Instructions for preparation of papers to be included in the proceedings of INTER-NOISE 2013

Motor Vehicle Noise a mirage that should be considered as unparalleled INTER-NOISE 2013Henk Wolfert

DCMR EPAP.O. Box 3100 AV, Schiedam, the NetherlandsABSTRACTNoise generated by motor vehicles is the main course of the noise burden in Europe. To reduce the noise this means that measures are needed at multiple level. By the European Commission action was taken by means of issuing the revision of directive 70/175/EEC. In this directive the noise of four wheeled motor vehicles is addressed. The latest modification of this directive has been in 1995, almost 20 years ago. However, this modification has not lead to lower noise by vehicles. Main reason would be the test method that was quite different to real driving conditions. The revision of the directive, as meant in the Commissions proposal of 9 December 2011 (COM)2011/856, was scrutinised by Working Group Noise EUROCITIES. After finalising the proposal of the Commission the dossier has been proceeded to the European Parliament. The Committee for Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) was responsible for reporting on this dossier. Other committees have been involved as well, like the parliamentary committees on Transport & Tourism (TRAN) and Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO). In this paper an overview of the process and some general and specific remarks from the cities perspectives1. INTRODUCTION

According to the Noise Observatory [1], road traffic noise is the most dominant noise sort and contributes the most to the total noise burden in Europe. This is depicted in figure 1. The data depicted is based on the first round of noise mapping according to the Environmental Noise Directive 200/49/EC, further abbreviated as END [2]. Due to al kind of factors one should consider these data as indicative. This because not all data is delivered in a proper way and Member States have used different methodologies, different software and have been modelling in a non-harmonized way [3,4].That makes that data of different Member States is hardly comparable. However, there is no better data and should work with it as long as better data lacks. In the Green Paper on future noise [5] it was mentioned that since 1970 the noise of individual cars had been decreased with 85% and the noise from lorries even with 90%. This should be considered as a misconception. The permissible noise emission limits (emission limit values) went down with 8-11 dB, but not the noise. Due to the quite liberal limits, many cars could already comply with them, the noise of vehicles hardly went down. Especially at low speeds and acceleration this could be noticed. figure 1: noise burden in Europe (source: noise observatory)

The tipping point for passenger cars lays around 35 km/hr and for lorries the tipping point is around 70 km/hr. While tire rolling noise was not included in the test method in that time, the tires became wider and wider and also noisier, it could be concluded that noise originated by vehicles has increased. Not only because of these factors but also because the total mileage and number of vehicles that also increased in the past decades, see figure 2. Traffic grew last decades with 1.5% per annum.

figure 2: traffic growth, source statistical pocketbook EUIn 2008 European cities reported that road traffic noise was their most important noise problem [6] on that specific moment. They also feared the future because of the expected growth of vehicles. By the European Environmental Agency was reported that about 110 million European residents are exposed to noise levels above 55 dB Lden. It is widely known that end of pipe measures at local level do not lower the noise sufficiently. They only mitigate the noise partly but cannot reduce it to the preferred noise levels. By end-of-pipe measures here is meant traffic management, quiet road surfaces, changing the road profile, et cetera. As a last resort insulation of faades, windows and roofs is considered. Even measures meant to curb the vehicles out of the city or city center do not yield enough reductions. The proposal of the European Commission [7], published in 2011, aimed to tighten the noise of motorized vehicles, was received with enthusiasm by European cities and some Member States. Implementation of this proposal would mean an overall decrease of the noise and it would be the most cost-effective measure that could be taken in order to fight the road traffic noise. 2. HISTORYThe first legislation as mentioned afore stems from 1970. The council of the European Economic Community published directive 70/157/EEC [8]. This directive comprised seven categories of vehicles varying from passenger cars suitable for the transportation of max 9 persons until lorries with a power of more than 200 PK. De permissible noise levels amounted from 72-91 dB(A). The prescribed test method could be defined as rather simple especially compared with the current one. From 1970 until 2013 this directive has been revised eleven times. Only four times, in 1982, 1989 and 1996 the permissible noise levels have been revised. The results of these revisions could be defined as rather poor, as depicted in figures 3 and 4.

figure 3 and 4: evolution of vehicle noiseDe reasons that these revisions did not result in significant reductions are:

a. Ample limits, most of the vehicles could easily comply with those limitsb. Testing method was modified a number of times which resulted in a weaker regime

c. Tires were not included in the test

d. Test method is based on fast acceleration which means that a moderate driving style automatically leads to a reduction.

After a period of long preparations, the European Commission published on 9 December 2011 the proposal for stricter noise emission limit values. During the process the European Commission weakened her original demands by accepting worn tires during the test. That meant less stricter limits and no push to use quieter tires. The proposal consist of two phases. Phase I implied strengthening of the limits 5 years after the publication of the Commissions proposal and phase II with additional reductions after 7 years. Resulting in about 4-5 dB for passenger cars and 3 dB for lorries. By EUROCITIES, some Member States and also a few NGOs was plead for a third phase including more reduction. They also asked for a mandatory study to further reductions, to be executed by the automotive industry. These suggestions have not been adopted by the European Commission unfortunately. In the end of the process of drafting the Commissions proposal parties agreed with the proposal because this could be a first important step towards a quieter vehicle in twenty years. Parties, including EUROCITIES were more or less satisfied with the final proposal of the European Commission.

The Commissions final proposal was sent to the Environmental Committee of the European Parliament (ENVI Committee) for further elaboration. Within the ENVI Committee Mr Miroslav Ouzky was appointed as rapporteur. By the ENVI Committee a large number of amendments have been sent in. Automotive industry launched a strong lobby in order to influence the ENVI committee and her rapporteur in order to reach weaker limits. By Member States, EUROCITIES and NGOs was lobbied as well in order to reach stricter norms. During the vote of the ENVI Committee, on 18 December 2012, the ENVI Committee voted in favor of the Commissions proposal with a number of amendments sent in during the negotiations in that committee. An important part of the Commissions proposal remained. Automotive industry and also the car minded rapporteur were enormous disappointed. The rapporteur decided to send his report to the European Parliament for a plenary discussion and vote. 3. OUTCOMES PLENARY VOTE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTOn the 6th of February 2013 the European Parliament voted on the report sent by the ENVI committee. The decisions made by the parliament made clear that the parliament acknowledges that a more effective noise emission policy is needed. This because measures taken by the Member States are not sufficient. The parliament also acknowledged that road traffic noise is the most contributing kind of noise in Europe and is harmful for human health. Further investigations in the health effects from noise are needed, the parliament said. The European Parliament also decided that a horizontal approach of road traffic noise is needed which means that not only the noise generated by vehicles should be taken into consideration but also noise from tires and road surfaces. Other interventions like noise barriers should also be taken into account. Those positions can hardly be discussed, it is true and they should be considered as well. The positions of the parliament are, shortly:1. The permissible noise emission levels for passenger cars are strengthen with about 4 dB (average). These new limits will enter into force six years after the publication of the directive for new passenger cars and eight years for new type of cars. Some type of passenger cars should even be 5 dB quieter but due to the test method the final result will be almost zero, see also under 7 and 11.2. The permissible noise levels for the two largest categories of lorries will not be sharpened. The heaviest lorry is even allowed to make 1 dB more noise!

3. The permissible noise levels for freight vehicles are strengthened with about 3 dB averaged. However, this is just optical due to the test method and a number of amendments raised during the discussions in the parliament. The final result will be about 1 dB.

4. For sport cars and certain categories of vehicles meant for freight transport new categories are included in the legislation and the parliament also modified the categories. Comparing the new limits with the old ones is not an easy job and it should be concluded that this has lead to a lot of confusing among Members of Parliament and their officers.5. New vehicles should be applied with a noise label which gives consumers the opportunity to choose for a quiet car. It is similar to energy, CO2 and other product labels.

6. Electric and hybrid cars should be applied with extra noise in order to avoid collisions between these type of cars and bikers or pedestrians. This extra noise is called AVAS which stands for Acoustic Vehicle Alerting System.

7. A new test method will be used which is based on the method that has been proposed by the UNECE's working group on noise and which was published in 2007. This method approximates the real driving conditions. Introducing this method means that that will be outcomes laying 2 dB (average) below the current test method. Introducing a new test method should mean that norms should be modified in a neutral way.8. European Commission shall come up with classification guidelines for quiet road surfaces.9. European Commission en Member States should encourage soft modes of mobility, such as biking and walking. Especially in urban areas.

10. Member States are allowed to implement measure and initiatives to stimulate the purchase and use of quiet vehicles. Presumably this will be financial and fiscal stimuli. 11. Last but not least: two years after the date that the directive enters into force the European Commission shall conduct an survey on the effects of the proposed directive on other domains like safety, CO2 emissions, air pollution and the (economical) position of the car-industry. When needed the European Commission is allowed to come up with proposal to modify this regulation on motor vehicle noise. 4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONOn the first glance it seems that by means of the Commission's proposal, amended and approved by the Parliament, an important step has been made to reduce the noise along traffic roads in Europe. Based on the limits proposed, the noise emissions of passenger cars will go down with about 3 dB. The introduction of a new test method similar to real driving conditions is also a step forward. However, to what extend this 3 dB stricter emission norms and this new test method will work out on various type of roads is not immediately clear. Therefore additional estimations should be made due to the distribution of the vehicles, the volume, the speed, et cetera. Recently a report was published [14] that indicates the effects in practice along the roads. The average reduction along the various roads amounts 2.8 dB, based on the Commissions proposal and 1.9 dB for the parliaments proposal. To compare: the Commissions proposal would lead to a reduction of the noise emission of 3.4 dB and the parliaments proposal to 1.9 dB. From that report we can read that are confronted with what is expressed as in cauda venenum or in English, the devil is in the detail. In the proposal adopted by the parliament it can be found that there are some amended articles and strophes that are rather contra productive. As mentioned afore the new test method allows noisier vehicles to enter the market where they were not allowed under the current test method. These causes are:

1. It is allowed to test with worn tires that can comply with the legal threat depth of 1.6 mm for passenger vehicles. Lorries and vans have limits for threat depth as well since 2012 however, these are not harmonized among Member States. Tires having more threat depth make more noise as commonly known. It is estimates that the difference amounts 2-3 dB.2. The limit values count only for the proto-type vehicle that is brought to the test track. Similar vehicles of that kind, produced in series, are allowed to make 1 dB more noise.

3. The maximum acceleration of the vehicle is modified from 3m/sec2 to 2 m/sec2 which means that sport cars can comply easier to the limit values.One could wonder whether there are only negative consequences coming from the parliaments proposal. Fortunately there is also positive news. Noise labeling of vehicles is proposed which means that consumers have a choice to buy a silent cars instead of a noisy one. If this will be seen in practice is the question because it can be doubt whether sound is a (unique) selling point. Motives when buying a car are until now quite different [10]. Even awareness will not lead to another buying behavior [11] because buying behavior is more irrational when buying a car than when buying other consumer goods. Psychological factors play an important role when buying cars [12]. Another positive element of the parliaments proposal is that road surfaces used for testing should be in with according ISO 10844 published in 2011[13]. This should be realized five years after publication of the legislation. The report of the rapporteur contains an article that allows testing on an absorbing road surface. It can be imagined how this influences the outcomes of the test!4.1 DISCUSSIONThe next step in the procedure to get this legislation into force is the treatment in the Working Party of the European Council. Negotiations and discussions until the midst of May did not result in stricter limit values. By the Irish Presidency a TNO report was published that showed in a easy way the consequences for various type of roads for the three scenarios (current limits, the proposal of the European Commission and the proposal of the European Parliament). This report has been presented in the working party by the Irish Presidency on 27 May 2013. During the meeting of the Working Party it was decided that the noise emission reductions for passenger cars shall amount 4 dB for passenger cars and 3 dB for heavier cars. The car industry is offered a longer timeframe, this was extended until 8-10 years. At the time writing this paper no detailed information was available.A lot of speculations were held about the reluctant attitude of the car-industry. Why not agreeing with the Commissions proposal? A lot of vehicles (40%-70%) already can comply with the proposed limit values. It does not require new technology because it is already available, on the shelve. Some measures are even beneficial for energy savings and air pollution emissions.

Other objections raised by the car-industry are mainly financial objections, however making a vehicle quieter is not very expansive. It has been calculated that 1 dB reduction costs 100 per car. Finally these costs will be paid by the buyers of the car which presumably is not a problem. A car that costs 300 or 500 more will be no reason to let the purchase. Lead time is another objection raised by the car-industry. They need sufficient lead time. However, a lead time of 6-8 years seems to be sufficient to make the vehicles quieter. New models appear with less lead time. A last objection to report is more a complain about the enormous amount of regulation that car-industry has to taken into account. Among that legislation the noise legislation. It is true that legislation on vehicles is extensive and comprehensive. However, it is not necessary to complain because vehicle industry and vehicle transportation is one of the utmost economical sectors having a tremendous impact in many domains (employment, economy, infrastructure, environment, et cetera). To that extent legislation cannot be defined as disproportionate.

6.CONCLUSIONSIt can be concluded that despite many years of hard work and many efforts the noise along traffic roads hardly will decrease. Lobbies for significant stricter emission limit values failed apparently so far. The proposal launched by the European Commission was not so ambitious but after all reasonable. The proposal adopted by the parliament could be defined as a slap in the face for the environment, for cities and the citizens as an outright defeat. Maybe it is possible that the discussions and negotiations in the final meeting of the Councils Working Party, led by the Irish Presidency (27 May 2013) will lead to better results. Strengthening emission limit values for vehicles seems not to be something that is recognized by members of parliament as very important. Despite sufficient evidence on harmful effects on men and economical damage on society the European Parliament has chosen for car-industry interests and not in favor of the environment during their first reading and vote. Verder zie aantekeningen!7.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Author acknowledges Mr Boudewijn Kortbeek from the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment and Mr Erik de Graaf of M+P consultants for their advises.8.REFERENCES

[1] http://noise.eionet.europa.eu/viewer.html [2] Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 July 2002, relating the assessment and management of environmental noise.

[3] M. Paviotti et all, The assessment of environmental noise in Europe, AIA-DAGA 2013 congress at Merano..

[4] H.Wolfert, European Policies regarding Noise Assessments, Final event of the HUSH project, Florence ..April 2013.[5]European Commission, Green Paper on Future Noise 1996 COM (96) 540 final, 4 November 1996.[6]H.Wolfert et all, EUROCITIES, Noise Questionnaire 2008[7]European Commission, proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the sound level of motor vehicles. COM(2011) 865 [8]European Council, Directive70/157/EEC concerning the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles. [9]Michael Dittrich et all, Potential Impact of Latest Proposals for New European Vehicle Noise Limits. AIA-DAGA 2013 congress at Merano.[10]EUROCITIES, Paper on Urban Transport Noise 2013

[11]Technical University Eindhoven, De auto na 1945, de gepersonaliseerde auto.[12]James Mulvey, Why awareness doesnt always lead to behavourial change, 12 July 2011.[13] ISO 10844-2011 Specification of test tracks for measuring noise emitted by road vehicles and their tyres.

[14]

henk.wolfert@dcmr.nl

55