DELIVERABLE 6.2 PART 1

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 1 of 91 DELIVERABLE 6.2 PART 1 CONTRACT N TIP4-CT-2005-516420 PROJECT N FP6-516420 ACRONYM QCITY TITLE Quiet City Transport Subproject 6 Consolidation - Action Plans - Dissemination Part 1 - General measures for noise mitigation Written by Geert Desanghere AKR Date of issue of this report January 31, 2007 PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR Acoustic Control ACL SE PARTNERS Accon ACC DE Akron AKR BE Alfa Products & Technologies APT BE Banverket BAN SE Composite Damping Material CDM BE Havenbedrijf Oostende HOOS BE Frateur de Pourcq FDP BE Goodyear GOOD LU Head Acoustics HAC DE Heijmans Infra HEIJ BE Royal Institute of Technology KTH SE Vlaamse Vervoersmaatschappij DE LIJN LIJN BE Lucchini Sidermeccanica LUC IT NCC Roads NCC SE Stockholm Environmental & Health Administration SEA SE Société des Transports Intercommunaux de Bruxelles STIB BE Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO NL Trafikkontoret Göteborg TRAF SE Tram SA TRAM GR TT&E Consultants TTE GR University of Cambridge UCAM UK University of Thessaly UTH GR Voestalpine Schienen VAS AT Zbloc Norden ZBN SE Union of European Railway Industries UNIFE BE PROJECT START DATE February 1, 2005 DURATION 48 months Project funded by the European Community under the SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY 6 Sustainable development, global change & ecosystems

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 2 of 91 TABLE OF CONTENTS 0 Executive summary...4 0.1 Objective of the deliverable...4 0.2 Strategy and description of the techniques used...4 0.3 Partners involved and their contribution...6 0.4 Conclusions...6 0.5 Relation with the other deliverables...6 1 Traffic flow...8 1.1 Preface...8 1.2 Global Overview Table - Traffic management... 10 1.3 Global Mitigation Measure: traffic management Datasheets... 11 Datasheet: GM-TRAF-1 - Closing off through traffic... 12 Datasheet: GM-TRAF-2 - Decrease speed limit... 14 Datasheet: GM-TRAF-3 - Restrict noisy vehicles by charges or road barriers... 16 Datasheet: GM-TRAF-4 - Increased frequency of public transport services... 19 Datasheet: GM-TRAF-5 - Decreased ticket price for public transport... 22 Datasheet: GM-TRAF-6 - Area wide congestion charging schemes... 24 Datasheet: GM-TRAF-7 - Driver Behaviour... 27 Datasheet: GM TRAF 8 - Truck routing...28 2 Road Traffic... 32 2.1 Introduction... 32 2.2 Mitigation measures... 33 2.3 Noise reduction datasheets... 35 Datasheet: GM-ROAD-1 Improved tyre tread pattern design for smooth road surfaces... 36 Datasheet: GM-ROAD-2 - Improvements of conventional tyres on road surfaces of medium roughness... 37 Datasheet: GM-ROAD-3 - New dual tyre design concept on road surfaces of worn standard type... 38 Datasheet: GM-ROAD-4 - Poroelastic road surface... 39 Datasheet: GM-ROAD-5 - Dense & smooth road surface in combination with tread pattern optimised tyres... 40 Datasheet: GM-ROAD-6 - Road markings... 41 Datasheet: GM-ROAD-7 - Smooth & dense road surface... 42 Datasheet: GM-ROAD-8 - Open graded twin layer... 43 Datasheet: GM-ROAD-9 - Smooth & dense road surface... 44 3 Rail transport... 45 3.1 Introduction... 45 3.2 Standard situation: Tangent Track Noise... 46 3.2.1 Normal Rolling Noise... 47 3.2.2 Excessive Rolling Noise... 48

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 3 of 91 3.2.3 Impact Noise... 49 3.2.4 Corrugated Rail Noise... 50 3.3 Global mitigation measure datasheets... 51 Datasheet: GM-RAIL-1 Resilient wheels... 52 Datasheet: GM-RAIL-2 - Trackbed absorption... 53 Datasheet: GM-RAIL-3 - Tuned rail dampers... 54 Datasheet: GM-RAIL-4 - Global rail dampers... 56 Datasheet: GM-RAIL-5 Global rail dampers & wheel dampers... 57 Datasheet: GM-RAIL-6 Embedded rail with absorbent trackbed... 59 Datasheet: GM-RAIL-7 - New rail type with/without adapted pad stiffness... 63 Datasheet: GM-RAIL-8 Special rail profiles... 64 Datasheet: GM-RAIL-9 - Wheel truing... 65 Datasheet: GM-RAIL-10 Rail Grinding...66 Datasheet: GM-RAIL-11 - Slip-side control...67 Datasheet: GM-RAIL-12 - Defect welding & grinding... 68 Datasheet: GM-RAIL-13 - Joint Maintenance... 69 Datasheet: GM-RAIL-14 - Field welding of joints... 70 Datasheet: GM-RAIL-15 - Eliminate rail support looseness... 71 Datasheet: GM-RAIL-16 - Friction modifier... 72 Datasheet: GM-RAIL-17 Wheel profile & diameter tolerance... 73 Datasheet: GM-RAIL-18 Resilient discrete rail fixation system... 74 Datasheet: GM-RAIL-19 Head hardened rail... 75 Datasheet: GM-RAIL-20 Embedded rail (for corrugation reduction)... 76 4 Noise propagation: barriers & town planning... 77 4.1 Introduction... 77 4.2 Mitigation measures... 79 4.2.1 Façade isolation... 79 4.2.2 Building isolation... 80 4.2.3 City planning... 81 4.2.4 Road/railway construction... 84 4.2.5 Barriers... 85 4.3 Datasheets... 87 Datasheet: GM-PROP-6 Noise barrier dwellings... 88 Datasheet: GM-PROP-10 Double façade... 89 Datasheet: GM-PROP-17 - Partial open tunnel... 90 Datasheet: GM-PROP-18 - Bended screens... 91

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 4 of 91 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 0.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE DELIVERABLE Consolidation of all general mitigation measures for all contributing elements of urban transportation systems. This document aims to provide an overview of mitigation measures for the general improvement of the noise climates in cities that can be used in noise actions plans. The present document consolidates overviews made in the different subprojects/areas of research:! traffic planning;! reduction of emission from road transport;! reduction of emission from rail transport;! mitigation through propagation path modification: façade isolation, barriers and physical planning. This document will be completed at the end of the project with all further know-how acquired and in specific with the results of the:! implementation and validation sites (SP5);! economic incentives (WP6.2.3);! information from other sources: CE projects, A second document will be produced providing similar information about "local complaint handling". The format and organisation of both documents will be identical. As some solutions can be used for both general noise mitigation (this document) and local complaint handling (document D6-2-part2_AKR_24M.doc), cross references are made. The final document will be labelled D6.6 and is expected at the end of the project (M48). 0.2 STRATEGY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNIQUES USED This project and this deliverable are "city action" driven. Starting point are the complaint lists are received by the cities. As example, some extracts of the complaint list of the city of Stockholm are given, figures 0.1 & 0.2.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 5 of 91 Figure 0.1 High equivalent noise levels High maximum noise levels Squealing Rattling from the trains and rails Breaking at stations Announcements from loud speakers at stations Fans and other equiptment on stationary trains Squealing in curves Signal sounds from railway crossings Noise from the depots Vehicles that grind the rails Work on and around the rails Heater construction on new commuter trains Noise reflextion from new buildings Whining sound around lone tall building Points Worn rail Construction, maintenance and repairing of the rail High noise levels from bridges, particularly steel constructions High noise levels where sensitive groups reside, eg. shools, nursing homes etc Extract from the City of Stockholm's complaint list - rail related issues Figure 0.2 High equivalent noise levels High maximum noise levels Man hole covers Construction, maintenance and repairing of roads High noise levels where sensitive groups reside, eg. shools, nursing homes etc Complaints related to the flow of the traffic, eg. why do the trucks have to pass through my neibourhood" Noise from heavy vehicles, busses, emergency service vehicles High speeds ( more noise - Major roads Vehicles that accelerate at well frequented pedestrian crossings Entrances to parking garages Reversing trucks Traffic generated by the construction of new residential areas or shopping centres Speed bumps Distribution of goods to shops and restaurants etc housed in residential buildings Sharp curves on narrow streets Extract from the City of Stockholm's complaint list road related issues

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 6 of 91 At the end of this document (part 3 of this document), an evaluation will be made of all complaints listed, with the question: "do we have an answer?":! global mitigation measures available?! local complaint handling measures available?! answer outside the scope of this project?! answer not yet available, but to be provided at the end of the project? The documents contain four chapters, each dealing with the different topics:! traffic planning;! road transport;! rail transport;! noise propagation: barriers and physical planning. Each chapter contains:! short introduction and positioning of the information provided;! general table with a list of mitigation measures;! additional datasheets with further in-depth information about one particular mitigation measure. 0.3 PARTNERS INVOLVED AND THEIR CONTRIBUTION ACL ACC AKR KTH TNO Consolidation of information on road traffic Providing information on traffic management Consolidation of information on rail transport Consolidation of information on traffic management Consolidation of information on town planning, barrier design and façade isolation 0.4 CONCLUSIONS Depending on the noise generation mechanism and environment, several mitigation measures are described including performance, costs, general applicability and limitations. Not all aspects are yet covered as well as not all datasheets are completed. This will be further completed throughout the rest of the project and will lead to D6.6 at month 48. 0.5 RELATION WITH THE OTHER DELIVERABLES This report transfers information about urban rail transport systems to: WP1.2 WP6.2 Integration results of noise mitigation measures in city noise maps Action plans

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 7 of 91 At the end of the project, this deliverable will be superseeded by deliverable D6.6, by addition of all further knowledge received inside and outside this project, to this deliverable.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 8 of 91 1 TRAFFIC FLOW 1.1 PREFACE The Qcity project is mainly related to noise mitigation measures on vehicles or along the road, reducing noise but not affecting traffic itself. In addition, part of the Qcity project is related to measures affecting the noise source directly, i.e. traffic. The nature of such measures is different in two important ways. The first is that they impact not only noise, but also accessibility, other emissions and accidents etc. The second is that traffic management measures, undertaken to obtain an effect at some desired site, also will have redistribution effects, i.e. diverted traffic will cause noise (and other) effects elsewhere. These effects need to be considered to avoid sub optimization. Effects of a noise mitigation measure related to traffic management will always be network dependent and site specific. Here, we therefore present effects and costs less precise than for physical noise mitigation devices, based on examples studied in Qcity. Research and experience show (e.g. the Stockholm trial) that measures related to reducing car traffic in general such as improved public transport or area wide congestion charging schemes do not give enough car traffic volume reductions to give more than very small effects (1-2 db). However all noise reductions contribute to a better environment. The added effects of these types of measures will give larger effects. However, because of the fact that non-noise effects are dominant in these cases, by discussing such measures the focus is moved from analysing a single measure to reduce noise levels to an overall discussion on cost benefit analysis or, more generally, how to create a sustainable transport system. This is not the objective of the Qcity project and will therefore not be further discussed here. The costs to undertake a traffic management measure are also difficult to present, as they consist of two parts. One part is related to the implementation of the measure in question, like the cost of changing the speed limit sign, and one part is related to the effects of the measure, like car running costs, values of travel time changes, emission costs and accident costs. As for noise effects, these costs are difficult to present, as they are situation specific. Also, different countries apply different economic values to these effects, and we therefore only present these effects as relative changes. It is important to understand that the relative changes presented are depending on the size of the modelled network, and serve here more as a reminder of the presence of such effects. Further reading: [1] Beser, M. and Algers, S., (2002) Sampers The New Swedish National Travel Demand Forecasting Tool, in Lundqvist, L. and Mattson, L. G (eds), National Transport Models Recent Developments and Prospects, Advances in Spatial Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 101-118. [2] Robèrt, M. and Jonsson, R. D. (2006), Assessment of Transport Policies Toward Future Emission Targets A Backcasting Approach for Stockholm 2030, Journal of

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 9 of 91 Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, Vol. 8 No.4 (December 2006). In Press [3] Stockholmsförsöket, http://www.stockholmsforsoket.se. Loaded 2006-12-20 [4] Stockholms stad, Fakta och resultat från Stockholmsförsöket, - Andra versionen augusti 2006.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 10 of 91 1.2 GLOBAL OVERVIEW TABLE - TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Ref. - GM Location Action Noise reduction at site [db(a)] GM-TRAF-1 GM-TRAF-2 GM-TRAF-3 GM-TRAF-4 GM-TRAF-5 GM-TRAF-6 GM-TRAF-7 Link specific road traffic noise Link specific road traffic noise Area wide road traffic noise Area wide road traffic noise Area wide road traffic noise Area wide road traffic noise Road traffic noise Close off road for car through traffic Can give substantial noise reduction of 3-14 db(a) (LDAY) Decrease speed limit Can give noise a reduction of 3-4 db(a) (LDAY) Create quiet areas by restricting noisy vehicles by charges or road barriers Increased frequency of public transport services Decreased ticket price for public transport Area wide congestion charging schemes Make people drive less aggressive GM-TRAF-8 Truck truck routing/road restrictions Has a potential to give substantial noise reduction of 3-14 db(a) (LDAY) Cost [ ] Low implementation cost Low implementation cost High implementation cost Site specific limitation Extent of traffic diversion effects Extent of traffic diversion effects Extent of traffic diversion effects, supply of quiet vehicles and adjacent parking Generally small noise reductions High implementation cost Other effects than noise impacts needs to be considered Generally small noise reductions High revenue loss Other effects than noise impacts needs to be considered Generally small noise reductions of 1-2 db(a) High implementation cost (should be exceeded by revenues) Other effects than noise impacts needs to be considered About 1 db(a) Situation specific Increased supervision or ISA-systems is necessary 1 3 db(a) ±400 000 Heavy load has to be significant compared to the overall amount of traffic; bypass roads have to be present

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 11 of 91 1.3 GLOBAL MITIGATION MEASURE: TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DATASHEETS

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 12 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-TRAF-1 - CLOSING OFF THROUGH TRAFFIC Problem Link specific road traffic noise Expected noise reduction Can give substantial noise reduction, 3-14 db(a) Detailed description/objectives Close a road and reallocate the noise source Examples See below Cost Low implementation cost Interactions Limitations Extent of traffic diversion effects Further information See deliverable D2.11 Figure GM-TRAF-1.1 illustrates a noise map over the study area Järva, North West of Stockholm. The noise map was created with traffic data from the forecasting system Sampers modelling travel demand and the transport system in Stockholm County. Notable is that the model captures reduction in speed due to congestion. GM-TRAF-1.1 Noise map of the study area Järva, Stockholm. Base scenario, LDAY In a modelled scenario the main road marked by an arrow in Figure GM-TRAF-1.2 was closed for through traffic. The difference in noise levels (LDAY) compared to the base scenario is illustrated in the same picture.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 13 of 91 GM-TRAF-1.2 Difference in noise level when closing marked road for through traffic The difference plot shows large noise reductions near the closed connection, in some areas up till 14 db(a). Due to rerouting, increased levels are obtained on alternative roads, approximately 4 db(a) at maximum. These effects need to be considered when such a measure is applied. Below is a diagram illustrating the share of exposed inhabitants in 5 db intervals. There is a clear reduction of exposure in levels around 55 db(a). The measure show low impacts on accessibility in terms of travel time and person hours travelled. These results are however relative to the total network, locally the effects can be much larger. Share of exposed inhabitants in 5 db intervals 35 30 Share of inhabitants 25 20 15 10 5 Base scenario Closed road 0 <30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 >80 LAeq [db] GM-TRAF-1.3 Share of exposed inhabitants in 5 db intervals

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 14 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-TRAF-2 - DECREASE SPEED LIMIT Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives link specific road traffic noise can give noise reductions of 3-4 db(a) Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information see deliverable D2.11 decrease the speed limit and consequently reduce noise levels see below low implementation cost extent of traffic diversion effects Figure GM-TRAF-2.1 illustrates a noise map over the study area Järva, North West of Stockholm. The noise map was created with traffic data from the forecasting system Sampers modelling travel demand and the transport system in Stockholm County. Notable is that the model captures reduction in speed due to congestion. GM-TRAF-2.1 Noise map of the study area Järva, Stockholm. Base scenario, LDAY In the base scenario the main road marked by a black line in Figure GM-TRAF-2.2 is modelled as a 70 km/h road. In a scenario it was changed it to model a 50 km/h road. Note that since the model captures speed reductions due to congestion this does not mean that we study noise effects when speed is reduced from 70 km/h to 50 km/h. The selected road is heavy loaded and as shown in Figure GM-TRAF-2.2 and GM-TRAF-2.3 the road speed is approximately 60 km/h in the base scenario. In peak hour traffic though, the speed is approximately 40 km/h (inbound direction, i.e. towards the city centre). The difference in noise levels (LDAY) caused by this measure is also shown in Figure GM-TRAF-2.3.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 15 of 91 GM-TRAF-2.2 Absolute difference in noise levels due to reduced speed, LDAY The plot shows a noise reduction of approximately 4 db(a) near the road with reduced speed. Due to rerouting there is a 2 db(a) increase at maximum on alternative routes. The negative noise effects need to be considered when this type of measure is applied. Below is a diagram illustrating the share of exposed inhabitants in 5 db intervals. There is a clear reduction of exposure in levels around 55 db(a). The measure show low impacts on accessibility in terms of travel time and person hours travelled. These results are however relative to the total network, locally the effects can be much larger. Share of exposed inhabitants in 5 db intervals 35 30 Share of inhabitants 25 20 15 10 Base scenario Reduced speed 5 0 <30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 >80 LAeq [db] GM-TRAF-2.3 Share of exposed inhabitants in 5dB intervals

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 16 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-TRAF-3 - RESTRICT NOISY VEHICLES BY CHARGES OR ROAD BARRIERS Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations area wide road traffic noise Further information see deliverable D2.11 has a potential to give substantial noise reduction, 3 to 14 db(a) create a quiet area by restricting noisy vehicles by charges or road barriers see below high implementation cost extent of traffic diversion effects, supply of quiet vehicles and adjacent parking A way to create quiet areas is to apply restrictions on noisy vehicles to enter a zone. The feasibility of such a measure depends however on the provision of adjacent parking space and quiet vehicles. To analyse this measure the forecasting system Sampers modelling travel demand and the transport system in Stockholm County was used. Scenarios were modelled where non-quiet vehicles were restricted by road barriers or had to pay a charge. The restricted area, illustrated in Figure GM-TRAF-3.1, was a generalised street network placed in the district Södermalm. The size of the zone is approximately 2 km 2. GM-TRAF-3.1 Södermalm with restricted area encircled in red In the model owners of noisy vehicles have to choose between different alternatives, namely pay the charge, park outside and walk in to the area, change route, change travel mode to e.g. public transport or change destination. Using forecasted traffic data from the transport model noise maps were created. Quiet vehicles where modelled to have a tyre/road noise 5 db lower and an engine noise 10 db lower than non-quiet vehicles. Building blocks were calculated with reflecting façade material. A base scenario was modelled assuming a 5% share of quiet vehicles for all car owners in the Stockholm County. When road barriers were applied the quiet vehicle share was

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 17 of 91 assumed to be 5% outside the restricted zone and 100% for people living inside the restricted zone. Figure GM-TRAF-3.2 illustrates the difference in noise levels for this scenario relative to the base scenario. Inside the area the noise reduction on car roads is large, in average 10 db(a) and at maximum 14 db(a). On pedestrian streets the reductions is approximately 3-4 db(a). The boundary roads get higher noise levels due to rerouting, in average 2-3 db(a) and 6 db(a) at maximum. There are small leakage effects near the boundary on pedestrian streets but no leakage close to the barriers. No leakage effects by the barriers. (The noise level reduction due to decrease in traffic is greater than the noise level increase due to increased traffic outside the area) GM-TRAF-3.2 Difference in noise levels due to road barriers for noisy vehicles, building blocks in grey, LDAY Figure GM-TRAF-3.3 illustrates a difference plot where owners of noisy vehicles need to pay a charge of 2,00 to enter or leave the restricted area. In this scenario the car ownership of quiet vehicles is assumed to be 20% inside the area and 5% outside. Again there are large noise reductions inside the area in average 7 db(a) and at maximum 11 db(a). Pedestrian streets get a reduction of approximately 2 db(a) and we get small leakage effects by the boundary. The increase in noise levels on the ring road is approximately 2-3 db(a) and at maximum around 6 db(a). Leakage 1-3 db(a) on pedestrian streets approx: 150 m (Due to increased traffic on the ring road) GM-TRAF-3.3 Difference in noise levels due to charging of noisy vehicles, LDAY

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 18 of 91 Our noise calculations are generalized and we are modelling ideal conditions (e.g. high share of quiet vehicles, no limitation of parking space and heavy vehicles need to follow the restrictions). Nonetheless our analyses show that this concept has a large noise reduction potential. However an implementation would be expensive. Additional parking space outside the area must probably be supplied and a system to register passing vehicles must be developed and applied. On the other hand a well-designed charging system will in the long run give revenues. Further investigation is needed and before a measure of this type could be applied a thorough cost-benefit analysis must be undertaken. One ought to consider both environmental effects and effects on commerce and accessibility. We may also face a new traffic safety issue, accidents caused by people not noticing the quiet vehicles.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 19 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-TRAF-4 - INCREASED FREQUENCY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICES Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations area wide road traffic noise as a single measure it generally gives small noise reductions by improved public transport make people travelling by car shift to public transport see below high implementation cost other effects than noise impacts needs to be considered Further information see deliverable D2.14 If the frequency of public transport services is increased, the attractivity of the mode is increased. As a consequence people will to a higher extent choose to travel by bus, subway or train. To investigate noise impacts of this type of measure, the forecasting system Sampers was used, modelling travel demand and the transport system in Stockholm County. A scenario was created were the frequency of all public transport lines including buses and commuter trains was increased by 25% relative to the base scenario. The result on peak hour traffic volumes relative to the base scenario is illustrated in Figure GM-TRAF-4.1. It shows the effect on flows in absolute numbers where green is a decrease and red an increase. Although this is a very large improvement of the public transport system, the impact on traffic flows is small. The relative change in flows is on most links a decrease below 10% and often close to zero. Effects on speed are small. Off-peak hour results show the same pattern. Thus this policy will give small but area wide noise effects. However, the increased numbers of buses and trains may offset the decrease in car traffic.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 20 of 91 GM-TRAF-4.1 Absolute difference in car traffic due to increased frequency in public transport. Green shows increase, red increase (Peak hour traffic) The total effect on travel pattern is illustrated in Figure GM-TRAF-4.2. The increase in use of public transport is a result of less car driving but also less use of bicycle and walk. Other effects at a total network level are described in Table GM-TRAF-4. Change in number of travellers per mode 6 5 4 Relative change [%] 3 2 1 0-1 -2 Car, driver Car, passenger Public Transport Bicycle Walk Total Increased frequency -3 Mode GM-TRAF-4.2 Change in number of travellers per mode relative to base scenario (total network level)

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 21 of 91 Total vehicle kilometres - 1% Person hours in car - 3% Person hours all modes in total* + 4% Total emissions in tons** - 1% Accidents - 1% GM-TRAF-4 - Effects at total network level relative to base scenario * Car driver, car passenger and public transport ** CO2- equivalents, NOx, HC, SO2 and particles

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 22 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-TRAF-5 - DECREASED TICKET PRICE FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations area wide road traffic noise as a single measure it gives small noise reductions by improved public transport make people travelling by car shift to public transport see below high revenue loss Further information see deliverable D2.14 other effects than noise impacts needs to be considered A way to reduce car traffic is to reduce the fare for public transport and thus make this mode more attractive. To investigate noise impacts of this type of measure, the forecasting model Sampers was used modelling travel demand and the transport system in Stockholm County. In a scenario the ticket price was reduced by 50% on both single tickets and season tickets. The effect on peak hour traffic volumes is illustrated in Figure GM-TRAF-5.1. It shows the changes in volumes in absolute numbers (green is a decrease and red is an increase). The relative decrease is generally lower than 5%, which gives small noise reductions. In addition, on some roads the traffic volumes is increased due to rerouting. The increases are however not large. Off-peak hour results show the same pattern. GM-TRAF-5.1 Absolute difference in traffic flow due to lowered ticket price for public transport (morning peak hour traffic), green decrease, red increase

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 23 of 91 The total effect on travel pattern is illustrated in Figure GM-TRAF-5.2. The increase in use of public transport is a result of less car driving but also less use of bicycle and walk as travel mode. Other effects at a total network level are described in Table GM-TRAF-5. Change in number of travellers per mode 8 6 4 Relative change [%] 2 0-2 -4 Car, driver Car, passenger Public Transport Bicycle Walk Total Reduced ticket price -6 Mode GM-TRAF-5.2 Change in number of travellers per mode relative to base scenario (total network level) Total vehicle kilometres - 0,4% Person hours in car - 3,0% Person hours all modes in total* + 3,0% Total emissions in tons** - 0,3% Accidents - 0,4% GM-TRAF-5 Effects at total network level relative to base scenario *Car driver, car passenger and public transport ** CO2- equivalents, NOx, HC, SO2 and particles

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 24 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-TRAF-6 - AREA WIDE CONGESTION CHARGING SCHEMES Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information area wide road traffic noise as a single measure it gives small noise reductions, 1-2 db(a) area wide congestion charging schemes for people travelling by car see below should be less than revenues other effects than noise impacts needs to be considered see deliverable D2.14 and www.stockholmsforsoket.se A possible way to reduce traffic volumes is to introduce a charge for car travellers entering an area e.g. the city centre. To investigate the noise impacts of such a measure, the forecasting model Sampers was used, modelling travel demand and the transport system in Stockholm County. A scenario was implemented with toll charges corresponding to the Stockholm trial. The fee in peak hours was 20 SEK, in off peak hours 10 SEK and the maximum fee per day 60 SEK (1 SEK is approximately 0,10). The charging area is illustrated in Figure GM-TRAF-6.1. GM-TRAF-6.1 Charging area in the Stockholm Trial Traffic volume results in peak hour for the modelled scenario are shown in Figure GM- TRAF-6.2 and Figure GM-TRAF-6.3 where green is a decrease and red an increase (offpeak hour results show the same pattern). They illustrate that the impact on traffic volumes are relatively large close to the city centre, however not large enough to give large noise level impacts. Experience from the Stockholm Trial where both congestion charges and improved public transport was adapted showed overall no or little effect

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 25 of 91 on noise levels. The effects where approximately changes of 1 db(a) up till to 2 db(a). Though the effects are not audible studies showed that a part of the population felt that the noise had decreased due to reduced congestion and traffic. GM-TRAF-6.2 Difference in traffic flow in peak hour due to area wide congestion charging scheme. North part of the charging area GM-TRAF-6.3 Difference in traffic flow in peak hour due to area wide congestion charging scheme. South part of the charging area

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 26 of 91 The total effect on travel pattern for the modelled scenario is illustrated in Figure GM- TRAF-6.4. Other effects such as change in vehicle kilometres are described in Table GM- TRAF-6. Change in number of travellers per mode 2 1,5 Relative change [%] 1 0,5 0-0,5-1 -1,5-2 Car, driver Car, passenger Public Transport Bicycle Walk Total Congestion charges -2,5-3 Mode GM-TRAF-6.4 Change in number of travellers per mode relative to base scenario (total network level) Total vehicle kilometres - 3% Person hours in car - 9% Person hours all modes in total - 3% Total emissions in tons** - 3% Accidents - 3% GM-TRAF-6 Effects at total network level relative to base scenario * Car driver, car passenger and public transport ** CO2- equivalents, NOx, HC, SO2 and particles

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 27 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-TRAF-7 - DRIVER BEHAVIOUR Problem traffic noise from road due to aggressive driver behaviour Expected noise reduction about 1 db(a) Detailed description/objectives make people drive less aggressively Examples - Cost situation specific Interactions Limitations increased supervision or ISA-systems is necessary Further information see deliverable D2.13

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 28 of 91 DATASHEET: GM TRAF 8 - TRUCK ROUTING Problem road traffic noise caused by heavy traffic Expected noise reduction 1 3 db(a) in hot-spot areas Detailed description/ objectives! an optimised combination of truck restrictions were developed for a 180 km² large region! detailed description: see below Examples truck routing in the region of Fildern (agglomeration of Stuttgart) Cost 400.000,00 Interactions - Limitations! high effectiveness by regional apply! negatively changed amounts of noise exposure can still be found in some areas Further information Ministry of Environment Baden Wurttemberg, Stuttgart, Germany Example: Noise reduction effects of truck routing in the region of Fildern The region of Fildern is characterized by its rural environment. However it highly affected by noise caused by the important traffic routes and the airport. The region has one of the highest demands of noise reduction plans concerning truck traffic. GM-TRAF-8.1 Strategic noise map LDEN (2005)

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 29 of 91 GM-TRAF-8.2 Detected hot spots using NERS A traffic model has been used to analyse the impact of specific road blocks and redirecting trucks by use of different scenario-techniques. Therefore at first the actual state (Status Quo) for years 2005 and 2010 was calculated. Later on multiple scenarios were calculated and benchmarked using NERS. 1 1 6 2 2 5 3 1 GM-TRAF-8.3 Calculated impact of combined road blocks ISO AACHENER - VERKEHRS - INGENIEUR - SOZIETÄT Mitigation measures The effectiveness of single restrictions on transit traffic of trucks has been evaluated for the important cross-town roads with 22 single measures of road blockages as shown in following picture. It is based on the detected noise exposure of the Status Quo 2005

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 30 of 91 and the forecasting horizon 2010+x. Also it is based on calculations showing the effect of these traffic assignments for cars and trucks. GM-TRAF-8.4 Investigated truck-restrictions in the region of Fildern Further analysis using a traffic model in combination with the developed Noise Score Model has been shown and optimized combination of truck restriction with high effects on noise / annoyance reduction and very little negative effects on traffic work. Following picture shows the effect of a truck routing concept with the reasonable package of applied measures K1. GM-TRAF-8.5 Change of noise exposure in each community of the Fildern region when optimized truck routing package is applied

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 31 of 91 Evaluation of benefits The implementation of truck routing concepts is most fruitful when being designed and implemented regionally. Nevertheless effective measures do not always implicate positive effects all over. For the good of some areas others will have to step back from an improvement or might even have to accept a limited change for the worse. Applying truck-routing systems regionally will not necessarily be the best solution for local spots. Therefore it is important to keep an eye also on their local effects so that no unacceptable surplus exposure will arise. However it is possible to reduce noise exposure significantly using specific traffic restrictions for heavy load. The expected improvement summed up over the entire area of Fildern is about 20%. When applying the optimized truck-routing measure in the region of Fildern, persisting and negatively changed amounts of noise exposure can still be found in some areas. For these areas other noise mitigation measures like road enhancement (new road construction, local bypasses) sound insulation and changed usage of buildings have to be discussed. In order to avoid further increase of noise exposure in the region of Fildern, it is necessary to design and implement noise mitigation measures regionally with consensus of the local communities.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 32 of 91 2 ROAD TRAFFIC 2.1 INTRODUCTION Adequate action plans of city traffic noise should consider noise emission from tyres and road surfaces. Various types tyres have been evaluated. The aim is to see trends towards possible reduced noise emission level in future tyre and road surface designs. This also will serve as a foundation for assessing the possible need for tyre/road noise reduction and propose suitable solutions. Action included in this paragraph are:! tyre design;! road surface.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 33 of 91 2.2 MITIGATION MEASURES ref. GM- location Action Red. effect db(a) GM-ROAD-1 tyre design Improved tyre tread pattern design for smooth road surfaces GM-ROAD-2 tyre design Improvements of conventional tyres on road surfaces of medium roughness GM-ROAD-3 tyre design New dual tyre design concept on road surfaces of worn standard type (under development) Costs 3-6 Tyres 600,00/vehicle Ordinary existing rims can be used 1-2 Tyres 600,00/vehicle Ordinary existing rims can be used 4-5 Tyres 750,00/vehicle Special rims must be used at a cost of about 500,00/vehicle GM-ROAD-4 road surface Poroelastic road surface 8-10 20,00/m² 2,00/m² in increased maintenance cost GM-ROAD-5 road surface Dense and smooth road surface in combination with tread pattern optimized tyres GM-ROAD-6 road surface Road markings 3-4 db(a) relative to normal road markings. The reduction is concentrated to 250 Hz. 3-5 14,00/m² Possibly 1,00/m² in increased maintenance cost 7,00/m² machining cost for the road marking in-fill Restrictions Intended for use in combination with smooth road surfaces. Will not work in combination with coarse road surface roughness. (see below) For very coarse road roughness s the reduction may be less than indicated in the column to the right. The reduction may also be limited to the type of road surface used during testing. The tyre of this low noise type may not get type approval for high speed driving. However the upper speed limit should be sufficient for low noise vehicles like hybrid electric and/or electric vehicles etc. Wear life of a poroelastic road surface may be shorter than a corresponding standard dense surface. The noise reduction will be dependent on the availability of tyres with very silent tread patterns. Road markings sometimes has to lie 5-10 mm above the normal road surface average level.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 34 of 91 ref. GM- location Action Red. effect db(a) GM-ROAD-7 road surface Smooth and dense road surface Small stone sizes in the asphalt mix GM-ROAD-8 road surface Open graded Twin layer Two layered porous asphalt GM-ROAD-9 road surface Smooth and dense road surface Very thin asphalt pavements ( 15 mm) 1,5 db(a)-unit (see comments to the left) and normal tyres 3-5 with optimized tread patterns 5-9 depending on the stone size in the upper layer 2-3 for normal tyres 3-5 with optimized tread patterns Costs 1,50/m² per year in increased maintenance cost relative to the next bigger stone size mix. 1,00/m² per year in increased maintenance cost compared to normal dense asphalt. No extra maintenance costs Restrictions Smaller stone size generally gives less noise but will on the other hand also increase the wear rate particularly for studded tyres. The increased thickness of a twin layer surface implies a careful optimization so that the peak in sound absorption would end up in the 800 1000 Hz range. The surface should be gap-graded with a max aggregate size 6-8 mm. Could give excessive wear for studded tyres.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 35 of 91 2.3 NOISE REDUCTION DATASHEETS Some first comments included. To be provided by ACL.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 36 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-ROAD-1 IMPROVED TYRE TREAD PATTERN DESIGN FOR SMOOTH ROAD Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information SURFACES 3 to 6 db(a)! tyres 600,00/vehicle! ordinary existing rims can be used! if the quieter tyres are bought during normal replacing of worn tyres with new ones for a particular car, the measure would impose no costs to the car owner! if on the other hand the tyres have to be bought before the old noisier tyres are worn out (e.g. to get access to a quiet zone restricted for quiet cars only) then the extra cost could be up to 600,00/vehicle depending on when the exchange is made and depending on if the old not fully worn tyres could be sold and at what price

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 37 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-ROAD-2 - IMPROVEMENTS OF CONVENTIONAL TYRES ON ROAD Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information SURFACES OF MEDIUM ROUGHNESS 1 to 2 db(a)! tyres 600,00/vehicle! ordinary existing rims can be used! this measure mainly consists of being a deliberate selection of low noise tyres out of a greater population of tyre/road noise data! the level of noise reduction and the tyre types selected may be bound to the type or road surface used during testing

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 38 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-ROAD-3 - NEW DUAL TYRE DESIGN CONCEPT ON ROAD SURFACES OF Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information WORN STANDARD TYPE 4 to 5 db(a)! tyres 750,00/vehicle! special rims must be used at a cost of about 500,00/vehicle! the DUAL-Q tyre concept will not only give a substantial and noticeable sound level reduction but also give other advantages like better hydroplaning characteristics, better safety against puncture! the concept is currently under development within the Qcity project (not yet commercially available)

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 39 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-ROAD-4 - POROELASTIC ROAD SURFACE Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information 8 to 10 db(a) 20,00/m² + 2,00/m² in increased maintenance cost! the noise reduction effect mentioned assumes that the vehicle noise is to be dominated by tyre/road noise, which is the case for the vast majority of passenger cars at speeds above 35 km/h.! the road with a poroelastic road surface can be paved by normal paving machines

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 40 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-ROAD-5 - DENSE & SMOOTH ROAD SURFACE IN COMBINATION WITH Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information TREAD PATTERN OPTIMISED TYRES 3 to 5 db(a) 14,00/m² Possibly 1,00/m² in increased maintenance cost! a smooth road surface will emphasize the influence from the tyre tread pattern on the tyre/road noise generation! studies by Goodyear indicates that 3-5 db(a) units of reduced noise can be achieved relative to the average sound level for the entire population of passenger car tyres

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 41 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-ROAD-6 - ROAD MARKINGS Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information! 3 to 4 db(a) relative to normal road markings! the reduction is concentrated to 250 Hz 7,00/m² machining cost for the road marking in-fill! road markings should be arranged so that the surface of the marking would lie flush to the adjacent road surface! Goodyear will add more data later

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 42 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-ROAD-7 - SMOOTH & DENSE ROAD SURFACE Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost 1,5 db(a)-unit and normal tyres 3-5 with optimized tread patterns 1,50/m² per year in increased maintenance cost relative to the next bigger stone size mix Interactions Limitations! the reported sound level reduction is supported by a lot of pass-by measurements on different road surfaces! the cost mentioned in the table is grossly due to the increased maintenance cost due to higher wear rate for smaller stones particularly when studded tyres are allowed! the noise reduction effect by using smaller stone size is typically 1,5 db(a)-units for one step smaller max stone size (e.g. from 11 to 8 mm or from 8 to 6 mm) according to the formula 11log(d1/d2) Further information

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 43 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-ROAD-8 - OPEN GRADED TWIN LAYER Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information 5 to 9 db(a) depending on the stone size in the upper layer 1,00/m² per year in increased maintenance cost compared to normal dense asphalt! a two layered porous asphalt will give a better long term noise reduction effect because the bottom layer will serve as a reservoir for water and dirt so that the pores would be kept clean longer time! noise reduction figures are related to a standard dense asphalt concrete with 16 mm max. stone size

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 44 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-ROAD-9 - SMOOTH & DENSE ROAD SURFACE Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information 2 to 3 db(a) for normal tyres 3 to 5 db(a) with optimized tread patterns No extra maintenance costs It is a dense pavement with a pronounced surface structure, which means that it does not need any special cleaning

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 45 of 91 3 RAIL TRANSPORT 3.1 INTRODUCTION This document is a qualitative guide for identifying and evaluating noise control treatments with respect to noise reduction effectiveness at wheel and rail level and cost. Treatments are segregated according to tangent track, curved track, and special trackwork noise control. The various categories of wheel/rail noise discussed in this section include: 1. continuous noise source:! rolling noise at tangent track, 2. local noise sources:! curving noise,! special trackwork noise;! open deck steel bridges. Rolling noise at tangent and moderately curved track without squeal is most representative of conditions used for qualification testing of transit vehicles. Normal rolling noise with smooth rails and trued wheels, excessive rolling noise due to excessive random rail and wheel roughness, impact noise due to rail and wheel imperfections and joints, and noise due to short-pitch rail corrugation are normally associated with tangent track noise. Local noise sources such as curving noise (squeal), special trackwork (frogs, crossings, ) and local elements (bridge, ) are discussed in part 2 of this document: local complaint handling. Any treatment selected for noise control should be carefully reviewed by the transit system engineering staff for cost, practicality, and safety. Representative, order of magnitude, costs are provided for a comparison of various noise control treatments. These costs are listed to aid the selection process, and the user should verify costs with suppliers and contractors before selecting or rejecting a treatment. Additional background information can be found in document M3-7_AKR_18M.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 46 of 91 3.2 STANDARD SITUATION: TANGENT TRACK NOISE This situation is the standard situation present at the major part of the track, and also responsible for almost all noise emission of this transportation system. Noise mitigation measures on this level/situation can lead to general improvement of the noise climate in urban environments. Tangent track noise includes: 1. normal rolling noise, 2. excessive rolling noise, 3. impact noise, and 4. corrugated rail noise. In each of these categories, treatments are presented for bogies (wheels) and trackwork. The selection of a noise control treatment depends on the type of noise. For example, damped wheels are effective in controlling squeal, but have historically produced little reduction of tangent track rolling noise at transit systems. As another example, normal rolling noise at tangent track would not be reduced significantly by rail grinding or wheel truing, because the rails and wheels would already be in good condition (though some minor noise reduction might still be expected). Therefore, the user must identify the type of noise before deciding on a treatment scenario.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 47 of 91 3.2.1 Normal Rolling Noise ref. GM-RAIL- location action noise cost reduction [db(a)] [ ] GM-RAIL-1 vehicle resilient wheels 1 to 2 2 000,00 to 3 000,00 per wheel GM-RAIL-2 trackwork trackbed absorption 5 100,00 per m² GM-RAIL-3 tuned rail dampers 1 to 3 500,00 per m site specific limitation May not be appropriate for tread braked systems Ineffective for ballasted track Requires clearance between rail and invert GM-RAIL-4 global rail dampers 2 to 3 100,00 to 200,00 per m-rail GM-RAIL-5 global rail dampers & wheel dampers 5 to 7 +500,00 per wheel GM-RAIL-6 embedded rail with absorbent trackbed 1 to 3(*) 500,00 to 800,00 per m-rail GM-RAIL-7 new rail type with/without adapted pad stiffness 2 to 5 20,00 per m-rail Pad stiffness optimisation under study GM-RAIL-8 special rail profiles 5 100,00 to 1 000,00 per m-rail Not yet proven design Table 3.2.1 Noise control options for normal rolling noise at tangent track (*) Embedded rail in relation to ballasted track; 3 to 6 db(a) in relation to direct fixation system on concrete slab

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 48 of 91 3.2.2 Excessive Rolling Noise ref. GM-RAIL- location action noise cost reduction [db(a)] [ ] GM-RAIL-9 vehicle wheel truing 7 to 10 60,00 per wheelset site specific limitation To be used in combination with rail grinding treatments listed for normal rolling noise GM-RAIL-10 trackwork rail grinding 7 to 10 4000,00 per km track To be used in combination with wheel truing treatments listed for normal rolling noise Table 3.2.2 Noise control treatments for excessive rolling noise without corrugation

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 49 of 91 3.2.3 Impact Noise ref. GM-RAIL- location action noise cost reduction [db(a)] [ ] GM-RAIL-9 vehicle wheel truing 7 to 10 60,00 per wheelset GM-RAIL-11 slip-side control 7 to 10 5 000,00 to 10 000,00 per vehicle GM-RAIL-10 trackwork rail grinding 7 to 10 4 000,00 per km track GM-RAIL-12 defect welding & grinding 0 to 3 200,00 per defect GM-RAIL-13 joint maintenance 2 to 3 200,00 to 400,00 per joint GM-RAIL-14 field welding of joints 5 600,00 per joint GM-RAIL-15 eliminate rail support looseness 5 250,00 per m site specific limitation Single most important treatment, because wheel flats are most significant cause of impact noise Reduces flat occurrence by about 50%, and thus reduces wheel truing costs proportionally Must be done in conjunction with wheel truing Noise reductions depend on number of defects. Costs are subject or local labour rates and field conditions Primarily relevant to older transit systems with steel elevated structures Ancillary cost benefits in reduced maintenance Achieved with resilient direct fixation fasteners or concrete ties with spring clips Primarily relevant to steel elevated aerial structures wayside treatments for normal and excessive rolling noise Table 3.2.3 Treatments for impact noise du to rail defects

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 50 of 91 3.2.4 Corrugated Rail Noise ref. GM-RAIL- location action noise cost reduction [db(a)] [ ] GM-RAIL-9 vehicle wheel truing 7 to 10 60,00 per wheelset GM-RAIL-16 friction modifier NA 1 400,00 per vehicle per year site specific limitation Does not influence origin of corrugation. Believed to be effective but data inconclusive. Costs based on two axles treated per vehicle. GM-RAIL-17 wheel profile and diameter tolerance ID 60,00 per wheelset GM-RAIL-10 trackwork aggressive rail grinding 7 to 10 4 000,00 per km track Definitely very effective in reducing noise but does not influence origin of corrugation. GM-RAIL-18 reduced rail support stiffness ID 0,00 Believed to be effective in reducing corrugation rate, but would not reduce noise directly. GM-RAIL-19 head hardened rail ID 50,00 per rail per m Controls corrugation by providing hard running surface. GM-RAIL-20 trackwork embedded rail (high damping on low impedance) ID 500,00 per m Table 3.2.4 Treatments for noise due to rail corrugation ID: Indirect action by reducing frequency of rail grinding and/or wheel tuning

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 51 of 91 3.3 GLOBAL MITIGATION MEASURE DATASHEETS

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 52 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-RAIL-1 RESILIENT WHEELS Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information normal rolling noise 1 to 2 db(a) dampers placed against sides of the rails, damping the vibration of the rails when a train rides on them

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 53 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-RAIL-2 - TRACKBED ABSORPTION Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 54 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-RAIL-3 - TUNED RAIL DAMPERS Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost normal rolling noise 1 to 3 db(a) dampers placed against sides of the rails, damping the vibration of the rails when a train rides on them see figures below 150,00 to 500,00 per lm of rail 300,00 to 1000,00 per lm of track Interactions Limitations! requires clearance between rail and invert! combination with wheel dampers may lead to results above 5 db(a) Further information Aude Lenders, 5FP STAIRRS Program results - November 2002, Cesse ULB, http://www.ulb.ac.be/ceese/nouveau%20site%20ceese/docum ents/stairrs_presentation.pdf GM-RAIL-3.1 Vossloh rail damper Continuous double tuned rail damper glued in rail web (Silenttrack Corus and Edilon) GM-RAIL-3.2 Corus rail damper

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 55 of 91 Light weight gun-shot tuned rail damper with bending plate (ABSORAIL-CDM) GM-RAIL-3.3 CDM rail damper Quiet-stone tuned rail damper (Sound Absorption U.K. Ltd) GM-RAIL-3.4 Quiet-stone rail damper Multidirectional tuned rail damper (lateral absorber shoe) (Schrey&Veit) GM-RAIL-3.5 Schrey&Veit rail damper

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 56 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-RAIL-4 - GLOBAL RAIL DAMPERS Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 57 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-RAIL-5 GLOBAL RAIL DAMPERS & WHEEL DAMPERS Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Normal rolling noise 5 to 7 db(a) dampers placed against sides of the rails, damping the vibration of the rails when a train rides on them see additional page 5 figures 100,00 to 200,00 per lm of rail + 500,00 per wheel Interactions Limitations! requires clearance between rail and invert! combination with wheel dampers may lead to results above 5 db(a) Further information Aude Lenders, 5FP STAIRRS Program results - November 2002, Cesse ULB, http://www.ulb.ac.be/ceese/nouveau%20site%20 ceese/documents/stairrs_presentation.pdf Split UIC60 rail foot (Type 1) GM-RAIL-5.1 Viscoelastic damping layers (green) implemented in a split UIC60 rail foot with no increase of weight Narrow UIC60 rail foot with constraining beams or Modified saddle profile rail (Type 2) GM-RAIL-5.2 Viscoelastic damping layers (green) and constraining beams added to rail foot with typically 20 kg/m increase of weight

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 58 of 91 U-profile Stiff fastening elements Viscoelastic damping layers Base rail GM-RAIL-5.3 Viscoelastic damping layers (vertical, thick blue lines) implemented in a modified saddle profile rail with typically 10 15 kg/m increase of weight. All rubber elements are replaced by stiff fastening elements (e.g. steel) UIC60 rail embedded in a box (Type 3) GM-RAIL-5.4 Viscoelastic damping layers (not indicated) between the UIC60 rail and core (green), which is contained in a steel box. This will result in typically 120 kg/m increase of weight or a total weight of 180 kg/m Corus rail dampers GM-RAIL-5.5 Cross section and photo of a Corus damper (rubber is grey in the left picture) mounted to foot/web of rail

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 59 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-RAIL-6 EMBEDDED RAIL WITH ABSORBENT TRACKBED Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information normal rolling noise 1 to 3 db(a) dampers placed against sides of the rails, damping the vibration of the rails when a train rides on them see additional page 5 figures 500,00 to 800,00 per lm of rail! requires clearance between rail and invert! combination with wheel dampers may lead to results above 5 db(a)

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 60 of 91

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 61 of 91

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 62 of 91

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 63 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-RAIL-7 - NEW RAIL TYPE WITH/WITHOUT ADAPTED PAD STIFFNESS Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information normal rolling noise 1 to 3 db(a) dampers placed against sides of the rails, damping the vibration of the rails when a train rides on them see below 20,00 per lm of rail performance increases from 2 to 4 db(a) by the use of an adapted (stiffer) wheel pad VOESTALPINE SCHIENEN GMBH, Leoben, Austria www.voestalpine.com/schienen VA71b UIC60 GM-RAIL-7.1 Comparison VA71b - UIC60 rail profile moment of inertia Ix [cm 4 ] bending stiffness [Nm 2 ] mass per meter [kg/m] UIC60 3055.0 6,4 * 10 6 60,34 VA71b 3181,4 6,9 * 10 6 71,44 GM-RAIL-7.2 Characteristic values for the profiles UIC60 and VA71b

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 64 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-RAIL-8 SPECIAL RAIL PROFILES Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Normal rolling noise 1 to 3 db(a) dampers placed against sides of the rails, damping the vibration of the rails when a train rides on them Examples More special designs as discussed under GM-RAIL- 7 Cost! reduced stiffness 100,00 per lm of rail! saddle profile 1.000,00 per lm of track/rail Interactions Limitations! experimental design under study! not yet validated in real life situations Further information Rail profile with reduced contact stiffness GM-RAIL-8.1 Conceptual design of the rail profile with reduced contact stiffness Saddle profile rail U-profile Elastic fastening elements Base rail GM-RAIL-8.2 Saddle profile rail

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 65 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-RAIL-9 - WHEEL TRUING Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 66 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-RAIL-10 RAIL GRINDING Problem excessive rolling noise Expected noise reduction 7 to 10 db(a) Detailed description/objectives! multiple stone grinding to wavelength below 2 to 3 mm! require accuracy is stated in ISO 3095! if measured roughnesses are above ISO, reduction of 5 db yields ±3 db(a) noise reduction Examples simple rail roughness instrument Cost 4,00 per lm of track Interactions Limitations! only partially effective is not in combination with wheel tuning! lack of track access (clearance in tunnels, embedded tracks,...) Further information

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 67 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-RAIL-11 - SLIP-SIDE CONTROL Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 68 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-RAIL-12 - DEFECT WELDING & GRINDING Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 69 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-RAIL-13 - JOINT MAINTENANCE Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 70 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-RAIL-14 - FIELD WELDING OF JOINTS Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 71 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-RAIL-15 - ELIMINATE RAIL SUPPORT LOOSENESS Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 72 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-RAIL-16 - FRICTION MODIFIER Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 73 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-RAIL-17 WHEEL PROFILE & DIAMETER TOLERANCE Problem noise emission of corrugated rail Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives under study in the CORRUGATION project Examples Cost Interactions Limitations Further information

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 74 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-RAIL-18 RESILIENT DISCRETE RAIL FIXATION SYSTEM Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost - Interactions Limitations Further information after 8 months, corrugation growth was 10 db down, thus noise: -7 db(a)

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 75 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-RAIL-19 HEAD HARDENED RAIL Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples Cost 50,00 per lm of rail Interactions Limitations Further information

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 76 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-RAIL-20 EMBEDDED RAIL (FOR CORRUGATION REDUCTION) Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Examples RATP, Paris tramway line T1 Cost 500,00 per lm Interactions Limitations Further information

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 77 of 91 4 NOISE PROPAGATION: BARRIERS & TOWN PLANNING 4.1 INTRODUCTION The question of limiting noise in urban areas can no longer be restricted to the reduction of traffic noise sources. It should also be an essential part of present town planning. This issue must also be dealt with through different planning measures, from the large scale arrangement of infrastructure and building blocks, to local and small scale solutions, including building material, passage ways, localisations of entries, windows, parking, loading,... Five aspects have been identified:! façade isolation;! building isolation;! city planning;! road/rail construction;! barrier design. Building isolation contains both:! building isolation itself: increased isolation of windows, ventilation, façade, roof. These aspects are considered local mitigation measures and are discussed in part 2 of this deliverable. Of course, global building isolation plans also can be considered as general noise mitigation action plans. But further information thus has to be searched in part 2 of this document.! façade design and building lay-out: this includes more general aspects which have to be considered at the design phase: orientation of sensitive rooms, double façades, dwellings integrated in noise barriers. These aspects are discussed further in this document. Aspects of city planning that are discussed hereafter, are:! building orientation;! road structure;! city structure and functions.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 78 of 91 Reduction of noise propagation in road and rail construction contains both actions to be taken:! in the design phase: including open and closed tunnels, fly-over, ;! barriers: screens placed along the roads over smaller or longer distances. Some of the action plans discussed hereafter also could be used for local complaint handling: façade isolation, barrier design, in local areas.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 79 of 91 4.2 MITIGATION MEASURES 4.2.1 Façade isolation ref. GM-PROP location: dwelling type / façade GM-PROP-1 brickwork with normal glazing insulated glazing and ventilation provisions GM-PROP-2 GM-PROP-3 light façade elements with normal glazing tiled roof, inclined, with skylights, without insulation action options / examples effect [db(a)] costs [k /house] site specific limitations / characteristics 4 6 4 mm glazing 5 10 effect on indoor noise level only 6 16 8 mm glazing 10 15 effect on indoor noise level only façade insulation 5 10 effect on indoor noise level only façade insulation, with insulated glazing and ventilation provisions roof insulation with insulated glazing roof insulation with insulated glazing and ventilation provisions 4 6 4 mm glazing 10 15 effect on indoor noise level only 6 16 8 mm glazing 15 20 effect on indoor noise level only 4 6 4 mm glazing 5 10 effect on indoor noise level only 6 16 8 mm glazing 5 15 effect on indoor noise level only 6 16 8 mm glazing 10 20 effect on indoor noise level only

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 80 of 91 4.2.2 Building isolation ref. GM-PROP location action effect db( costs site specific limitation/characteristics measure options/examples A) [k /house] GM-PROP-4 all kinds of buildings building lay-out with noise sensitive rooms at quiet side GM-PROP-5 high-rise apartment buildings façade design with set backs 15 25 effect on indoor noise level, only in noise sensitive rooms 2 5 effect mainly on indoor noise level GM-PROP-6 all kinds of buildings sound absorbing façade material (exterior side) GM-PROP-7 all kinds of buildings sound absorbing material (interior side) open brick pattern over fibreglass perforated metal (with thin fibreglass cloth) over air gap absorbing brick / ceiling board 1 3 1 3 effect on outdoor noise level in front of façade and indoor noise level of buildings at opposite street side effect can be larger in situations with shielded noise, where reflected sound path is dominant 1 5 effect on indoor noise level only GM-PROP-8 all kinds of buildings closed façade 10 20 closed side has no windows that can be opened. This side must preferably be situated to the north, northwest, northeast or east. building lay-out with entrance hall, bath room, toilet, scullery, storeroom at closed side GM-PROP-9 low-rise buildings / detached houses GM-PROP-10 apartment buildings brickwork / light façade elements with normal glazing dwellings integrated in noise barriers double façade, transparent 10 20 barrier side must be situated to the north, northwest, northeast or east building lay-out with entrance hall, bath room, toilet, scullery, storeroom at closed side 10 20 double façade must be situated to the north, northwest, northeast or east

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 81 of 91 4.2.3 City planning ref. GM-PROP location action effect d B(A) measure options/examples GM-PROP-11 normal urban area medium / high population density noise screening building block(s) unbroken block or connected blocks over substantial length (100 1000 m), close to road close standing building blocks with long side facing road, close to road site specific limitation/characteristics special precautions for noise exposed façade have to be taken, e.g. see table a2, closed façade rarely used in temporary planning, due to regulations on e.g. safety and accessibility, but can be combined with efficient traffic flows, traffic safety and positive economic result special precautions for noise exposed façade have to be taken, e.g. see table a2, closed façade close standing building blocks close to road, with zigzag access special precautions for noise exposed façade have to be taken, e.g. see table a2, closed façade close standing building blocks close to road, normal access special precautions for noise exposed façade have to be taken, e.g. see table a2, closed façade close standing building blocks with short side facing road (not recommended)

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 82 of 91 ref. GM-PROP location action effect d B(A) measure options/examples GM-PROP-12 normal urban area low / medium population density differentiated area system: strict division of high and low noise areas concent rated site specific limitation/characteristics silent areas distributed along main highway with high noise level, positive for division of functions in separate areas normal urban area high / medium / low population density differentiated cul de sac system: combination of high flow and high speed streets along main route, and low flow and low speed streets noisy areas along main routes, silent areas along dead end streets normal urban area / urban center high / medium population density differentiated grid system: combination of high flow and high speed streets, and low flow and low speed streets spread each block has different type of traffic surroundings, positive for mixed functions in small scale

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 83 of 91 ref. GM-PROP location action effect d B(A) measure options/examples GM-PROP-13 mixed uses high population density public transport, short distances low site specific limitation/characteristics minimises use of private cars, high level of bus and train transport functional division high population density public transport, long distances medium use of private cars, maximises bus and train transport on longer distances functional division low population density public transport between (sub) centres, separated from car traffic some public transport possible mixed uses low population density public transport mixed with car traffic public transport in combination with short and long distance car traffic high

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 84 of 91 4.2.4 Road/railway construction ref. GM-PROP situation measure design effect 1 db(a) GM- PROP-14 main road, fly-over (height 5 10 m) motorway or railway in/nearby densely populated area GM-PROP-15 open tunnel (depth 5 m) costs 2 [M /km] site specific limitations / problems without barriers 0 5 > 50 for buildings behind the first façades, the effect can be negative sound absorbing screens, 5 m reflecting (transparent), vertical screen, at one side, 5 m reflecting (transparent), inclined screens 15 o, 5 m bended screens (picture left) 5 12 > 50 reflecting, vertical walls 2 4 50 200 absorbing walls 4 10 50 200 5 15 > 50 increase of sound at opposite side of road/railway, not effective if situated at both sides of road/railway 5 15 > 50 may require further investigation on optimal shape in specific situation 5 20 > 50 requires further investigation on optimal shape in specific situation inclined walls 15 o 4 10 50 200 requires further investigation on optimal shape in specific situation GM-PROP-16 covering / tunnel > 25 > 100 may require further investigation on increase of sound in vicinity of openings GM- PROP-17 partial open tunnel horizontal screens, partly covering the road (picture left) grid of vertical absorbing screens above the road 5 20 100 300 15 25 100 300 requires further investigation on optimal shape in specific situation grid requires height of ca. 2 m 1 Effect for first façades relative situation with road at ground level without barriers. Assumptions: - road width 16 30 m (For smaller roads the effect can be larger.) - distance 50 150 m from façade to the middle of the road (At larger distance the effect can be less.) - receiver height up to 10 m (At higher levels the effect can be less.) - barriers at both road sides, unless stated otherwise. 2 Costs of total road construction, barriers included, relative to costs of road at ground level without barriers

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 85 of 91 4.2.5 Barriers ref. GM- PROP situation measure action design effect 3 db (A) GM-PROP-18 screen road side sound absorbing, height 5 m 2 10 1,5 4 main road, motorway or railway in/nearby densely populated area reflecting (transparent), vertical, at one side, height 5 m reflecting (transparent), height 5 m, inclined 15 o costs 4 [M /km] site specific limitations / problems 2 12 1 3 increase of sound at opposite side of road/railway, not effective if situated on both sides of road/railway 2 12 2 5 may require further investigation on optimal shape in specific situation bended 5 height 5 10 m 5 25 10 30 requires further investigation on optimal shape in specific situation embankments, height 5 m 2 8 1 4 required space must be available 3 Effect for first façades relative situation with road at ground level without barriers. Assumptions: - road width 16 30 m (For smaller roads the effect can be larger.) - distance 50 150 m from façade to the middle of the road (At larger distance the effect can be less.) - receiver height up to 10 m. (At higher levels the effect can be less.) - d1: screens at both road sides, unless stated otherwise; - d2: screens at both road sides (unless stated otherwise) in combination with screen between lanes 4 Costs of barriers at both road sides, except for reflecting vertical screen. 5 shape e.g.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 86 of 91 ref. GM- PROP situation measure GM-PROP-19 screen between lanes/ tracks6 action design at both sides of all lanes, sound absorbing, height 0,5 m platform screens, sound absorbing, height 0,4 m platform screens, sound absorbing, height 0,7 m effect 3 db (A) costs 4 [M /km] 4 6 0,7 1 for roads > 4 lanes site specific limitations / problems 6 9 0,3 0,5 for tram lines, screens must be situated ad small distance and at both sides of all tracks 6 11 0,5 1,5 for railways, screens must be situated ad small distance and at both sides of all tracks sound absorbing, height 5 m 5 15 1,5 4 reflecting (transparent), height 5 m, inclined 5 15 2 5 may require further investigation on optimal shape in specific situation bended height 5 10 m 10 25 10 40 requires further investigation on optimal shape in specific situation GM-PROP-20 cylindrical top elements 0 57 0,2 0,4 diameter of cylinder > 0,5 m 6 In combination with 4 7 Additional effect

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 87 of 91 4.3 DATASHEETS

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 88 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-PROP-6 NOISE BARRIER DWELLINGS Problem road traffic noise, motorway at close distance Expected noise reduction 10 20 db(a) Detailed description/objectives! dwellings are integrated in noise barrier.! all rooms which are not sensitive to noise (entrance hall, bath room, toilet, scullery, storeroom etc.) are situated at the side of the barrier Example Bungawalls Neerijnen (NL) Cost Interactions Limitations! effective for buildings nearby the road! sound insulation requires special attention! barrier side must be situated to the north, northwest, northeast or east Further information BAM Engineering (www.bam.nl)

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 89 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-PROP-10 DOUBLE FAÇADE Problem Expected noise reduction road traffic noise, motorway at close distance 15 25 db(a) Detailed description/objectives! transparent noise screen is the second façade at 25 m distance from the apartment building, consisting of 26 apartments! sound absorbing material is placed below the gallery floors in order to reduce the reverberation time Example Cost Interactions Limitations Further information Albatros Etten-Leur (NL) double façade must be situated to the north, northwest, northeast or east Woonstichting Etten-Leur (www.wonwel.nl)

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 90 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-PROP-17 - PARTIAL OPEN TUNNEL Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Example Cost Interactions Limitations Further information road traffic noise, motorway crosses new city centre 15 25 db(a)! tunnel (partial open concrete covering) at ground level, length 1,6 km, 2 x 2 + 2 x 3 lanes! project will be finished in 2012 A2 Leidsche Rijn Utrecht (NL) ca. 1.000.000.000,00 expected! ground surface above the road is used for recreation areas, shops, restaurants, etc! covering creates ground level differences up to 8 m Rijkswaterstaat, Bouwdienst, The Netherlands

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 91 of 91 DATASHEET: GM-PROP-18 - BENDED SCREENS Problem Expected noise reduction Detailed description/objectives Example Cost Interactions Limitations Further information road traffic noise, existing buildings nearby the motorway 10 20 db(a)! screen at one side of the road, made of transparent material (PMMA) in steel frames between concrete posts (13 m distance)! height of the screen is 9,7 m noise barrier A16 Dordrecht (NL) 10.000.000,00 for a total length of 1,01 km (costs in 1996)! effective for buildings nearby the road! sound insulation of the construction requires special attention Rijkswaterstaat, Bouwdienst, The Netherlands