs of the cities that wanted
support, information and/or education. This way WGN could write a good acoustic
Marshall plan for these cities. Possibly, this plan could be combined with the
proposed DINOMAC project (see recommendation 4 on page 41 or see point b on this
page).
i) During the Florence meeting a discussion will be held about including limits in the
END. The outcomes of this discussion will be reported to the EEF and the political
board in order to get political support for the proposal. After being discussed a
report will be sent to the EC. This will serve as input for the evaluation of the END.
j) WGN will always plead for stricter limits on vehicles, trains, trams, tyres, aero
planes et cetera and will speed up this process in order to get these limits in
practice. WGN will explore if cities are willing to provide their municipal car fleet
with quiet tyres to be a shining example to other authorities, the enterprises and
the public.

5
Introduction
Currently more than 70% of the European residents are living in cities and their numbers will
increase up to 80% the next decades. Cities have always been a magnet for people to live and
work. An increase of city inhabitants will probably mean that the number of cars and the number
of kilometres covered will increase if people don’t switch to more sustainable modes of transport
and insufficient (or ineffective) measures are used. Nowadays around 50% of European citizens are
exposed to noise levels higher than 55 decibel (dB). And around 15% are exposed to noise levels
higher than 65 dB. If no additional (better) measures are taken, these percentages will increase
dramatically.
Surveys done by several institutions show that noise not only causes annoyance and sleep
disturbance but also causes irreversible health effects like high blood pressure, myocardial
infarctions, heart attacks and strokes.
This could even lead to death. Surveys done by TNO, DEFRA, UBA, the EU, the WHO, Babisch,
Miedema, Jarup and others have shown that there is enough evidence for all these health effects.
Recent surveys done by the Dutch Institute for Environmental Health Assessment (RIVM) showed
that young children exposed to high noise levels demonstrate a higher risk of suffering from
learning disabilities (reduced reading memory). Thus, if traffic and vulnerable groups increase in
coming years, the number of unhealthy people will increase if insufficient measures are taken.
Noise does not only affect health. It also influences the value of real estate. The house price can
drop from 0.1 % to 3.2 % per extra decibel depending on the situation in a city or country and
depending on the house markets.
This means that a lot of money is lost. For Gjestland it was calculated that the total loss of money
(due to noise related health problems and depreciation or real estate) amounts to €40 billion per
year.
Noise affects health and house prices but it also lowers the quality of life. This means that cities
become less attractive for people with high incomes and families. Based on this, the Working
Group Noise (WGN) has been set up within the EUROCITIES network with the goal of finding best
practices for urban areas and influencing European legislation and requirements on noise. Besides
this, WGN exchanges information between cities and undertakes projects.
WGN has undertaken this noise questionnaire in order to streamline its work and to verify if it is on
the right course. The noise questionnaire was sent to around 130 cities, 57 of which responded – a
response rate of 44%.

6
Total number of responses: 53
Number of cities involved in the survey: 47 (some of the answers have come from the same city)
Participating cities: Almelo, Amaroussion, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Belfast, Berlin, Birmingham,

Bonn, Bordeaux, Brno, Brussels, Budapest, Dortmund, Florence, Frankfurt, Gateshead, Gijon,
Glasgow, Gothenburg, Helsinki, Hengelo, Karlstad, Leeds, Leipzig, Lisbon, Liverpool, London,
Madrid, Malmo, Manchester, Modena, Munich (two responses), Munster, Nancy, Nantes, Newcastle,
Nuremberg (two responses), Oslo, Poznan, Prague (two responses), Rotterdam, Saint Etienne,
Sheffield, Stockholm (two responses), Tallinn, Tampere, Warsaw (two responses) and Vienna.

7
Analysis of Noise Questionnaire 2008

1.a. What are the five main noise problems in your city in order of
extent?
Figure 1
Question 1a: main noise problems
5% Low frequency noise

66%
answer 55% Neighbourhood noise
63% Recreational noise
1
70%
66% Air traffic noise
54% Construction noise
98% Railway noise
Industrial noise
0% 50% 100% 150%
Traffic noise
percentage
Figure 1 shows how frequently several noise problems were mentioned. As can be seen,
traffic noise was the most frequently mentioned problem. 98% of all the cities (who filled
in the noise questionnaire) mentioned traffic noise as one of their five main noise
problems. The least mentioned noise problem was low frequency noise (5%). The five main
problems seem to be traffic noise, construction noise, neighbourhood noise, railway noise
and air traffic noise.
EUROCITIES Policy/Position:
Eurocities Working Group Noise primarily focuses on the types of noise covered by the
Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC (END). This focus should remain the coming
years but more attention could be paid to construction noise, recreational noise and
neighbourhood noise. The Netherlands has a lot experience with tackling construction
noise. Dutch experience and knowledge can be exchanged during meetings and bilateral
contacts between cities. Each city has its own experience with neighbourhood) noise. These
experiences could be exchanged in the same way.
These themes (construction noise, recreational noise and neighbourhood noise) will be put
on the agenda for the meetings scheduled for 2009 and 2012. During these meetings
workshops could be organized for each of the themes, making it possible to exchange as
much knowledge and experience as possible. Experts could be invited to these workshops as
well. The outcomes (best practices and approaches) of these workshops will be reported in
a separate report and sent to all members of EUROCITES. They will also be put on the
EUROCITIES website.

8
1.b. Does your city have a noise policy plan or another

environmental policy plan including noise?
Figure 2
Question 1b:does your city have a noise policiy
plan or another environmental policy plan
including noise?
2%
30% yes
no
unknown
68%
Figure 2 shows the percentage of cities that has a noise plan or another environmental
policy plan including noise. 68% of the cities have a noise plan, while 30% haven’t got one
at all.
Most of the responding cities have plans so far but often these Noise Plans are a part of
another plan like an Ecological Plan, an Environmental Plan or a plan based on Agenda 21.
Those plans often do not cover all urban noise problems.
While answering the noise questionnaire some cities seem to have confused the noise policy
plan with the Noise Action Plan according to END. About 10% of the cities are still working
on a Noise Plan so the percentage of cities that will have a Noise Plan within two or three
years will increase significantly.
It seems that cities are aware of the fact that noise is (becoming) an important factor in
urbanized areas and should be considered because long lasting noise leads to health
problems and has negative effects on liveability. WGN should constantly bring the noise
situation and its effects to the attention of policymakers and local, national and
European politicians in order to improve the quality of life in cities.

9
Map 1: geographical location of cities that have (or haven’t got) a noise plan or another
environmental policy plan including noise.
Cities that have a noise plan or another environmental policy plan including noise.
Cities that don’t have a noise plan or another environmental policy plan including noise.
Unknown whether this city has a noise policy plan or another policy plan including noise.
Map 1 shows the geographical location of cities that don’t have noise maps or another
environmental policy plan including noise. There is no clear pattern, however. Cities that have
noise maps aren’t located in a certain area. The same goes for cities that don’t have noise maps.

10
2.a. Does your city have legal powers to combat noise?
Figure 3
Question 2a: does your city have legal powers to
combat noise?
7% 2%
Yes
No
Unknown
91%
Figure 3 tells us if cities have legal powers to combat noise. 91% of the cities questioned
have legal powers to combat noise. Only 7% haven’t got these powers.
Some of the cities have indicated that they have full power to combat noise, while other
cities only have limited powers.
These powers usually apply to recreational noise, neighbourhood noise, construction noise
and noise related to planning. In some cases, powers are delegated to regional bodies. The
extent to which powers are delegated and the organizations to which powers are delegated
depends on national legislation/laws, the constitution and the form of government.
EUROCITIES is a European network. Therefore, it is not up to EUROCITIES to encourage

member states to delegate more powers to cities. However, it is best to tackle noise
problems at the city level. (This way, cities can incorporate noise policies into their city
plans.) WGN believes no further action is needed.

11
2.b. If not, who else is the competent body to combat noise in your
country?
Most of the time when local governments don’t have legal power to combat noise, regional,
provincial or national bodies are competent.
EUROCITIES policy/position:
No further action from EUROCITIES is needed.

12
3.a. Does your city have a noise department or noise experts? If yes,
how many noise experts does it have?
Figure 4
Question 3a: does your city have a noise
department or noise experts?
2%
20%
Yes
No
Unknown
79%
Figure 4 show if cities have a noise department or noise experts. 79% of the cities have a
noise department or noise experts. About a fifth of the cities that have responded don’t
have noise experts or a noise department. These cities are mostly situated in Eastern
Europe (see map 2 on page 13).
EUROCITIES believes it is necessary for cities to have noise experts continually gather and
safeguard knowledge on noise (noise legislation, noise abatement and noise effects).
Having noise experts, in stead of hiring consultants, will ensure that knowledge remains
within the organization. After all, when consultants leave after they’ve finished their job
they take their knowledge on noise with them.
EUROCITIES WGN does realise that it is up to cities to decide for themselves if they will hire
permanent staff or temporary employees. Most of the cities that don’t have noise experts
are situated in Eastern Europe (see map 2 on page 13). Therefore, EUROCITIES should
advise those cities to choose for a permanent staff. For the other cities no further action
needs to be taken on this point.

13
Map 2: geographical location of cities that have/don’t have a noise department or noise experts.
Cities that have a noise department or noise experts
Cities that don’t have a noise department or noise experts
Unknown whether this city has a noise department or noise experts.

14
3.b. What kind of noise expertise is available in your department?
Figure 5
Question 3b: what kind of noise expertise is available in Unknown
your department?
other kind of noise
expertise
9% neighbour noise
13%
54% acoustic insulation
38% construction noise
52%
1 30% recreational noise
27% low frequency noise
64%
43% industrial noise
61% airport noise
71%
railway noise
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% road traffic noise
Figure 5 shows what kind of noise expertise cities have in their department. 71% of the
cities have expertise on road traffic noise, which you may recall was the most frequently
mentioned noise problem (see question 1 on page 7). 27% of the cities have expertise on
low frequency noise while only 5% mentioned it as one of their five main noise problems. It
seems that most of the staff (experts) are linked to the most dominating noise problem:
traffic noise).
Working Group Noise has no proposals.

15
3.c. What is the noise budget in your city?
Figure 6.1
Question 3c: what is the "noise budget" in your city?
9
8
7
6
budget (euros 5
per person) 4
3
2
1
0
1
city
Antwerp Athens Birmingham Brussels
Bursa Chemnitz Constantza Dublin
Eindhoven Espoo Florence Frankfurt
Helisinki Klaipeda Lisbon Liverpool
Ljubljana London Lyon Madrid
Malmo Manchester Munich Niš
Oslo Porto Rotterdam Sheffield
Stockholm Tampere Timisoara Utrecht
Warsaw
Figure 6.2
Question 3c: does your city have a "noise
budget?"
32%
Yes
No
61% Unknown
7%

16
Table 1: noise budget per person per city
City Budget per person €

Antwerp 0.52
Athens 1.54
Birmingham 0.25
Brussels 1.00
Bursa 0.01
Chemnitz 0.25
Constantza 0.05
Dublin 0.59
Eindhoven 1.43
Espoo 0.83
Florence 0.28
Frankfurt 0.21
Helsinki 3.54
Klaipeda 0.08
Lisbon 0.08
Liverpool 0.80
Ljubljana 0.19
London 0.01
Lyon 0.25
Madrid 0.12
Malmo 0.36
Manchester 0.47
Munich 0.22
Niš 0.07
Oslo 7.77
Porto 0.00
Rotterdam 0.92
Sheffield 0.77
Stockholm 1.25
Tampere 4.76
Timisoara 0.06
Utrecht 3.85
Warsaw 2.64
About 61% of the cities have a noise budget (see figure 6.2 on page15).
Figure 6.1 and table 1 (page 15 and 16) show the noise budget per person for several cities.
Oslo seems to have the biggest noise budget per person (€ 7.77). Porto has the smallest
budget (€ 0.00).
WGN assumes the presented budgets are not comparable because some of the budgets
presumably include the costs of measures and projects while some of the budgets exclude
these costs. Especially the outliers could probably include the costs of projects and staff.

17
EUROCITIES policy/Position:
Working Group Noise will request that survey respondents answer some additional
questions, which would include for example:
a. What is the budget for noise research?

b. What is the budget for projects?
c. What is the budget for human resources (staff)
d. What is the budget for hard- en software and noise measuring instruments? If
possible, please mention the types of noise instruments used.

18
4. Does your city have figures on the amount of noise to which

people are exposed? Could you indicate the number of exposed
people per 5 dB interval? If unavailable, the response may be
based on estimated value. Are there trends available for the past
ten years? And from more/less than the past ten years? What are
the specific measures you can take at city level to reduce energy
consumption in buildings?
Table 2: number and percentage of people exposed to 55-60 dB per city
Total number of Number of citizens exposed Percentage of people

City citizens to exposed to
55-60 dB 55-60 dB
Amsterdam 760,000 191,000 25%
Berlin 3,300,000 495,900 15%
Birmingham 1,000,000 165,978 17%
Brno 340,000 106,157 31%
Budapest 1,700,000 360,700 21%
Chemnitz 244,000 7,421 3%
Copenhagen 500,000 141,976 28%
Dublin 505,739 36,200 7%
Eindhoven 210,000 45,496 22%
Espoo 240,000 15,000 6%
Florence 356,000 89,100 25%
Helmond 86,000 10,250 12%
Helisinki 564,521 115,200 20%
Ljubljana 267,000 108,100 40%
London 7,098,020 740,982 10%
Madrid 3,238,208 944,400 29%
Malmo 280,000 87,100 31%
Munich 1,300,000 118,200 9%
Niš 300,000 42,000 14%
Oslo 538,411 212,710 40%
Poznan 574,896 47,130 8%
Prague 1,200,000 92,729 8%
Rotterdam 595,000 162,000 27%
Stockholm 800,000 160,000 20%
Tampere 210,000 42,890 20%
The Hague 480,000 77,618 16%
Timisoara 317,651 46,020 14%
Utrecht 260,000 82,600 32%
Valencia 810,065 147,900 18%
Vantaa 190,000 24,000 13%
Warsaw 1,704,717 490,000 29%

19
Total number of Number of citizens Percentage of

City citizens exposed to people exposed to
60-65 dB 60-65 dB
Amsterdam 760,000 129,000 17%
Berlin 3,300,000 319,600 10%
Birmingham 1,000,000 473,018 47%
Brno 340,000 78,163 23%
Budapest 1,700,000 292,700 17%
Chemnitz 244,000 4,025 2%
Copenhagen 500,000 89,681 18%
Dublin 505,739 296,800 59%
Eindhoven 210,000 31,862 15%
Espoo 240,000 4,000 2%
Florence 356,000 33,000 9%
Helmond 86,000 8,800 10%
Helsinki 564,521 114,100 20%
Ljubljana 267,000 67,000 25%
London 7,098,020 568,737 8%
Madrid 3,238,208 829,000 26%
Malmo 280,000 81,500 29%
Munich 1,300,000 69,900 5%
Niš 300,000 114,000 38%
Oslo 538,411 151,190 28%
Poznan 574,896 30,897 5%
Prague 1,200,000 96,131 8%
Rotterdam 595,000 79,300 13%
Stockholm 800,000 87,000 11%
Tampere 210,000 unknown
The Hague 480,000 72,767 15%
Timisoara 317,651 36,809 12%
Utrecht 260,000 74,500 29%
Valencia 810,065 326,400 40%
Vantaa 190,000 8,300 4%
Warsaw 1,704,717 353,000 21%

20
Total number of Number of citizens Percentage of people

City citizens exposed to exposed to
65-70 dB 65-70 dB
Amsterdam 760,000 59,000 8%
Berlin 3,300,000 189,200 6%
Birmingham 1,000,000 107,396 11%
Brno 340,000 43,604 13%
Budapest 1,700,000 330,500 19%
Chemnitz 244,000 1,888 1%
Copenhagen 500,000 69,167 14%
Dublin 505,739 100,700 20%
Eindhoven 210,000 11,754 6%
Espoo 240,000 1,000 0%
Florence 356,000 600 0%
Helmond 86,000 2,080 2%
Helisinki 564,521 63,300 11%
Ljubljana 267,000 51,000 19%
London 7,098,020 691,002 10%
Madrid 3,238,208 421,400 13%
Malmo 280,000 52,200 19%
Munich 1,300,000 612,000 47%
Niš 300,000 102,000 34%
Oslo 538,411 76,130 14%
Poznan 574,896 13,518 2%
Prague 1,200,000 42,607 4%
Rotterdam 595,000 77,200 13%
Stockholm 800,000 5,000 1%
Tampere 210,000 4,760 2%
The Hague 480,000 37,411 8%
Timisoara 317,651 27,307 9%
Utrecht 260,000 38,360 15%
Valencia 810,065 200,800 25%
Vantaa 190,000 700 0%
Warsaw 1,704,717 390,700 23%
Green boxes: lowest percentage of people exposed to a certain amount of dB.

Red boxes: highest percentage of people exposed to a certain amount of dB.

21
Figure 7.1
Question 4: percentage of people exposed to 55-60 dB
45%
40%
35%
30%
Perce ntage of people 25%
exposed to 55-60 dB 20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1
Cities
Amsterdam Berlin Birmingham Brno Budapest Chemnitz Copenhagen Dublin

Eindhoven Espoo Florence Helmond Helsinki Ljubljana London Madrid
Malmo Munich Niš Oslo Poznan Prague Rotterdam Stockholm
Tampere The Hague Timisoara Utrecht Valencia Vantaa W arsaw
Figure 7.1 shows the percentage of people exposed to 55-60 dB per city. Chemnitz has the
lowest percentage of people exposed to 55-60 dB (3% of its population is exposed to 55-60
dB, see table 1 on page 16) Oslo and Ljubljana have the highest percentage of people
exposed to 55-60 dB (40% of their population is exposed to 55-60 dB, see table 2 on
page18).
It was expected that Ljubljana would have a high percentage of exposed people but the
same was not expected for Oslo.
No reason has yet been found to explain the low percentage of exposed people.
The numbers on exposed people are mostly based on the Noise Maps the cities and
agglomerations made. These data still have to be approved by the European Commission.
It’s not known whether these Noise Maps could meet the criteria of the Environmental
Noise Directive. Working Group Noise wasn’t able to check the data and relies on the
contributing cities.

22
Figure 7.2
70%
60%
50%
Percentage of
40%
people exposed
30%
to 60-65 dB
20%
10%
0%
1
City
Amsterdam Berlin Birmingham Brno Budapest Chemnitz

Copenhagen Dublin Eindhoven Espoo Florence Helmond
Helsinki Ljubljana London Madrid Malmo Munich
Niš Oslo Poznan Prague Rotterdam Stockholm
Tampere The Hague Timisoara Utrecht Valencia Vantaa
W arsaw
Figure 7.2 shows the percentage of people exposed to 60-65 dB per city. Chemnitz has the
lowest percentage of people exposed to 60-65 dB (2% of its population is exposed to 60-65
dB, see table 2 on page 18). Dublin has the highest percentage of people exposed to 60-65
dB (59% of its population is exposed to 60-65 dB, see table 3 on page 19).

23
Figure 7.3
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
Percentage of pe ople
25%
e xposed to 65-70 dB
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1
Citie s
Amsterdam Berlin Birmingham Brno Budapest Chemnitz Copenhagen Dublin

Eindhoven Espoo Florence Helmond Helsinki Ljubljana London Madrid
Malmo Munich Niš Oslo Poznan Prague Rotterdam Stockholm
Tampere The Hague Timisoara Utrecht Valencia Vantaa W arsaw
Figure 7.3 shows the percentage of people exposed to 65-70 dB per city. Espoo, Florence
and Vantaa have the lowest percentage of people exposed to 65-70 dB (0% of their
population is exposed to 65-70 dB, see table 4 on page 20). Munich has the highest
percentage of people exposed to 65-70 dB (47% of its population is exposed to 65-70 dB).
Chemnitz has a very low percentage of people exposed to 65-70 dB. Only 1% of its
population is exposed to 65-70 dB (see table 4 on page 20). Note that Chemnitz had the
lowest percentage of exposed people in the previous two categories.
EUROCITIES policy/position:
Cities, whether they are obliged to or not, should periodically (every five years) update
their figures on the number of people exposed to various noise levels. By doing these cities
can monitor the trends over the years and verify whether the number of exposed people is
increasing or decreasing. This should feed into local level policies and inform the public if
local policies are effective.

24
5. Which measurements do you use or prefer in determining the

noise levels in your city?
1. Noise measurements
2. Noise calculations with computer software
3. Combination of 1+2
figure 8
Question 5: which measurements do you use of
prefer when determining the noise levels in your
city?
4% unknown
answe r
66%
1 combination of both
21%
9% noise calculations with
computer software
Noise measurements
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
pe rce ntage
Figure 8 shows the noise measurements used by cities in determining their noise levels.
Two thirds of the cities use a combination of noise calculations with computer software and
noise measurements. For the most part, these noise measurements are used to validate the
noise calculation model. 21% of cities only use noise calculations with computer software
and 9% only use noise measurements.
WGN should inform cities which use calculations that better and more reliable results can
be produced with noise measurements that validate calculated noise levels. Cities which
only rely on noise measurements could be informed that noise measurements are very
costly and aren’t able to discern different noise sources.
There should be a discussion where different parties can share their positions on the added
value of using both measurement and calculations.

25
6. Does your city have noise maps?

1. Yes, according to END 2002/49/EC
2. Yes, but based on other legislation, policies, etc
3. Not yet, we are obliged to do it in 2012 according to the END.
4. No, we don’t even consider providing them.
Figure 9
Question 6: does your city have noise maps?
unknown
13% No, we don't even

answe r 2% consider providing them
1 9% Not yet, we are obliged

7% to do it in 2012
according to the END
70% Yes, but based on other
legislation, policies etc.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Yes, accordinging to

END 2002/49/EC
pe rce ntage
Figure 9 shows us if cities have noise maps. Most cities (77%) have noise maps. 9% don’t but
should have them by 2012. 2% don’t even consider noise maps. 13% of cities didn’t indicate
whether they have noise maps or not. WGN expects that after the second round of Noise
Mapping (according to the Environmental Noise Directive (END) 2012/2013) more than 80%
of EUROCITIES members will have a Noise Map. WGN will put problems and solutions found
during the drafting of these Noise Maps and the forthcoming Noise Action Plans on the
agenda of WGN meetings. Besides this, a biannual congress will be organised (Noise in the
City) to share experiences and to provide measures for reducing noise. The first congress
was held in 2008 and a second congress is to be considered for 2010.
Good Practice Guide on Noise Mapping
WGN has promoted the use of the Good Practice Guide (GPG), which offers information on
making a Noise Map according to the END 2002/49/EC, among EUROCITIES members, though
notices it was rarely used. The status of this GPG is unclear but the WGN believes that a
formal status as an EU document would encourage cities to use the GPG more often. During
the evaluation of the END in 2009 as meant in article 11.1 of the END, this will be advised
to the European Commission. This GPG is about railway noise and traffic noise. Industrial
noise is not mentioned in the GPG. For this reason, the Ecoport working group NOMEPorts
provided a Good Practice Guide on industrial and harbour noise, which should be combined
with the WGN GPG in a formal EU document.
Within the process of the END’s evaluation, WGN will ask the European Commission to give
the GPG on Noise Mapping the status of a EU document. The WGN will also (continue) to
promote the use of the GPG.

26
7.a. What measures have been taken to mitigate noise? You may give
various examples.
Table 5: measures that have been taken to mitigate noise.
Frequently Restricting Little Measures on Special Other
Mentioned Measures Mentioned tracks and measures Measures
Measures Measure roads
Traffic Night Enclosures Grinding tracks Good special Putting up

management restrictions orientation barriers and
(including re- walls
routing, speed
reduction,
traffic calming,
detours,
bundling of
traffic,
circulation of
plans et cetera)
Insulation of Time windows Good Lay-out of Building tunnels
facades and allowing traffic maintenance of houses/House
roofs to certain areas tracks and design *
wheels
Environmental Good and Psycho Laying quiet
zones frequent acoustical road services
maintenance of measure
roads
Trees ** Shifting to
other modes of
transport (e.g.
public transport
and soft modes
such as walking
and biking)
Legislation
Table 5 shows examples of measures that cities have taken to mitigate noise.
* Placing bedrooms and the living room (frequently used rooms) in the least noisy part of
the house and placing the least frequently used room in the noisiest part of the house.
** Trees could be used to mask or shield noise. It is unclear whether the city that
mentioned trees (as a noise mitigating measure) was referring to masking or shielding.
WGN of EUROCITIES is considering making an inventory of all measures (projects and pilots
included) that cities take or will take in the future. This inventory will be distributed to all
EUROCITIES members. (See also recommendation 4 on page 41.)

27
7.b. Has your city utilised measures that were beneficial for noise
reduction and other environmental issues related to air quality
and energy saving? If yes, could you describe some of the
noticeable ones?
Figure 10
Question 7b: has your city utilised measures that
were benifical for noise reduction and other
environmental issues?
13%
13% Yes
No
Unknown
75%
Figure 10 shows the percentage of cities that have utilised measures that were beneficial
for noise reduction and other environmental issues. 75% have used such measures, while
13% haven’t. The measure mentioned most frequently was traffic management. Traffic
management could mean a broad variety of traffic measures but also a single part of traffic
management like speed reduction. Other measures that were reported are:
- platforms of citizens, authorities and enterprises

- environmental and restricted zones
- Heavy Good Vehicles (HGV) ban
- ecological public transport (clean, fuel/energy efficient/economical and quiet
transport)
- insulation (helps to reduce noise problems and is energy efficient)
- introduction of urban mobility plans
- reduce the use of studded tyres (reduction of PM/fine dust)
- replacing old buses and trams for environmental friendlier ones.
- stimulation, promotion and communication to change people’s behaviour so that they
will choose public transport or soft modes instead of car use
- monitoring and control networks (will make the public and politicians more aware of
environmental problems)
- Legislation
- Enclosures
- Walls and noise barriers
- Tunnels
Remark: one city mentioned that applying air quality measures has secondary effects like
noise reduction.

28
Cities apply most of the measures available for tackling noise and other environmental
issues. WGN noticed that not all of the measures available were applied. During the
Utrecht meeting in 2007 a lot of integrated measures were listed. It would be worthwhile
to join these measures together with the measures found in question 7a (see page 26) and
to inform the cities about their existence and implementation.

29
8.a. Does your city have disappointing experiences in applying noise

measures e.g. that the final result didn’t meet desired targets)?
Figure 11
Question 8a: does your city have disappointing
experiences applying noise measures?
11%
23%
Yes
No
Unknown
66%
Figure 11 shows the percentage of cities that have had a disappointing experience when
applying noise measures. 23% have had results that didn’t meet expected targets while 65%
haven’t had disappointing results. 12% didn’t respond: their results are unidentifiable.
The measure that was mentioned most frequently is low noise road surface. WGN is very
familiar with this measure because the first generations of low noise asphalt had a lot of
disadvantages like ravelling and a short lifespan. They also required higher maintenance
and were more expensive than normal asphalt. Fortunately, asphalt concrete on today’s
market doesn’t demonstrate these problems. However, it cannot be laid on crossings and
near traffic lights because it is more likely to wrinkle than normal asphalt. Mostly, low
noise asphalt is combined with normal asphalt. Low asphalt is laid on crossings.
Another disappointing measure that has been reported is the ban on Heavy Good Vehicles
(HGV) for certain routes in cities. Why this measure failed is unknown. Perhaps the number
of cars increased. WGN will explore this and contact the city that raised the problem.
Restrictions were also a disappointing measure. Sometimes insulation and barriers do not
meet their specifications. Insulation installation work must be carried out with the utmost
attention. Even a minor mistake will result in its malfunctioning. Contractors and builders
need to work more precisely.
The leaflet on Low Noise Road Surfaces to be published in spring 2009 will remove many of
the myths about this type of asphalt. The leaflet will not only mention the advantages of
Low Noise Road Surfaces but also the conditions that have to be considered when
constructing this type of asphalt in cities.
Currently, the best type of asphalt is thin layer asphalt.
WGN should support cities that are trying to convince their road departments and road
services to apply Low Noise Road Surface.

30
8.b. Does your city have outstanding examples of noise measures

that have been taken in the past?
Figure 12
Quesion 8b: does your city have outstanding
examples of noise measures that have been taken
in the past?
9%
Yes
No
50%
41% Unknown
Figure 1 shows that 50% of respondents have outstanding examples of noise measures; 41%
don’t. The outstanding examples reported by the cities are:
1. Rolling shutters
2. Barriers along railway, walls
3. Speed reduction
4. Traffic circulation
5. Restrictions
6. High parking rates in the city
7. Good Urban Planning
8. Tunnels and enclosures
9. Integration of Noise in new settlements
10. Enforcement by prosecution and fines
11. Low Noise Surfaces
12. Orientation of noise sources which have a directional noise field (e.g.loudspeakers)
13. Monitoring Noise Levels
14. Maintenance of rail tracks (including grinding), road surfaces
15. Replacement old noisy equipment
16. Re-accommodation of noise activities and noise sources
17. Window insulation
18. Use of building mass as an acoustic barrier
19. Legislation, permits
20. Absorbing panels in underpass
21. Noise barrier with photovoltaic (solar panels)
22. Trees
WGN noticed that the cities have many successful best practices, most of which are well-
known. It is worth exploring why these are successful in certain cities and unsuccessful in
others. WGN emphasises that noise measures are largely tailored to individual conditions.
These outstanding examples could be combined with actions proposed in questions 7a and 9
on page 26 and 31.

31
9. Does your city monitor noise?
1. Yes, we permanently monitor noise by a fixed Noise

Monitoring Unit (NMU)
2. Yes, we monitor noise with mobile NMU’s
3. Yes, we monitor noise with a combination of fixed and mobile
NMU’s
4. Yes, we monitor noise but merely based on noise calculations.
5. No, we don’t monitor noise and have no experience but we
have to consider it.
6. No we don’t monitor noise and don’t consider it either.
Figure 13
Question 9: does your city monitor noise?
unknown
other
5%
4% No, we don't monitor noise and don't
answe r 11% consider it either
18% No, we don't monitor noise and have no
1 experience but have to consider it
21%
11% Yes, we monitor noise but merely based
18% on noise calculations
13% Yes, we monitor noise with a
combination of fixed and mobile NMU's
Yes, we monitor noise with mobile
0% 10% 20% 30% NMU's
pe rce ntage Yes, we monitor noise permanently with
a fixed Noise Monitoring Unit (NMU)
As shown by Figure 13, most cities monitor noise.
WGN should explore setting up a European network of cities that will monitor noise by using
noise measurements. This network should have the following goals:
- exchanging experiences and knowledge between cities

- improving the methods used
- harmonising these methods
- noise measurements and calculations
- setting criteria for noise monitoring

32
10. Does your city have Quiet Urban Areas and how do you preserve
them (keep them noise-free)?
Figure 14
Question 10: does your city have Quiet Urban
Areas?
5%
34%
Yes
No
Unknown
61%
Figure 14 shows if cities have quiet urban areas. 61% of the cities don’t have Quiet Urban
Areas, while 43 % do have Quiet Urban Areas.
The answers from the noise questionnaire showed that Quiet Urban Areas differ from city
to city. This is not surprising because the Environmental Noise Directive (END) does not give
a definition or criteria for Quiet Urban Areas. It is good to see that the cities with Quiet
Urban Areas have defined these areas themselves and that they have used their own
criteria. But not all of these cities have drafted rules for preserving Quiet Urban Areas. This
means that the number of Quiet Urban Areas could decrease because they are not
protected from noisy activities.
Apart from this, there are still many cities that haven’t designated Quiet Urban Areas.
EUROCITIES Policy/Position
WGN should promote the designation and preservation of Quiet Urban Areas (QUA) in
European cities. There is a need for criteria for these kinds of areas. WGN could ask the
European Commission to add criteria for Quiet Urban Areas to the END, which will be
evaluated in 2009. Or the WGN could ask for a Guideline on Quiet Urban Areas. If criteria
are not laid down in the END or a guideline WGN could consider to cooperate with the
MATRIX project that will be carried out by the city of Florence, Vie en rose (an Italian
consultant) and the University of Florence. Currently Florence is drafting a proposal for a
more harmonised approach for the designation and harmonisation of Quiet Urban Areas.

33
11. Does your city require information, assistance, education or

training in order to set up adequate noise management in your
city?
Figure 15
Question 11: does your city require information,
assistance, education or training in ordert to set
up adequate noise management?
7%
45% Yes
No
48% Unknown
Figure 15 shows if cities require information, assistance, education or training in order to

set up adequate noise management. 48% indicated that they don’t need assistance, while
45% indicated that they do.
Some cities asked for financial support. (It should be noted that EUROCITIES does not
provide financial support). Some of the cities say all information about noise mapping et
cetera is welcome and some cities would appreciate if there could be any kind of help,
assistance or education.
WGN will contact the surveyed cities to enquire what kind of support, education or
information they would like. Possibly a link could be made with the recommendations
outlined in questions 7a, 8b and 9. If not, WGN ould consider setting up a help structure
(forum/online helpdesk or telephone) which can be consulted on working days. WGN will
also examine the possibilities for education by on-the-job training, traineeships or courses
after exploring the specific needs of the cities. WGN will explore if funding by EU or cities
is possible to cover the costs and will look for collaboration with other institutions like
universities, consultants, manufacturers of noise measurement equipment and software.

34
12. Is the management and/or city government aware of the

annoyance and threats of long-lasting noise?
Figure 16
Question 12: is the management and/or city
government aware of the annoyance and threats
of long lasting noise?
4%
5% partly
answ er 1
13%
79% Unknown
No
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes
percentage
Figure 16 shows if the city management or government is aware of the annoyance and
dangers of long-lasting noise. Most governments are aware of the annoyance and threats
long-lasting noise can cause (79%). Only a small percentage (13%) isn’t aware of its dangers.
4% of governments are only partly aware.
However, it is very likely that cities gave politically correct answers to this question. As a
consequence of this, WGN also had to rely on a discussion held at the Brussels meeting in
2007, during which it carried out a study on Gaining Political Interest.
In order to gain more interest among the public, politicians and policymakers, WGN started
the “Gaining Political Interest” project in 2008. This project is carried out by the Radboud
University Nijmegen, The Netherlands, and will provide a number of tools and strategies
that can be used to convince policymakers and politicians about the disadvantages of noise
in terms of health effects, loss of value of real estate and the effects on the quality of life.
These tools will be used in a campaign that will be launched by WGN in 2009.
WGN members will publish articles and draft reports about the harmful effects of long-
lasting noise on people and will publish the depreciation of real estate prices. The costs of
noise related health effects could also be part of the campaign WGN will carry out.

35
13.a. Does your city’s representatives think that the Environmental

Noise Directive 2002/49/EC is effective, which means that the
noise burden in Europe will decrease in the coming years? Please
describe your position in a few words.
Figure 17
Question 13a: does your city think that the Environmental
Noise Directive 2002/49/EC is effective?
16%
Unknown
14%
No
answ e r 1
Conditional Yes
45%
Yes
25%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

pe rcentage
Figure 17 shows cities’ representatives views on the effectiveness of the Environmental

Noise Directive 2002/49/EC. 25% do believe that the Environmental Noise Directive will be
effective. 45% think the directive will be effective under certain circumstances (conditional
yes). Financial resources, political will, harmonisation and sanctions are conditions that
cities mentioned for the END to be effective. 14% do not think the directive will be
effective.
This seems very encouraging but a review of cities’ responses reveals that the Noise Maps
(which cities are compelled to have according to END) only show the extent of Europe’s
noise burden but that politicians don’t act upon them. In other words, the noise burden is
mapped but little is done to reduce noise problems. It is possible that a lack of financing
and/or a lack of urgency are the reason for this.
EUROCITIES Policy/Position
The END makes that the noise burden over a large part of Europe becomes obvious, thanks
to Noise Maps. This doesn’t automatically mean that the public, politicians and officials will
become aware of noise problems and will take actions to lower the noise burden. This has
several reasons:

36
- Lack of financing
- Lack of urgency
- Enforcement fails
In 2006, WGN commissioned two students form the Open University, The Netherlands to
conduct a study on the effectiveness of the END. The indicative outcomes of that study
showed that one could doubt the effectiveness of the END. Most people think the END is
effective because of the Noise Maps and Action Plans which are compelled by the END but
these plans and maps are merely means with which the END tries to attain its main goal of
reducing the number of people exposed to high noise levels.
WGN will try to make politicians act on noise problems. The link in the END about source
policies will be used to urge Directorates-General to tighten the limits for vehicles, tyres,
trams, trains and airplanes. Tackling noise at the source is a very effective way to reduce
noise in cities. This combined with low noise roads will dramatically decrease the number
of exposed people. Currently WGN is exploring if cities are willing to provide their
municipal car fleet with quiet tyres to be a shining example to other authorities, the
enterprises and the public.

37
13.b. Does your city support the idea of adding limits to the END?
Please describe your position in a few words.
Figure 18
Question 13b: does your city support the idea of adding limits
to the END?
38%
5% Unknown
Conditional No
answ er 1 27% No
Conditional Yes
11% Yes
20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

percentage
Figure 17 shows if cities support the idea of adding limits to the END. 38% of respondents
did not give a clear answer, did not answer the question correctly, or did not respond to
the question. 27% of the cities did not support the idea of adding limits to the END.
5% say it is too early to add limits, believing it as either unnecessary at the moment, that
the impact of action plans still needs to be evaluated, or because they are still deciding at
the regional level which noise levels to adopt.
27% do not support the idea of adding limits to the END. Several of these cities already
have limits of their own. 20% support the idea of adding limits to the END. 11% support the
idea of adding limits to the END but only if the limits are realistic, are based on common
choices and are enforceable.
Adding limits to the END has been a longstanding discussion during the preparation of the
END. Some countries wanted limits while others (such Belgium and The Netherlands) didn’t.
The countries that don’t want to add limits to the END often have national or regional/local
limits to restrict noise. They believe that EU limits will allow more noise than their national
limits permit. Cities that want to add limits to the END are often situated in countries that
don’t have (adequate) limits for noise.
Such cities think that adding limits to the END will force countries to act properly on
environmental noise.

38
During its meeting in Florence on 19-20 March 2009, WGN should discuss the issue of adding
limits to the END. The discussion will focus on the advantages and disadvantages of having
limits in the END.
WGN will look for alternative objectives in the END, like the maximum number of exposed
people per 100,000 inhabitants and the minimal percentage of annoyed people. The
outcomes of this discussion will be forwarded to European Commission as a formal position.

39
14. Does your city think that the efforts made by the European
Commission to lower the noise of vehicles, tyres, trams, trains
and aircrafts are sufficient? Please describe your position in a few
words.
Figure 19
Question 14: does your city think that the efforts made by the
EC to lower the noise of vehicles, tyres, trams, trains and
aircrafts are sufficient?
45%
Unknown
4%
Conditional No
answ er 1 16% No
Conditional Yes
25% Yes
11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

percentage
Figure 18 shows cities’ views on the efforts made by the European Commission to lower the
noise of vehicles, tyres, trams, trains and aircrafts. 45% didn’t answer this question, gave
an unclear answer, or said that they had insufficient information and experience to answer.
16% of the cities think that the Commission’s efforts to lower noise aren’t sufficient. 4%
said that efforts made by the Commission to lower noise aren’t enough but indicated that it
is slowly moving in the right direction.25% think that the Commission’s efforts to lower
noise are sufficient but that it’s success depends on national government’s decision-making
policy to make things work; that there are better measures available; or that other noise
sources should be included too - not only Integrated Pollution and Prevention Control
(IPPC).
To inform cities what EU source policies are, what progress has been made in the last
decade(s), and what problems have yet to be resolved. To make efforts to fill in the
conditions raised in the Noise Questionnaire. Other actions that could be taken are urging
the Commission to speed up the process of stricter limits for noise sources in general,
promoting the use of quiet equipment and so on.

40
Conclusions
1. About 44% of the cities responded to the noise questionnaire.
2. In general, most cities are aware of the fact that noise is a serious problem in cities but
whether there is a sense of urgency is doubtful.
3. There were a lot of answers that were not clear and even some questions left room for
other interpretations.
4. At times, it seemed like the person who filled in the noise questionnaire had inadequate
knowledge on noise issues and EU policy.
5. Many cities believe that more should be done to tackle noise problems.
6. Noise Policy, tackling noise at the source and stricter norms for vehicles, mopeds,
motors, trains, trams, air planes etc. are needed.
7. Outdoor equipment needs to have stricter noise limits.
8. More research is needed on some subjects (budgets, support and the project proposals
done in the recommendation (ENNEM, DINOMAC).
9. Based on some of the useful answers provided, Working Group Noise has been able to
make some good recommendations (see below)

41
Recommendations
1. During its meetings, EUROCITIES' Working Group Noise should pay attention to
construction noise, recreational noise and neighbourhood noise. It should gather
knowledge and experience on noise and share this with EUROCITIES members by means
of newsletters, websites, web logs, leaflets and reports.
2. Follow-up questions about question 3c should be sent to the cities that filled in the
noise questionnaire. We cannot compare cities’ situations based on the current answers
on their noise budgets, because some have not included the same types of costs in their
answers.
3. WGN should explore the setting up of a European network of cities that will monitor
noise by using noise measurements. This could be called ENNEM (standing for European
Noise-monitoring Network of EUROCITIES Members). This network should have the
following goals:
- exchanging experiences and knowledge between cities
- improving the methods used
- harmonising the method
- noise measurements calculations
4. Better exchange of information on measures that could be taken to reduce noise in
urban situations and combined measures that are beneficial for noise and other
(environmental) issues like air quality, energy, road safety, urban sprawl, and making
these more accessible.
A lot of information is available in a number of EU projects like the Silence, Q-city
project, SMILE, PRONET, CALM I and II etc but EUROCITIES members also have a lot of
information. WGN is considering to support or create a project - DINOMAC - under FP7.
Disappointing experiences from cities across Europe are included as lessons for the
future and integrated measures as well. This project certainly will promote quiet road
surfaces as one of the most efficient measures.
5. WGN should promote the designation and preservation of Quiet Urban Areas in European
cities. There is a need for criteria for these kinds of areas. Possibly WGN could
cooperate with the city of Florence, Vie en rose (Italian consultant), the University of
Florence etc. which are making a proposal for a more harmonised approach to
designate and preserve quit urban areas (matrix project).
6. During the evaluation of the Environmental Noise Directive (END), EUROCITIES will ask
the European Commission to make the Good Practice Guide an official EU document
after combining this with the Good Practice guide published by the NOMEPORTS project
on industrial and harbour noise.
7. WGN will continue to pay attention to the harmful effects of noise on people and will
raise public awareness of these effects. Besides this, WGN will advocate adequate
action on all administrative levels. WGN will advise its members on the technical
outcomes of the noise questionnaire. Depending on the outcomes of the Gaining
Political Interest project, other instruments will be used.

42
8. WGN will set out an additional survey to explore the needs of the cities that wanted
support, information and/or education. This way, WGN could produce a good acoustic
Marshall plan for these cities. Possibly, this plan could be combined with the proposed
DINOMAC project (see recommendation 4 on page 41 )
9. During the Florence meeting a discussion will be held about including limits in the END.
The outcomes of this discussion will be reported to the EUROCITIES Environmental
Forum and the EUROCITIES Executive Committee in order to get political support for the
proposal. Following internal discussions, a report will be sent to the European
Commission. This will serve as input for the evaluation of the END.
10. WGN will continue to request stricter limits on vehicles, trains, trams, tyres, aero
planes etc. and will speed up this process in order to have these limits implemented.
WGN will explore whether cities are willing to provide their municipal car fleets with
quiet tyres to be model for other authorities, the enterprises and the public.

Noise Survey Working Group Noise EUROCITIES FINAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Noise Survey Working Group Noise EUROCITIES FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of EUROCITIES’

Noise Survey 2008

EUROCITIES website: www.eurocities.eu

Analysis of Noise Questionnaire 2008 7

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

The main findings of this questionnaire are:

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

I. exchange of experiences and knowledge between cities

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

Total number of responses: 53

Participating cities: Almelo, Amaroussion, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Belfast, Berlin, Birmingham,

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

Analysis of Noise Questionnaire 2008

5% Low frequency noise

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

1.b. Does your city have a noise policy plan or another

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

2.a. Does your city have legal powers to combat noise?

EUROCITIES is a European network. Therefore, it is not up to EUROCITIES to encourage

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

No further action from EUROCITIES is needed.

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

Cities that have a noise department or noise experts

Cities that don’t have a noise department or noise experts

Unknown whether this city has a noise department or noise experts.

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

3.b. What kind of noise expertise is available in your department?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% road traffic noise

Working Group Noise has no proposals.

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

3.c. What is the noise budget in your city?

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

Table 1: noise budget per person per city

City Budget per person €

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

a. What is the budget for noise research?

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

4. Does your city have figures on the amount of noise to which

Table 2: number and percentage of people exposed to 55-60 dB per city

Total number of Number of citizens exposed Percentage of people

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

Table 3: number and percentage of people exposed to 60-65 dB per city

Total number of Number of citizens Percentage of

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

Table 4: number and percentage of people exposed to 65-70 dB per city

Total number of Number of citizens Percentage of people

Green boxes: lowest percentage of people exposed to a certain amount of dB.

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

Amsterdam Berlin Birmingham Brno Budapest Chemnitz Copenhagen Dublin

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

Amsterdam Berlin Birmingham Brno Budapest Chemnitz

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

Amsterdam Berlin Birmingham Brno Budapest Chemnitz Copenhagen Dublin

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

5. Which measurements do you use or prefer in determining the

November 2008 Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

6. Does your city have noise maps?

13% No, we don't even

1 9% Not yet, we are obliged

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Yes, accordinging to