Noise Survey Working Group Noise Eurocities Final[1]

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 Noisemonitoring Network of EUROCITIES Members). This network should have the following goals :

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

4

I. II. III. IV.

exchange of experiences and knowledge between cities improving the methods used harmonizing the methods 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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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%.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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% answer 1

Low frequency noise

66% 55% 63% 70% 66% 54%

Neighbourhood noise Recreational noise Air traffic noise Construction noise 98%

0%

50% 100% percentage

Railway noise 150%

Industrial noise Traffic noise

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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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 68%

unknown

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. EUROCITIES Policy/Position: 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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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 Policy/Position: 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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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?

20%

2% 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 Policy/Position: 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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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 your department?

other kind of noise expertise neighbour noise

9% 13%

acoustic insulation

54% 38%

construction noise

52% 1

Unknown

recreational noise

30% 27%

low frequency noise

64% industrial noise

43% 61% 71%

airport noise 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).

EUROCITIES Policy/Position:

Working Group Noise has no proposals.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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 Bursa Eindhoven Helisinki Ljubljana Malmo Oslo Stockholm Warsaw

Athens Chemnitz Espoo Klaipeda London Manchester Porto Tampere

Birmingham Constantza Florence Lisbon Lyon Munich Rotterdam Timisoara

Brussels Dublin Frankfurt Liverpool Madrid Niš Sheffield Utrecht

Figure 6.2 Question 3c: does your city have a "noise budget?"

32% Yes No 61% 7%

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

Unknown

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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

17

EUROCITIES policy/Position: Working Group Noise will request that survey respondents answer some additional questions, which would include for example: a. b. c. d.

November 2008

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

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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

City

Total number of citizens

Amsterdam Berlin Birmingham Brno Budapest Chemnitz Copenhagen Dublin Eindhoven Espoo Florence Helmond Helisinki Ljubljana London Madrid Malmo Munich Niš Oslo Poznan Prague Rotterdam Stockholm Tampere The Hague Timisoara Utrecht Valencia Vantaa Warsaw

760,000 3,300,000 1,000,000 340,000 1,700,000 244,000 500,000 505,739 210,000 240,000 356,000 86,000 564,521 267,000 7,098,020 3,238,208 280,000 1,300,000 300,000 538,411 574,896 1,200,000 595,000 800,000 210,000 480,000 317,651 260,000 810,065 190,000 1,704,717

November 2008

Number of citizens exposed to 55-60 dB 191,000 495,900 165,978 106,157 360,700 7,421 141,976 36,200 45,496 15,000 89,100 10,250 115,200 108,100 740,982 944,400 87,100 118,200 42,000 212,710 47,130 92,729 162,000 160,000 42,890 77,618 46,020 82,600 147,900 24,000 490,000

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

Percentage of people exposed to 55-60 dB 25% 15% 17% 31% 21% 3% 28% 7% 22% 6% 25% 12% 20% 40% 10% 29% 31% 9% 14% 40% 8% 8% 27% 20% 20% 16% 14% 32% 18% 13% 29%

19

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

City

Total number of citizens

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 Warsaw

760,000 3,300,000 1,000,000 340,000 1,700,000 244,000 500,000 505,739 210,000 240,000 356,000 86,000 564,521 267,000 7,098,020 3,238,208 280,000 1,300,000 300,000 538,411 574,896 1,200,000 595,000 800,000 210,000 480,000 317,651 260,000 810,065 190,000 1,704,717

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

Number of citizens exposed to 60-65 dB 129,000 319,600 473,018 78,163 292,700 4,025 89,681 296,800 31,862 4,000 33,000 8,800 114,100 67,000 568,737 829,000 81,500 69,900 114,000 151,190 30,897 96,131 79,300 87,000 unknown 72,767 36,809 74,500 326,400 8,300 353,000

Percentage of people exposed to 60-65 dB 17% 10% 47% 23% 17% 2% 18% 59% 15% 2% 9% 10% 20% 25% 8% 26% 29% 5% 38% 28% 5% 8% 13% 11% 15% 12% 29% 40% 4% 21%

20

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

City

Total number of citizens

Amsterdam Berlin Birmingham Brno Budapest Chemnitz Copenhagen Dublin Eindhoven Espoo Florence Helmond Helisinki Ljubljana London Madrid Malmo Munich Niš Oslo Poznan Prague Rotterdam Stockholm Tampere The Hague Timisoara Utrecht Valencia Vantaa Warsaw

760,000 3,300,000 1,000,000 340,000 1,700,000 244,000 500,000 505,739 210,000 240,000 356,000 86,000 564,521 267,000 7,098,020 3,238,208 280,000 1,300,000 300,000 538,411 574,896 1,200,000 595,000 800,000 210,000 480,000 317,651 260,000 810,065 190,000 1,704,717

Number of citizens exposed to 65-70 dB 59,000 189,200 107,396 43,604 330,500 1,888 69,167 100,700 11,754 1,000 600 2,080 63,300 51,000 691,002 421,400 52,200 612,000 102,000 76,130 13,518 42,607 77,200 5,000 4,760 37,411 27,307 38,360 200,800 700 390,700

Percentage of people exposed to 65-70 dB 8% 6% 11% 13% 19% 1% 14% 20% 6% 0% 0% 2% 11% 19% 10% 13% 19% 47% 34% 14% 2% 4% 13% 1% 2% 8% 9% 15% 25% 0% 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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

22

Figure 7.2 Question 4: percentage of people exposed to 60-65 dB 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).

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

23

Figure 7.3 Question 4: percentage of people exposed to 65-70 dB 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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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?

answe r

unknown

4% 66%

1

combination of both

21% 9%

0%

20%

noise calculations with computer software 40% 60% pe rce ntage

80%

Noise measurements

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. EUROCITIES Policy/Position: 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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

25

6. Does your city have noise maps? 1. 2. 3. 4.

Yes, according to END 2002/49/EC Yes, but based on other legislation, policies, etc Not yet, we are obliged to do it in 2012 according to the END. 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 consider providing them

answe r 2% 1 9% 7% 70% 0%

20%

40%

60%

pe rce ntage

80%

Not yet, we are obliged to do it in 2012 according to the END Yes, but based on other legislation, policies etc. Yes, accordinging to END 2002/49/EC

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. EUROCITIES Policy/Position: 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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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. Restricting Little Measures on Special Measures Mentioned tracks and measures Measure roads

Frequently Mentioned Measures Traffic management (including rerouting, speed reduction, traffic calming, detours, bundling of traffic, circulation of plans et cetera) Insulation of facades and roofs

Night restrictions

Enclosures

Time windows allowing traffic to certain areas Environmental zones

Other Measures

Grinding tracks

Good special orientation

Putting up barriers and walls

Good maintenance of tracks and wheels Good and frequent maintenance of roads

Lay-out of houses/House design *

Building tunnels

Psycho acoustical measure

Laying quiet road services

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. EUROCITIES Policy/Position: 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.)

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

28

EUROCITIES Policy/Position: 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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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. EUROCITIES Policy/Position: 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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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 41%

50%

No 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

Rolling shutters Barriers along railway, walls Speed reduction Traffic circulation Restrictions High parking rates in the city Good Urban Planning Tunnels and enclosures Integration of Noise in new settlements Enforcement by prosecution and fines Low Noise Surfaces Orientation of noise sources which have a directional noise field (e.g.loudspeakers) Monitoring Noise Levels Maintenance of rail tracks (including grinding), road surfaces Replacement old noisy equipment Re-accommodation of noise activities and noise sources Window insulation Use of building mass as an acoustic barrier Legislation, permits Absorbing panels in underpass Noise barrier with photovoltaic (solar panels) Trees

EUROCITIES Policy/Position: WGN noticed that the cities have many successful best practices, most of which are wellknown. 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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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% answe r

No, we don't monitor noise and don't consider it either

11%

No, we don't monitor noise and have no experience but have to consider it

18%

1

21%

Yes, we monitor noise but merely based on noise calculations

11% 18%

Yes, we monitor noise with a combination of fixed and mobile NMU's

13% 0%

10%

20%

30%

pe rce ntage

Yes, we monitor noise with mobile NMU's Yes, we monitor noise permanently with a fixed Noise Monitoring Unit (NMU)

As shown by Figure 13, most cities monitor noise. EUROCITIES Policy/Position: 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: -

November 2008

exchanging experiences and knowledge between cities improving the methods used harmonising these methods noise measurements and calculations setting criteria for noise monitoring

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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. EUROCITIES Policy/Position: 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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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%

answ er 1

partly

13%

Unknown

79%

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. EUROCITIES Policy/Position: 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 longlasting 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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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:

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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% Unknown

5%

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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

38

EUROCITIES Policy/Position: 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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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

No

16%

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). EUROCITIES Policy/Position: 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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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)

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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

4.

noise measurements calculations

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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008

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.

November 2008

Analysis of EUROCITIES’ Noise Survey 2008