1. Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures‒‒
Preliminary results of the EIONET survey
EIONET noise workshop 2016, Copenhagen
by Bert Peeters (M+P)

2. Balancing costs and benefits
Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures ‒‒
EPA Network
interest group on traffic noise abatement (IGNA) since 2010
M+P wrote four input reports on State-of-the-Art traffic noise abatement
IGNA now has a common understanding:
road, rail and air traffic noise seriously impact public health
many succesful noise abatement measures exist
But:
noise measures cost money
budgets are limited
How to balance costs and benefits?
fifth report on cost/benefit and decision methods
This research has been performed for the IGNA, part of the EPA network.
We have been working for IGNA since 2011.
Series of reports on road, rail and air traffic noise abatement measures
Now writing a report on cost-benefit analysis and other decision methods.

3. Decision methods report
Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures ‒‒
Literature study:
decision criteria and decision methods
how to quantify the benefits?
Examples and experiences from practice in Europe:
which methods are implemented in (national) legislation or ‘common practice’?
Conclusions: comparison of methods, criteria, pros / cons
Recommendations for ‘best practice’

4. EIONET survey
Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures ‒‒

5. Survey response (July 2016)
Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures ‒‒
Open from June 14th to July 1st
17 responses
Ireland: NRA, EPA
Bulgaria: 3 municipalities, NRA
Switzerland: seperate road, rail
others: see map
Some (partial) public info added by M+P:
Netherlands
Germany UK
Belgium (Flanders)
Thank you!

6. Cost/benefit methods in national legislation
Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures ‒‒
What method is used to determine whether or not a noise abatement measure is financially justified?
Different stages / levels can be distinguished:
Legislation
only CH and NL have implemented cost/benefit methods in national legislation
Italian legislation is under development
Common practice
several other countries indicate ‘common practice’ methods: DK, SE, IE, PL, FI, BG, BE
Ad-hoc considerations
some basic ‘rules-of-thumb’, e.g. “a 0,5 m increase in barrier height must give > 1dB extra reduction”
CZ: “The intuitive approach prevails”

7. Example: Cost effectiveness in NL
Internoise The role of monetarization in decision methods for noise abatement measures ‒‒
For road & rail traffic noise abatement measures
Both costs and noise reduction are translated to “points”
Budget per building depends on noise level
Noise measures maximized by total budget for buildings in project area
Cost effectiveness rule:
if a cheaper measure exists with nearly equal noise reduction, this is sufficient
Danish system is similar, based on noise exposure number (SBT)
Dutch regulation is an example of Cost Effectiveness Analysis
Last rule is what makes this a Cost Effectiveness method: if the last 0,5 dB costs a lot of extra money, we’re not going to do it. Better to spend it somewhere else.

8. The cost argument
Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures
To what extent is the cost effectiveness of a noise abatement measure accepted as a reason not to meet the legally required or desired noise limits?
We have no legal noise limits, or only desired target values
costs are generally the main argument
“Budget is too low anyway, we are doing all we can!”
We have noise limits, but no cost effectiveness argument
current situation in IT, PL: may lead to high costs
Low cost effectiveness is legally accepted as a ‘no-go’
‘passive’ noise measures are offered if needed

9. Costs
Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures

10. Monetarization of health benefits
Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures
Monetarization: public health benefits (annoyance, sleep disturbance, disease) are expressed in money units
8 out of 15 countries use monetarization (somehow)
Values usually based on Hedonic Pricing method: effect on real estate pricing or general (EU) values:
25 €/dB/household/year (WG-HSEA)
HEATCO values
Quite big differences  need to look at this
Alternative approach:
calculate burden of disease in DALY
monetarize DALY’s with VOLY / VSL

11. Cost benefit: example from Switzerland
Internoise The role of monetarization in decision methods for noise abatement measures ‒‒
Effectivity: percentage of target levels achieved (immissions below legal limit)
Effectiveness: benefit / cost ratio
costs are LCC over 40 years; standard values exist for common noise measures
benefits are monetarized using Hedonic Pricing (house prices, rents)
Wirtschaftlichen Tragbarheitsindex: WTI = effectivity * effectiveness / 25
Noise measures with WTI ≥ 1.0 are considered further
2nd step includes other criteria

12. Other criteria Usually added “ad-hoc”, or seperate rules
Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures
Usually added “ad-hoc”, or seperate rules
Example: German / Swiss decision process
cost/benefit, followed by other criteria

13. Conclusions (1) Main common elements:
Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures
Main common elements:
costs for noise abatement measures are an important factor
other criteria are often considered
monetarization is quite common (… but values are different)
Main differences:
decision making and cost/benefit methods are quite different
cost/benefit implementation at different levels/stages
“ad hoc”  common practice  regulated

14. Conclusions (2)
Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures
Survey asks for respondant’s personal opinion: what could be improved?
more budget needed for noise abatement
more education on noise abatement
cost/benefit considerations should be included, improved or regulated
For countries looking for improvement: good examples exist within Europe
“Best practice” will be described in our report

15. Survey is re-opened! A new chance to contribute!
Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures
A new chance to contribute!
survey open until mid October
instructions will be sent out
We invite you to participate:
France
Spain
Portugal UK
Norway
Austria
Slovakia
remaining Balkan countries
Baltic states

16. Thank you! bertpeeters@mp.nl www.mplusp.eu +31 73 6589050
Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures ‒‒