CEDR Project Group Noise Value for Money in Noise Abatement

Transcription

1 CEDR Project Group Noise Value for Money in Noise Abatement Subgroup tyre/vehicle noise Ingunn Milford (NO) Sigve Aasebo (NO, Ernst & Young) Kjell Strommer (SE) Klaus Gspan (AT) CEDR = Conference of European Directors of Roads

2 Background CEDR is a non-profit organisation with 24 member countries in Europe. 17 nations participates in the CEDR Project Group Noise CEDR PG Road Noise tasks: Noise mapping and action plans Tyre/vehicle noise EU noise calculation model (CNOSSOS) Objective for subgroup tyre/vehicle noise Compare different noise abatement measures and find which one gives the best value for money when it comes to reduction in noise annoyance.

3 Noise annoyance Not easy to find an exact monetary value when calculating the benefit of noise reduction Noise annoyance is less discussed. Out of the 514 million people in Europe, there are 98 million annoyed by road traffic noise. Any noise abatement measure implemented will change the number of annoyed at a certain cost.

4 Comparison of different noise abatement measures Data from the VENOLIVA (TNO, 2011) have been compared with costs and effectiveness of measures traditionally used by road authorities The following noise measures are included: 1. Noise barriers 2. Facade insulation of dwellings 3. Porous road surfaces 4. Thin layer surfaces 5. Vehicle noise limits for type approval 6. Tyre noise limits for type approval

5 Persent of people within each noise band Method Invest the same amount of money 6 billion Euros, which is the cost for the EU proposal on new noise limits, COM (2011) 856 See every measure in 20 years perspective Some noise measures can have all money invested at once Some need investment + maintenance Only the extra cost is included Analyze the effect = the reduction in noise annoyance In agglomerations Europe in total < >75 db noise exposure

6 Investment and volume of abatement measure Initial investment in billion Cost per unit Volume of abatement measure People affected per unit Noise barrier per m2 Façade 6 Porous asphalt single layer Porous asphalt double layer 3000 per dwelling km (4m high) 500 per km* 2 mill dwellings 2.4 per dwelling per m km 1000 per km per m km 1000 per km Thin layer per m km 500 per km Vehicle (3dB) All vehicles All people exposed to traffic noise Vehicle (5dB) 10.2 All vehicles All people exposed to traffic noise

7 CEDR Project Group Noise - results Noise abatement measure Reduction in annoyance Cost of reducing annoyance per person (per year) Limitations on use Vehicle noise limits (-3dB) = EC proposal 19.7 mill 18 None Thin layer surface 2.4 mill 136 Not motorways (with high speed and density) Porous asphalt single layer Façade insulation (2 windows), same effect as outdoor measures 1.1 mill 290 Only motorways (high speed and space for drainage) 0.8 mill 360 None (indoor effect only) Porous asphalt double layer 0.3 mill 940 Only motorways (high speed and space for drainage) Noise barriers 0.2 mill 4200 Not in narrow streets

8 CEDR Project Group Noise - results Noise abatement measure Reduction in annoyance Cost of reducing annoyance per person (per year) Vehicle noise limits (-5dB) 31.5 mill 16 None Limitations on use Vehicle noise limits (-3dB) = EC proposal 19.7 mill 18 None Thin Layer asphalt 2.4 mill 136 Not motorways (with high speed and density) Porous asphalt single layer Façade insulation (2 windows), same effect as outdoor measures 1.1 mill 290 Only motorways (high speed and space for drainage) 0.8 mill 360 None (indoor effect only) Porous asphalt double layer 0.3 mill 940 Only motorways (high speed and space for drainage) Noise barriers 0.2 mill 4200 Not in narrow streets

9 Sensitivity analysis Institute of Transport Economics, Norway

10 CONCLUSIONS - The cost of reducing noise annoyance varies from 16 to 4200 per person per year, depending on the measure chosen. - Stricter noise limits for vehicles are the most cost-effective noise measure. - For road authorities thin layer road surfaces are the best choice. - Noise barriers and porous road surfaces can be very useful in special situations, but not cost-effective when it comes to reduction in the general annoyance Thank you for your attention!