The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Technology for a Quieter America
TABLE 7-4 Noise Values for Selected European Countries
Country
Valuation Technique
Recommended or Official Noise Value in Euros, 2002
Application
Germany
HP
46.7 €/dB/person affected/year for Leq day > 55 dB
Transport project
France
HP
0.4 to 1.1%/dB for Leq day > 55 +30% for Leq day > 70 dB & Leq night > 65 dB
Road and rail project
Norway
CV
HP
1,000 to 1,170 €/affected person/year (according to the mode of transport)
Road, rail, and air project, and environmental protection project
Netherlands
HP
32.2 €/dB/person affected/year for Leq day > 55 dB
Transport project
Sweden
HP
0 € at 50 dB to 1,810 € at 85 dB (Leq 24h)/person affected/year
Road project
Switzerland
CV
500 €/person affected/year for Leq day > 55 dB and for Leq night >45 dB
Road project
states use for reporting to FHWA. Costs also vary by state with prevailing construction costs, design requirements (barrier dimensions of height and length), and the definition of a cost basis for each state. Nevertheless, there appear to be sufficient data to predict costs when the specifics of a building site are known.
Present FHWA policy limits noise mitigation around highways to the construction of barriers, so the relative merits and costs of noise reduction from the installation of quieter road surfaces, although currently being investigated, are not part of noise mitigation policy.
Recommendation 7-1: A formal cost-benefit analysis should be performed to compare the costs and benefits of using pavement technology for noise reduction with the costs and benefits of installing noise barriers. This cost-benefit analysis should be a cooperative effort of the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the several states with technology programs in road surface design. Inputs to the analysis should include data from analyses of noise reduction efforts around airports.
REFERENCES
Alexandrova, O., K.E. Kaloush, and J.O. Allen. 2007. Impact of asphalt rubber friction course overlays on the tire wear emissions and air quality models for Phoenix, Arizona, airshed. Transportation Research Record, 2011: 98–106. Available online at http://bit.ly/c7z88A.
Corbisier, C. 2005. Roadmap to Quieter Highways. Proceedings of NOISE-CON 05, The 2005 National Conference on Noise Control Engineering, Minneapolis, MN, October 17–19. Available online at http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/00726.htm.
Donavan, P.D. 2005a. Overview of the Arizona Quiet Pavement Program. Proceedings of NOISE-CON 05, The 2005 National Conference on Noise Control Engineering, Minneapolis, MN, October 17–19. Available online at http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/00726.htm.
Donavan, P.D. 2005b. Reducing Traffic Noise with Quieter Pavements. Proceedings of NOISE-CON 05, The 2005 National Conference on Noise Control Engineering, Minneapolis, MN, October 17–19. Available online at http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/00726.htm.
Donavan, P.D. 2006. Generation of Noise by Truck and Car Tires on Various Types of Asphalt Concrete Pavements. Proceedings of INTER-NOISE 06, The 2006 International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, Honolulu, Hawaii, December 3–6. Available online at http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/00726.htm.
Eagan, M.E. 2007. Supplemental metrics to communicate aircraft noise effects. Transportation Research Record, 2011: 175–183. Available online at http://bit.ly/bTjRBo.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1981. Noise in America: The Extent of the Noise Problem. EPA/ONAC Report No. 550/9-81-101. Washington, DC: EPA. Available online at http://www.nonoise.org/epa/Roll6/roll6doc7.pdf.
FICON (Federal Interagency Committee on Noise). 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. Available online at http://www.fican.org/pdf/nai-8-92.pdf.