NOISE FROM TRANSPORTATIONS IN CITIES ACTION PLANS AND BARRIER DESIGN Sergio Luzzi

1. NOISE FROM TRANSPORTATIONS IN CITIES ACTION PLANS AND BARRIER DESIGN Sergio Luzzi University of Florence Vie En.Ro.Se. Ingegneriasrl

2. 60-64 55-59 65-69 70-74 >75 URBAN AREAS Cities occupy only 2% of the world’s surface but consume up to 75% of natural resources. More than 70% of European citizens live in urban areas today, and urban dwellers are expected to increase to 80% of the total population by 2020. The "cost" of one extremely annoyed person has been estimated to be approximately 1.600 € per year. The annoyance caused by road traffic noise, corresponds to a cost of more than 800 million €. Continuous night-time road traffic noise affects 20 % of world inhabitants at levels above 55 dB(A), the threshold at which World Health Organisation considers sleep may be disturbed.

3. Noise exposure in EU (2011) Within agglomerations

4. Noise reduction can be at source, along the propagation, at the receiver. • In the EU, there is a great trend to consider noise reduction at source at first. The EU has financed numerous research projects to reduce noise at source (e.g.: development of new asphalts, new tyres, electric vehicles, railway wheel and rail vibration dampers, new brake blocks of freight trains, high bypass ratio aircraft engines). (e.g.: STAIRRS, PERSUADE, RATIN, QCITY, SILENCE, X-NOISE). • Noise reduction can be in the propagation path, by means of traditional noise barriers. Research projects on improved efficient noise barriers were financed. (e.g.: QUIESST) • The EU supports and has financed research projects on the management of noise in urban areas by means of: • LIFE - (e.g.: development of best management of noise in the city, recommendations for local authorities, quiet areas within cities HUSH, QUADMAP, NADIA, SMILE). • FP7 (e.g.: development of quiet areas and techniques for quiet areas within cities, CITYHUSH). • Exceptionally by direct service contract (e.g.: EffNOISE). • Noise reduction at the receiver is also possible, but NOT at the focus of EU measures.

6. What has happened with noise in EU Legislation? 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 … END entered into force MS national transposition END review process ENDRM: relational database to structure the information 2) C-NOSSOS: Common Assessment Methods 2nd set: noise strategic maps 4th set: all noise sources 5th set: all noise strategic maps 6th set: all noise action plans 1st set: noise sources 3rd set: noise action plans Data delivered

7. ACTION PLANS FOR NOISE REDUCTION AND CONTROL Directive 2002/49/EC (Environmental Noise Directive) • ANNEX V • MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ACTION PLANS • referred to in Article 8 • 1. An action plan must at least include the following elements: • a description of the agglomeration, the major roads, the major railways or major airports and other noise sources taken into account, • a summary of the results of the noise mapping, • an evaluation of the estimated number of people exposed to noise, identification of problems and situations that need to be improved, • any noise-reduction measures already in force and any projects in preparation, • actions which the competent authorities intend to take in the next five years, including any measures to preserve quiet areas, • long-term strategy, • financial information (if available): budgets, cost-effectiveness assessment, cost-benefit assessment, • provisions envisaged for evaluating the implementation and the results of the action plan. • ANNEX V • MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ACTION PLANS • referred to in Article 8 • 2. The actions which the competent authorities intend to take in the fields within their competence may for example include: • - traffic planning, • land-use planning, • technical measures at noise sources, • - selection of quieter sources, • - reduction of sound transmission, • - regulatory or economic measures or incentives. • 3. Each action plan should contain estimates in terms of the reduction of the number of people affected (annoyed, sleep disturbed, or other). • Article 8 • Action plans • Member States shall ensure that no later than 18 July 2008 the competent authorities have drawn up action plans designed to manage, within their territories, noise issues and effects, including noise reduction if necessary. The measures within the plans are at the discretion of the competent authorities, but should notably address priorities which may be identified by the exceeding of any relevant limit value or by other criteria chosen by the Member States and apply in particular to the most important areas as established by strategic noise mapping. • Member States shall ensure that, no later than 18 July 2013, the competent authorities have drawn up action plans notably to address priorities which may be identified by the exceeding of any relevant limit value or by other criteria chosen by the Member States for the agglomerations and for the major roads as well as the major railways within their territories. • Article 1 • Objectives • The aim of this Directive shall be to define a common approach intended to avoid, prevent or reduce on a prioritised basis the harmful effects, including annoyance, due to exposure to environmental noise. To that end the following actions shall be implemented progressively: • (a) the determination of exposure to environmental noise, through noise mapping, by methods of assessment common to the Member States; • (b) ensuring that information on environmental noise and its effects is made available to the public; • (c) adoption of action plans by the Member States, based upon noise-mapping results, with a view to preventing and reducing environmental noise where necessary and particularly where exposure levels can induce harmful effects on human health and to preserving environmental noise quality where it is good.

8. ACTION PLANS Directive 2002/49/EC Aims The aim of this Directive shall be …(should have been…) … to define acommon approachintended to avoid, prevent or reduceon a prioritised basis theharmful effects, including annoyance, due to exposure toenvironmental noise. Requirements a) Determination of exposure to environmental noise, through noise mapping, by methods of assessment common to the Member States; b) Information on environmental noise and its effects has to be made available to the public; c)Action plans toprevent and reduce environmental noise and to preserve environmental noise quality where it is good. d)Public has to be consulted about action plans. Results of participation have to be taken into account in the process of action planning. e) Noise mapping + action planning data has to be sent to the Commission

9. Area / source to be investigated Strategic noise maps Action plans ACTION PLANS Agglomerations >250,000 inhabitants 30 June 2007 18 July 2008 >100,000 inhabitants 30 June 2012 18 July 2013 Major roads >6,000,000 vehicle passages per year 30 June 2007 18 July 2008 >3,000,000 vehicle passages per year 30 June 2012 18 July 2013 Major railways >60,000 train passages per year 30 June 2007 18 July 2008 >30,000 train passages per year 30 June 2012 18 July 2013 Major airports >50,000 movements per year 30 June 2007 18 July 2008 Directive 2002/49/EC Timetable END requirements have to be fulfilled acc. to the following timetable:

10. ACTION PLANS INPUT: noise maps INPUT: sensitive receivers INPUT: squares INPUT: play-grounds INPUT: public gardens INPUT: school gardens ACOUSTIC MODEL INPUT: parks INPUT: road, railways, airports SPL facade points QUIET AREAS DETECTION PROCEDURE HOTSPOT DETECTION PROCEDURE QUIET AREAS HOTSPOTS INDEX OF CRITICITY DEFINITION QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF NOISE Leq,D ≤ QUALITY REF. LEVEL QUIET AREAS TO BE PRESERVED QUIET AREAS TO BE REDESIGNED no yes QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF SOUNDSCAPES ACTION PLANNING STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN (Actions) HANDBOOK OF GENERAL SOLUTIONS SOLUTIONS DESIGNING OPERATIVE PLANS (Solutions) MONITORING Urban agglomeration action planning procedure

11. ACTION PLANS INPUT: noise maps INPUT: sensitive receivers INPUT: squares INPUT: play-grounds INPUT: public gardens INPUT: school gardens ACOUSTIC MODEL INPUT: parks INPUT: road, railways, airports SPL facade points QUIET AREAS DETECTION PROCEDURE HOTSPOT DETECTION PROCEDURE QUIET AREAS HOTSPOTS INDEX OF CRITICITY DEFINITION QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF NOISE Leq,D ≤ QUALITY REF. LEVEL QUIET AREAS TO BE PRESERVED QUIET AREAS TO BE REDESIGNED no yes QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF SOUNDSCAPES ACTION PLANNING STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN (Actions) HANDBOOK OF GENERAL SOLUTIONS SOLUTIONS DESIGNING OPERATIVE PLANS (Solutions) MONITORING

12. ACTION PLANS Actions for Noise Reduction Actions can be direct or strategic. DIRECT ACTIONS noise barriers, tunnels, low-noise paving, windows, etc. STRATEGIC ACTIONS public transport improvement, walking and cycling roads, speed reduction, road travel restrictions and parking by fees. Local regulation can assist these objectives.

13. ACTION PLANS Typologies of Noise Barrier Reinforced terrein Transparent materials Vegetation “Cotto” Bricks Wooden panel Concrete Metallic Panel HANDBOOK OF GENERAL SOLUTIONS Technical Record for Noise Barrier Barrier efficency depends on: Position: distance from source; Height: source must be not “visible” from all receivers Lunghezza: lateral diffraction effects must be considered Materials (quantity and density): reduce the amount of energy that impacts the receiver

14. SOUNDSCAPES FOR QUIET AREAS - FLORENCE TERRITORIAL PLACEMENT

15. SOUNDSCAPES FOR QUIET AREAS - FLORENCE Quiet areas in Florence Hotspots In Florence

16. application of soundscapes based methodology Binaurali Earphones Microtrack Recorder Sound Meter Instumentation for soundwalks 5

17. SOUNDSCAPES FOR QUIET AREAS - FLORENCE Fortezza Gardens TERRITORIAL PLACEMENT TRADE SHOW AREA FOUNTAIN TRAFFIC LIGHT INTERSECTION FILIPPO STROZZI AVENUE

18. SOUNDSCAPES FOR QUIET AREAS - FLORENCE Fortezza Gardens LOCATION OF ACOUSTICALLY FUNCTIONAL AREAS area 4 area 1 area 3 area 2

19. SOUNDSCAPES FOR QUIET AREAS - FLORENCE Fortezza Gardens NOISE MEASUREMENTS

20. SOUNDSCAPES FOR QUIET AREAS - FLORENCE area 1 area 2 area 3 70 horn horn 60 voices twittering voices horn 50 voices twittering voices Notes area 1- ground noise: fountain and traffic Notes area 2 – ground noise: traffic Fortezza Gardens SOUNDWALKS

21. M. Shafer: “The tuning of the world” Vancouver Press, 1977 Perception Menzel, Haufe, Fastl: “Colour-influences on loudness judgements” Proceedings of ICA 2010 , Sydney

22. ACOUSTICAL DESIGN OF BARRIERS

23. STANDARD PROCEDURE for acoustic design of railway noise barriers

24. ACQUISITION OF TERRITORIAL DATA 3D vector cartography, topographic surveys, maps and characterization of the rail line, database of the receivers ACOUSTIC CHARACTERIZATION OF SOURCES overview of trains, noise and velocity measurements data processing CONSTRUCTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CALCULATION MODEL CALIBRATION via comparison with measured data no INPUT DATA CORRECTION STANDARD PROCEDURE for acoustic design of railway noise barriers yes RESULTS noise at receivers’ facades ante operam INSERTION OF BARRIER IN THE MODEL AND SIMULATIONS NOISE LIMITS TO RECEIVERS EXCEEDED ? RESULTS noise at receivers’ facades post operam no yes INPUT DATA CORRECTION BARRIER DESIGN choice of typology and calculation of acoustic and structural dimensions

25. BARRIERS FOR RAILWAY NOISE acoustical • The barrier is composed of: • supporting basement inclined of 12° towards the railroad, with medium sound absorbing surface (height 2.00 meters over the track level), • superior heavily absorbing layer realized with 0.50 m modules reaching the maximum permitted height of 7.50 m, according to the acoustic design. new RFI standard

26. BARRIERS FOR RAILWAY NOISE prospect

27. BARRIERS FOR RAILWAY NOISE modules

28. BARRIERS FOR RAILWAY NOISE structural • supporting basement in cast reinforced concrete into external quarter-deck • steel vertical rod fixed to the foundation plinth • foundation on single plinths • subfoundation of injected micro piles

29. BARRIERS FOR RAILWAY NOISE structural • pre-fabricated supporting basement in reinforced concrete • steel vertical rod fixed to the foundation plinth • foundation on single plinths • subfoundation of injected micro piles

30. BARRIERS FOR RAILWAY NOISE architecture Florence barriers structural standards Vertical views of a barrier inserted along an existing railroad – interference with electric pole

31. BARRIERS FOR RAILWAY NOISE architecture Florence barriers structural standards Portal

32. PROBLEMS IN APPLICATION PURSUIT OF SOLUTIONS • Recent and homogeneous cartographic data • Topographical Plotting • 3. Measurement Points • 4. Measurements Campaigns • 5. Railway Stations • 6. Overlapping transport noise • 7. Sources Characterization • 8. Trains Classification • 9. Freight Trains Characterization • 10. Compatible and sustainable barriers • 11. Optimal and sub-optimal barriers heights • 12. Increasing heights algorithm • 13. Composition of railway noise. • 14. Secondary sources contribution • 15. Harmonization

33. PROBLEMS IN APPLICATION • Some examples of operational difficulties: • interferences with signal structures (elevation) • signal visibility: to improve the signal visibility is possible to remove the overhang or moving back the barrier

34. PROBLEMS IN APPLICATION • Some examples of operational difficulties: • interferences with signal & power line structures (foundation)

35. PROBLEMS IN APPLICATION • Some examples of operational difficulties: • interferences with power line structures (elevation)

36. CONCLUSIONS Action Plans are designed to manage, within their territories, noise issues and effects, including noise reduction if necessary, and shall aim to protect quiet areas against an increase in noise. Railway Noise is one of the most important source of annoyance to be reduced in the interest of safeguarding the environment. Noise barriers are at the moment the most widespread acoustical mitigation intervention typology used for the railway infrastructure. • The reasons are: • Simplicity of execution technologies; • Relevant acoustical effectiveness; • Durability. • Models of noise barrier design have to be : • stressed by applying them on critical scenarios, • adapted to national and local standards and political choices, • improved with rules of compatibility and sustainability.

37. Thank you! sergio.luzzi@unifi.it sergio.luzzi@vienrose.it