Europe Begins Noise Mapping Effort

Makarand writes "The European continent has begun its fight against noise pollution by initiating a program to map noise levels for cities in the European Union with more than 250,000 people. As placing microphones on every building in London or Paris to measure noise was not practical, data on the amount of traffic carried by roads and the noise levels was fed into computers to generate a model of noise levels across the city. The model's accuracy was verified by taking readings with microphones at 100 points in the city and was found to be accurate on average to within 1 decibel. The noise maps will allow planning to insulate the public from noise by directing traffic away from residential areas and making funds available to sound-proof thin walled homes."

Comments

Rich country?

[ObviousGuy]

Sometimes I wish the U.S. government wasn't spending so much trying to build up the military and instead redirect those funds to building up the national infrastructure.

It especially pangs me when I read about things like this where the British government is spending lots of excess government funds on sound-proofing people's homes.

Re:Rich country?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm... Did you even think before you posted, or do you just like to bring politics into every possible discussion? Europe has a much higher population density, therefore you can expect noise problems to be worse. I'm from Canada, but I don't recall hearing people from the US ranting and raving about the "noise pollution". It's barely been touched on by the media.

Re:Rich country?

[RevMike]

Sometimes I wish the U.S. government wasn't spending so much trying to build up the military and instead redirect those funds to building up the national infrastructure.

It especially pangs me when I read about things like this where the British government is spending lots of excess government funds on sound-proofing people's homes.

Please explain this to me. Someone purchases a house with walls that aren't very sound proof. They presumably knew this at the time of purchase, it would be ridiculous to think otherwise. Someone else spends the time to investigate their choices, and eventually spends more money on a house with more sound proof walls. Why should the person who spent extra to buy a house with soundproof walls now have to pay additional taxes to soundproof someone else's home - someone else who didn't care enough about it to shop for that feature in the first place?

If you bought a four bedroom home, and your neighbor only bought a two bedroom home, would you expect that the tax man would come and empty your bank account so that you neighbor could get an addition built?

All this does is encourage people to do the cheapest thing possible, then use some ill concieved government program to clean up the mess afterwards.

Please note: I'm not talking about a situation where the government built an airport or some such thing near a previously quiet neighborhood. I'm talking about cases where the home-owner knew (or should have known) the conditions prior to purchase.

Re:Rich country?

[ThogScully]

I know this is Slashdot, but don't you ever go outside? Not much you can do to sound proof your yard, is there. I assume you never open your windows either? Personally, I do both and if I were in England, I would hope the government would be spending a little effort to make living areas a little more liveable.

Now, I'm from the US, so I can't say if this is useful or not to the areas being investigated because I've never been there and don't know how loud it is. Realistically, there's the potential that this is more of a made up problem and people shouldn't be so concerned as the noise levels don't warrant it. However, just from this article, I'd say that's not an assumption I can jump to.

You seem to have no trouble jumping to it though.
-N

Re:Rich country?

[gl4ss]

those houses were probably built decades ago. if they were built now they would have adequate soundproofing from day 1. it's more of a problem in old, big, central area buildings. these buildings have a lot of other problems as well though, but it's not the way you do things in certain countries that you would just demolish them and build them again properly(and sometimes it's wanted to keep the old buildings as heritage in the city picture). these buildings that are in the centres of the cities are sometimes 50 or more years old, and back then soundproofing wasn't viewed as necessity(there weren't that much noise anyways).

it's in goverments(the peoples!) intrest to protect the people from stress that comes from extra noise.. it costs money you know when people are unable to work for some reason or another. you could argue that it's in their(peoples) intrest to spend the money in nukes that are then stored in silos for 50 years and then thrown away as well, but i might not agree(the nukes don't up the productivity or enhance the living quality).

Re:Rich country?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course this doesn't actually put the cost of the things on the people who benefit from them.

No, of course you don't charge homeowners extra money in order to run a motorway through their back garden. Are you insane? Even putting up a sound barrier probably won't prevent the value of the nearby property from falling, so actually you should be charging tolls on all new or enlarged roads and paying a proportion of those tolls to people who live nearby.

Re:Rich country?

[aallan]

Please explain this to me. Someone purchases a house with walls that aren't very sound proof. They presumably knew this at the time of purchase, it would be ridiculous to think otherwise. Someone else spends the time to investigate their choices, and eventually spends more money on a house with more sound proof walls. Why should the person who spent extra to buy a house with soundproof walls now have to pay additional taxes to soundproof someone else's home - someone else who didn't care enough about it to shop for that feature in the first place?

Welcome to the difference between a pure capitalist economy, and a one where some remenants of socialism still remain. The person buying the sub-standard house might not be able to afford a better one? Why shouldn't our tax money be used to improve their standard of living?

All this does is encourage people to do the cheapest thing possible, then use some ill concieved government program to clean up the mess afterwards.

No, it doesn't. The "ill concieved government program" is helping improve the country's housing stock. Eventually all houses will be well sound proofed and you've improved everyone's standard of living. What's wrong with that?

The problem with far right and the far left is that there are things wrong with both capitalism and socialism. Ayn Rand is just as bad a Karl Marx.

Al.

Re:Rich country?

[RevMike]

Maybe if you consider that spending money improving problems in residential areas (like doing stuff about traffic noise) that raises the value of the area and make it a more desirable place to live might have some beneficial, if not immediate effects for everyone.

Certainly, but it would be much more effective to treat the cause rather than the effect. Would soundproofing people's homes really do that much good in improving the neighborhood if people couldn't open a window or sit in their yard for fear of the noise? Better that the noise be mitigated nearer to the source. Let people enjoy their yards and local parks to.

Re:Rich country?

[Brad]

A better solution would be to have the homeowners association pay for the sound barriers.

Within or near city centers many of the effected neighborhoods were built long before the road was expanded or even built. Many were boulivards carrying traffic at sedate speeds before their conversion to multi-lane super-highways that carry a greatly increased volume of vehicles at much higher speeds.

To follow a slightly different logic: The people using the roads should be the ones paying for them (forget about the lower taxes on diesel fuel used by the large trucks whose relentless pounding destroys the roads). As a direct result of the people using the new road, there is a large increase in noise. Therefore, as part of the roadway's construction or expansion, noise reduction needs to be included to try and mitigate some of the new noise pollution.

Alternative Traffic

[fastdecade]

About time noise pollution was taken seriously. But I'd question the solution...Instead of just diverting traffic, hopefully they look at reducing noisy types of transport and encouraging more quiet forms ---- e.g. light rail, bikes.

Re:Alternative Traffic

[gnu-generation-one]

"About time noise pollution was taken seriously. But I'd question the solution...Instead of just diverting traffic, hopefully they look at reducing noisy types of transport and encouraging more quiet forms ---- e.g. light rail, bikes."

In case anyone didn't hear about it, they introduced a "congestion charge" for driving into and around London, which has slashed the amount of traffic in the capital, and made it a much nicer, quieter place.

So yes, they have done something towards solving the source problem. Now if only the British people could get over their attitude of "anyone who doesn't own a car is a loser", they we might just get somewhere with the rest of the country.

As to spending money on measuring the noise throughout the land, think back to optimising code? Of course you spend the most money on benchmarking. Otherwise you waste a lot more money solving an irrelevant problem. So yeah, make the noise map first.

Re:traffic.equals(noise) returns false

[Dr. Evil]

According to the article, 100 microphones do, and they agree within 1 decibel.

Re:traffic.equals(noise) returns false

[thrillseeker]

According to the article, 100 microphones do [say noise comes from traffic], and they agree within 1 decibel.

So why not spend the billions developing quieter traffic? Put it into fuel cells and electric motors, for example.

Re:A thorough understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not. If you are in Europe, then you are in a country that is somewhat more socialist than the United States. However, even in Western Europe, most of the economy still remains in the hands of the people, not the state.

Nobody is ideal. The current rulling political party is Labour. The Government has control over some large sections of this countries infastructure. That's Socialist. You're right, it isn't Socialism in the sense of Eastern European communism, but then you appear to be using the Americanism of interchanging Socialism & Communism freely, when in fact they mean very different things here in Europe.

Which ones? Specifically?

I don't know. That's why they're guesses.

Anyway, here are some specifics

Because socialism is all about improving the standard of living for government elites.

Clearly demonstratably false and not even based in reality. Even if the poster could show me a PolSci text with this claim in it, they're still talking bollocks and should know it. Clearly and demonstratably false. Socialism is all about improving society through social reform and support. This includes providing improved housing for the lower classes (Witness the slum clearences of the 50's and 60's). This may or may not cause rises in house prices and better housing at the top of the chain as a side effect, but that is totally irrelevent as to what socialism is "about".

What is wrong with it is that the government meddling ends up pricing the houses higher and higher.

Several years ago the Chancelor handed control of Interest Rates to the Bank of England. A period of unequaled low interest rates and high borrowing has pushed house prices here in the U.K far higher than any EU initiative to provide sound insulation ever could. I've recently purchased a 30 year old 3 bed house with no central heating for 120,000UKP. The lack or presence of sound insulation wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference to me.

Marx inspires them to go out and kill tens of millions of people.

Again, crap and the poster knows it. Nowhere does Marx prescribe totalitarian rule or the murder of millions. Just because some bastards claimed Marx as a in influence doesn't mean anything; OBL claims Allah as an "influence" yet the vast majority of Muslims are quick to disagree with him.

All for it

[sbadelt]

Personally, I get annoyed by the sound of a Honda Civic with an open-throat muffler and the constant hammering of Harley's. I'd love to see some enforcement of reasonable noise pollution violations... not just a random smathering of acoustic foam.

Re:Rich Country? Let's talk about NY City!

[bombadillo]

"If you really want socialism, move to France or Sweden, and let us know how much happier you are after you're gone."

I lived in Europe for a couple of years and I was quite happy. After coming back to the U.S. I feel a lot less free. If it weren't for my family and love for the town that I grew up in, I would move back to Europe. I also now notice that a lot of Americans are under the impression that America is the only free country in the world and that the rest of the world is backwards and not as advanced.
"Why should I pay to make their lives more quiet? I didn't contribute to the problem. Why should I pay for the solution? You want to live there, fine, you pay for it. "

Taxes should provide solutions that better a society and that are not able to be accomplished by individuals. Did you go to a public school? I am sure there are a lot of rich people out there that don't want to pay for public education. After all they don't send their kids to public schools. Why should they pay for you're education?