1. Workshop on noise: 23 November, European Parliament One hundred interested stakeholders from all over Europe gathered in the European Parliament in Brussels to take part in the Workshop “Paving the way for a quieter Europe,” hosted by Salvatore Tatarella, Member of the European Parliament. This was a unique opportunity for EU policymakers and stakeholders to share opinions and ideas towards a systemic approach to reduce traffic noise in order to ensure European citizens a quieter and healthier environment. The following is the invited presentation given on November 23 by the Chairman of the CAETS Noise Control Technology Committee.

2. Paving the way for a quieter Europe ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE SOURCES Needs and possibilities for reductions Tor Kihlman Chair, CAETS Noise Control Technology Committee Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden Brussels, 23 November 2011

4. We have too much noise! Health impacts of traffic noise are extensive. See the new WHO/E report, ”Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise.” The threat to public health is real. 50,000 premature deaths per year in Europe. Compare with those killed in traffic accidents! Now is the time to act!

5. Emission and immission legislation must be coupled—but they are not!

6. The Gap Given present noise emissions, no planning in the world can provide a healthy environment for all the citizens. For traffic noise, there is a gap of 10 dB or more between what ordinary traffic is permitted to emit and what could be accomplished with the best urban planning and building planning to reach reasonable immissions.

7. A comparison, particulates and gases 100 trucks today emit as many particulates as 1 truck did 40 years ago. Similar development for HC and NOx. These achievements are the result of effective, technology-driving, legal limits and high competence in the automotive industry.

8. A comparison, noise 5 trucks today emit as much traffic noise as 1 truck did 40 years ago. 1 car today emits as much traffic noise as 1 car did 40 years ago. These poor achievements are the result of an irrelevant test method (A) and weak emission limits. Now we have a new test method (called B) supposed to be relevant ”for ordinary city traffic.” It is time for technology-driving noise limits.

9. Road vehicle noise sources Main sources are power train noise and tyre/road surface noise (rolling noise). On the average, power train noise dominates at speeds below 30 km/h for cars and below 50-70 km/h for trucks. Rolling noise dominates at higher speeds. The relative importance is case-specific. Depends upon traffic situation, vehicle composition, speeds, road surface…

10. Broad approach necessary Coordination is needed between the three main actors—the automotive industry, the tyre industry, and the road owner. There is a technical potential to reduce the resulting emissions by more than 5 dB in most traffic situations [1]. Rolling noise as well as power train noise both need reduction. (The dB reductions are not additive.)

11. The tyres The new EU tyre regulation (adopted in 2009 [2]) will decrease rolling noise by approximately 2 dB. Further, stricter noise requirements upon tyres would be easier to reach if the top speed of cars were to be limited to 150 km/h.

12. The vehicles The Commission will soon propose new noise limits for motor vehicles to be acted upon in the Parliament and in the Council. The proposal will probably follow Option 5 in the Venoliva report estimated to give a reduction of 3 dB in Lden and 4 dB in Lnight on normal roads [3]. A reasonable first step. It is crucial that the final decision not be weakened. These stricter limits can easily be met with known technology by the automotive industry.

13. The vehicles, higher ambitions CAETS proposes a further lowering of the limits by 3 - 4 dB for cars and trucks from 2020. The benefits outweigh the costs. The automotive industry has the necessary technological competence to reach these goals. Hitherto this competence has seldom been challenged. It is unlikely that manufacturers of cars have ever been forced to explore the real potential for exterior noise reduction.

14. The roads Different types of road surfaces result in different levels of rolling noise. Acoustical quality control of roads is lacking. Careful monitoring of the properties of the surface related to its acoustical behaviour can yield several dB of rolling noise reduction, even for the same type of pavement. Guarantees and acoustical tests of the finished road surface need to be standard practice.

15. Further actions The END has not resulted in any quieter Europe! It is now under revision. It is time to develop its second objective: ”… to reduce noise emitted by the major sources,..” Introduce in the END specified compulsory actions on major noise sources such as delivery and cleaning services during night time in the cities. Important to act also on noise from two wheelers.

16. Conclusions For health reasons, the traffic noise immissions must be reduced. There is no way to solve this problem unless the emissions are reduced by several dB. If a first step towards quieter vehicles follows Venoliva Option 5, we will get an important but very insufficient noise reduction gradually over the next 15 years. A second step to stricter limits should be decided upon now; industry needs the lead time.

17. Conclusions, cont’d. In 25 years we could then have a 5-6 dB quieter Europe with fewer noise induced health losses. But test method B must be carefully monitored to check that it is effective and relevant. For further reductions, road owners have an important role in laying quiet surfaces and monitoring their acoustical properties.

18. Thank you

20. References [1] Noise reduction potential of road vehicles. Report from the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences 2007 See http://www.iva.se/upload/seminarier/Bullerrapport.pdf http://www.iva.se/upload/seminarier/Bullerrapport.pdf [2] REGULATION (EC) No 661/2009 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 13 July 2009 [3] VENOLIVA - Vehicle Noise Limit Values TNO- report MON-RPT-02103, March 2011

21. The vehicles, higher ambitions, cont’d. On their home page the Volvo Group writes very positively about the possibilities to make trucks quieter. The Volvo Group Global suggests we should aim for “putting an end to noise pollution,” and writes on their website: “How quiet can a truck get? ”Nobody really knows. ….One thing is for sure: when stricter demands are introduced, quiet trucks will make a large improvement of the automotive industry! “

22. What is CAETS? CAETS is a consortium of 26 national academies (12 in the EU). One academy per country. CAETS is without affiliation or bias and independent of the stakeholders in the noise issue. The International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

23. Environmental noise policies Two major groups of governmental noise policies are needed: Those that pertain to the immissions Those that pertain to the sources, the emissions These should be strongly coupled, but currently they are not.

24. Environmental noise policies, cont’d. Immission regulations are mostly in the form of guideline levels. Typical guideline values are 55 dB equivalent level during day and 40-45 dB during night. Guideline values are often exceeded by 10 dB or more but little action/notice is taken.

25. OECD statement 20 years ago Environmental noise policies have been ineffective for many years. An OECD report, ”Fighting Noise in the 1990s,” illustrates this: ”More and more people in OECD countries are exposed to high and potentially harmful levels of noise, chiefly from growing road traffic. Although governments have adopted policy objectives at the national and international levels, little real progress to reduce exposure to noise has been made in recent years.”

26. PT day Emissions, Ola Petersson 97050, opeterss Issue date: 2011-07-04 Security Class: Secret History: Tailpipe Emissions Poster? Basics and history