TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 1 of 49 QCITY issued: 13-02-08 D5-6_ACC_36M.doc DELIVERABLE D5.6 CONTRACT N° TIP4-CT-2005-516420 PROJECT N° FP6-516420 ACRONYM QCITY TITLE Quiet City Transport Subproject SP5 Design & implementation of solutions at validation sites Work Package 5.6 Augsburg validation site – Town planning Performance report of applied measures - Augsburg Written by Markus Petz Robert Witte ACC Date of issue of this report 13.02.2008 PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR Acoustic Control ACL SE PARTNERS Accon ACC DE Akron AKR BE Amec Spie Rail AMEC FR 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 SE 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 AU 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
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 1 of 49
QCITY issued: 13-02-08
D5-6_ACC_36M.doc
DELIVERABLE D5.6
CONTRACT N° TIP4-CT-2005-516420
PROJECT N° FP6-516420
ACRONYM QCITY
TITLE Quiet City Transport
Subproject SP5 Design & implementation of solutions at validation sites
Work Package 5.6 Augsburg validation site – Town planning
Performance report of applied measures - Augsburg
Written by Markus Petz
Robert Witte
ACC
Date of issue of this report 13.02.2008
PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR Acoustic Control ACL SE PARTNERS Accon ACC DE
Akron AKR BE Amec Spie Rail AMEC FR 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 SE 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 AU 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
1 OBJECTIVE OF THE WORKPACKAGE........................................................................................................................5
2 SELECTION OF SITE ......................................................................................................................................................6
3 AREA OF INVESTIGATION...........................................................................................................................................7
3.1 General information For Augsburg ................................................................................................................7 3.2 Traffic situation within Augsburg.....................................................................................................................7 3.3 Noise exposure within Augsburg ....................................................................................................................7
3.3.1 Potential for noise reduction ......................................................................................................................8 3.3.2 Traffic noise situation....................................................................................................................................8
4.1 Input data for noise maps and noise analysis .......................................................................................... 11 4.1.1 Digital Terrain Model ................................................................................................................................. 11 4.1.2 Building Model ........................................................................................................................................... 11 4.1.3 Obstacles .................................................................................................................................................... 11 4.1.4 Traffic network............................................................................................................................................ 11
4.2 General approach towards action planning........................................................................................... 12 4.3 general methodology................................................................................................................................... 13
5 CALCULATION AND EVALUATION METHODS ...................................................................................................... 14
5.1 Calculation methods..................................................................................................................................... 14 5.2 Evaluation of noise exposure – population exposure to Noise levels lden ............................................ 14 5.3 Evaluation of noise exposure – Noise Score.............................................................................................. 15 5.4 Evaluation of parks & open space amenity areas .................................................................................. 16
6 TOWN PLANNING MEASURES WITHIN THE SCENARIOS....................................................................................... 18
6.1 Overview of the Maximilianstrasse.............................................................................................................. 18 6.1.1 Insulated glazing and ventilation provisions......................................................................................... 19 6.1.2 Silent road surface..................................................................................................................................... 19 6.1.3 Building layout with noise sensitive rooms on quiet sides ................................................................... 19
6.2 Overview of the redevelopment area No. 8 ............................................................................................ 20 6.2.1 General conditions and potential for development: ......................................................................... 22 6.2.2 Planning concept...................................................................................................................................... 22 6.2.3 Scenario A .................................................................................................................................................. 22 6.2.4 Scenario B ................................................................................................................................................... 23 6.2.5 Scenario C .................................................................................................................................................. 23 6.2.6 Scenario D .................................................................................................................................................. 24 6.2.7 Scenario E ................................................................................................................................................... 25
TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 3 of 49
QCITY issued:13-02-08
D5-6_ACC_36M.doc
7 EFFECTS OF TOWN PLANNING INTERVENTION MEASURES ................................................................................. 26
7.1 Insulated glazing and ventilation provisions ............................................................................................. 26 7.1.1 Effects on the number of people exposed........................................................................................... 26 7.1.2 Effects on the Noise Score ....................................................................................................................... 27 7.1.3 Costs of the insulated glazing and ventilation provisions................................................................... 27
7.2 silent road surface.......................................................................................................................................... 28 7.2.1 Effects on the number of people exposed........................................................................................... 28 7.2.2 Effects on the Noise Score ....................................................................................................................... 28 7.2.3 Costs of the silent road surface............................................................................................................... 29
7.3 Building layout with noise sensitive rooms at quiet sides ........................................................................ 29 7.3.1 Effects on the number of people exposed........................................................................................... 29 7.3.2 Effects on the Noise Score ....................................................................................................................... 30
7.4 Reorganisation / reconstruction of entire urban areas........................................................................... 31 7.4.1 Effects on the number of people exposed........................................................................................... 31 7.4.2 Effects on the Noise Score ....................................................................................................................... 34 7.4.3 Recreational quality of parks .................................................................................................................. 38
9 ANNEX A ................................................................................................................................................................... 41
9.1 Maximilianstrasse............................................................................................................................................ 41 9.2 Redevelopment area No. 8 ......................................................................................................................... 43
9.2.1 Land utilisation – status quo..................................................................................................................... 44 9.2.2 Land utilisation – scenario A .................................................................................................................... 45 9.2.3 Land utilisation – scenario B..................................................................................................................... 46 9.2.4 Land utilisation – scenario C.................................................................................................................... 47 9.2.5 Land utilisation – scenario D .................................................................................................................... 48 9.2.6 Land utilisation – scenario E..................................................................................................................... 49
TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 4 of 49
QCITY issued: 13-02-08
D5-6_ACC_36M.doc
0 E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
Using Augsburg as an example the noise reduction potential of different town-
planning measures has been determined both for short-term, mid-term and long-
term strategies. Accordingly, detailed statistics of the noise effects inside two
different areas of Augsburg were calculated so that the performance of different
measures could be detected and could partially be compared. As a result one can
say that short-term strategies are sensible and effective when there is an acute need
for action. The implementation of mid-term and long-term measures can be very
effective and can at the same time ensure a high quality of life by implementing
green areas for example, but often will be hard to realize. In general all measures do
have advantages and disadvantages alike and often the costs of measures are their
biggest disadvantage. Therefore it is not that easy to choose between one or
another specific measure. Instead the best choice often will be a combination of
different measures. Reasonable cost-benefit ratio with limited costs for cities as well
as the owners of property can be realized if a combination of measures is attributed
to both parties. In the long run a sustainable, positive development can be ensured
through the implementation of mixed utilisation areas.
TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 5 of 49
QCITY issued: 13-02-08
D5-6_ACC_36M.doc
1 O B J E C T I V E O F T H E W O R K P A C K A G E
Within this study different town planning measures can be analysed and compared
with respect to their noise effects and costs. The study has been carried out for
specific areas of Augsburg and the town planning measures which have been
analysed can be subdivided in three parts:
• Measures concerning the short-term strategy for actual situations e.g. passive
sound insulation (insulated glazing and ventilation provisions);
• Measures concerning the medium-term strategy for actual situations and
new development such as the orientation of building layouts with noise
sensitive rooms on quiet sides; and
• Measures concerning the long-term strategy of urban areas within the scope
of urban redevelopment.
TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 6 of 49
QCITY issued: 13-02-08
D5-6_ACC_36M.doc
2 S E L E C T I O N O F S I T E
The city of Augsburg has been chosen for the study of town planning measure
interventions, because of the availability of noise information as well as its complete
digital city model with all the required 3d-model information including a terrain
model, roads, buildings and other obstacles. From this information accurate noise
maps are available and the number of people exposed to a specific noise level can
be determined for each building. Another reason for choosing Augsburg is that the
Environmental Agency and the agency of urban planning are both willing to support
the Quiet City Project.
For detailed analysis two different areas within Augsburg have been selected:
Measures that can be implemented in the short- or medium term were analysed
within an example situation alongside the “Maximilianstrasse” in Augsburg, because
at this location we have a typical, highly exposed sector with a significant demand
for noise mitigation measures.
Measures concerning the long-term strategy of urban areas have been analysed
within the redevelopment area No. 8 since at this location intensive considerations
for its restructuring have been made and detailed utilisation scenarios were
designed by architects on behalf of the City of Augsburg.
TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 7 of 49
QCITY issued: 13-02-08
D5-6_ACC_36M.doc
3 A R E A O F I N V E S T I G A T I O N
3.1 GENERAL INFORMATION FOR AUGSBURG
The city of Augsburg with its 280.000 inhabitants is a central point of Bavaria. In 2000
years of development a townscape has evolved, which is marked by its old town.
From 1800 until 1950 Augsburg was famous for its textile industry which nowadays
leaves large industrial areas to be reintegrated into the general urban fabric. Since
the 19th century large scale industry (mechanical engineering, paper
manufacturing) was established into the inner city area.
3.2 TRAFFIC SITUATION WITHIN AUGSBURG
The transport network of Augsburg contains 625 km of public roads, 73 km of tram rail
tracks and 70 km of heavy railway. There is no existing underground rail network.
3.3 NOISE EXPOSURE WITHIN AUGSBURG
The historical city wall which surrounds Augsburg creates a constrained traffic
situation with very few main roads leading into and out of Augsburg. This results in a
noise exposure from road traffic which is to be seen as problematic. Narrow roads,
highly dense areas and historical roadbeds contribute considerably to the noise
climate in the city.
The contribution of the national railway, tram and industrial noise can be neglected
compared to the noise exposure caused by road traffic. The contribution of aircraft
noise can be classified as insignificant.
In 2000 the city of Augsburg began to develop a noise information system which
enables them to identify the noise exposure in every region. Additionally the local
population are able to access information about the noise climate via the Internet
at any time (www.laermkarten.de).
In 2003 the city of Augsburg started developing noise reduction plans together with
rehabilitation programs and for different parts of the city noise reduction measures
were planned and implemented. In line with this, urbanism and traffic planning noise
reduction and noise prevention methods are being investigated and implemented.
The noise reduction plans are determined and implemented by the urban
management office, the environmental agency and the Civil Engineering Office.
TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 8 of 49
QCITY issued: 13-02-08
D5-6_ACC_36M.doc
3.3.1 Potential for noise reduction
There are a range of possibilities and opportunities to reduce the noise exposure in
the inner city such as:
• Planning the building layout with noise sensitive rooms on the quiet side;
• Additional or improved sound insulation glazing and acoustic ventilation
provisions; and
• Land utilisation plans to reduce acoustical conflicts in within living areas.
3.3.2 Traffic noise situation
The following two figures present the noise maps of the agglomeration of Augsburg
which have been produced for the noise level- indices of Lden and Lnight. They are
also accessible on http://www.qcity.org/maps with scales of 1:400000 up to 1:25000.
TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 9 of 49
QCITY issued: 13-02-08
D5-6_ACC_36M.doc
Figure 1: Noise map - traffic noise Lden / City of Augsburg
TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 10 of 49
QCITY issued: 13-02-08
D5-6_ACC_36M.doc
Figure 2: Noise map - traffic noise Lnight / City of Augsburg
Furthermore all residential buildings have been identified where the facade noise
levels exceed the limiting values of Lden and / or Lnight (Lden > 65 dB(A), Lnight >
55 dB(A)).
TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 11 of 49
QCITY issued: 13-02-08
D5-6_ACC_36M.doc
4 T H E O R E T I C A L C O N S I D E R A T I O N S
4.1 INPUT DATA FOR NOISE MAPS AND NOISE ANALYSIS
The investigation is based on the following raw data:
4.1.1 Digital Terrain Model
A digital terrain model representing a ground surface topography consisting of
contour lines or Height Points.
4.1.2 Building Model
3-dimensional digital models of buildings with information about their main useage,
acoustical characteristics (absorption) and the number of inhabitants. For areas
without detailed information, the number of inhabitants per building has been
determined by allocating the commune’s total number of inhabitants on each
building’s living space taking into account the base area and the number of floors.
4.1.3 Obstacles
They contain information about noise insulation arrangements and barriers and
reflectors etc, are taken into account.
4.1.4 Traffic network
Whilst traffic networks can be subdivided into a number of road models, train tracks
and flight paths of aircrafts movements within this study only the road networks had
to be modeled and analysed.
TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 12 of 49
QCITY issued: 13-02-08
D5-6_ACC_36M.doc
4.2 GENERAL APPROACH TOWARDS ACTION PLANNING
Figure 3 identifies the general approach towards noise mapping and action
planning.
Figure 3: General approach towards noise mapping and action planning
TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 13 of 49
QCITY issued: 13-02-08
D5-6_ACC_36M.doc
4.3 GENERAL METHODOLOGY
The following steps have been performed:
• Creating the 3-dimensional noise propagation models of the
Maximilianstrasse and the redevelopment area No. 8 with all relevant input
data, such as the digital terrain model and noise barriers as well as the
emission data of each road within the calculation areas. The data for the
redevelopment area derives from the different town planning models
created by “Baur + Deby, Architekten + Stadtplaner, Munich, September
2007”. The emission data (mean daily traffic data and classification) has
been derived according to the specifications of the city of Augsburg.
• Calculation of the noise levels has been carried out for the area of the
Maximilianstrasse as well as in each scenario of the redevelopment area No.
8 at the facades of residential buildings according to the appropriate
technical rules (European directive 2002/49/EC and its implementation in
national (German) law (34. BImSchV) with the use of the noise indicators Lden
and Lnight).
• Analysis of the effect of sound insulated glazing and acoustic ventilation
provisions as well as the effect of changes in building layout with noise
sensitive rooms on ‘quiet’ facades.
• Noise analysis for the number of people and residential buildings with noise
classes above specified limits.
• Noise Score analysis and hot spot detection.
• Comparison of the exposure of the ‘status quo’ with the planned land-use
within the areas investigated.
• Comparison of the exposure of the planned land-use with other areas and
the average level of exposure within Augsburg.
TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 14 of 49
QCITY issued: 13-02-08
D5-6_ACC_36M.doc
5 C A L C U L A T I O N A N D E V A L U A T I O N M E T H O D S
5.1 CALCULATION METHODS
In order to ensure the utility of the results for the upcoming action planning all noise
calculations were executed according to the national calculation methods which
are based on the European directive 2002/49/EC and its implementation in national
(German) law (34.BImSchV) with the use of the noise indicators Lden and Lnight. The
day-evening-night level Lden is the A-weighted long term average sound level for the
period day (06.00 – 18.00), evening (18.00 – 22.00) and night (22.00 – 06.00). The
night-time noise indicator Lnight is the A-weighted long-long term average sound level
as defined in ISO 1996-2: 1987 determined over all the individual night-time periods of
a year.
The national calculation methods VBUS (Vorläufige Berechnungsmethode für den
Umgebungslärm an Straßen) as well as VBEB (Vorläufige Berechnungsmethode zur
Ermittlung der Belastetenzahlen durch Umgebungslärm) have been applied.
Accordingly, all of the noise calculations have been executed by calculating the
noise levels at specific facade points of each residential building with a distance of
three meters from each other and a receiver height of 4.0 meters above local
ground terrain. Ground effects as well as reflections from building facades and
screens have been also taken into account. The effectiveness of different measures
can be displayed and compared against each other and also compared against
the average situation within the urban area of Augsburg.
5.2 EVALUATION OF NOISE EXPOSURE – POPULATION EXPOSURE TO NOISE LEVELS LDEN
In order to quantify the estimated number of people living in dwellings that are
exposed to noise the German calculation method VBEB (Vorläufige
Berechnungsmethode zur Ermittlung der Belastetenzahlen durch Umgebungslärm)
has been applied. This calculation method is based on the VDI 3722, but has been
adjusted to take account of the requirements specified in 34. BImSchV as well as in
the Appendices I, IV and VI of the directive 2002/49/EC.
Since in general the exact position, size and floor plan of dwellings are not known,
the total number of people living inside specific dwellings is equally apportioned
over the immission points placed on the building facades. Thus the value ‘inhabitants
per immission point’ is determined and is specifically attached to the immission level
at that point. Subsequently, the number of people attributed to each facade level
has been summed up within specific noise classes. This procedure has been
performed for each of the scenarios. Since it is most important to reduce the
detrimental effects of noise, special attention has been focused on the number of
people exposed to levels of Lden > 65 dB and how this number changes between the
specific single scenarios. However it is still difficult to compare the scenarios amongst
each other, because the total amount of people living within the redevelopment
TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 15 of 49
QCITY issued: 13-02-08
D5-6_ACC_36M.doc
area No. 8 changes within each scenario in dependent of the number of residential
buildings. Therefore the evaluation has also been carried out by use of a single
numerical value called “Noise Score”.
5.3 EVALUATION OF NOISE EXPOSURE – NOISE SCORE
In order to provide another measure to judge the noise effect mentioned in 5.2, the
NERS (Noise Environmental Rating System)1 has been applied. Using NERS it is possible
to provide a summation of the ‘Noise Score’ within an area in one single numerical
value. Accordingly, the benefits of specific different intervention measures can be
compared utilising a single noise evaluation method.
Figure 4 identifies the basic principle of NERS.
Figure 4: Annoyance-exposure relation of an individual person (AE-curve) –scaling assumed
Figure 4 shows that an individual’s annoyance can be judged according to
following experiences:
• most studies show that there is no significant annoyance reaction below
40 dB(A) -> this defines the lower limit of the scale;
• noise levels at and above 80 dB(A) are almost intolerable without a high
level of mitigation;
-> this defines where the slope of the assessment curve should converge at
infinity
1 Probst, Wolfgang: The assessment of noise taking into account noise levels and people annoyed
TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 16 of 49
QCITY issued: 13-02-08
D5-6_ACC_36M.doc
• the increase of annoyance with a given increase of noise level is more pre-
dominant at higher noise levels;
-> this derives from the awareness that an increase of ‘x’ at higher noise
levels does have higher effects on annoyance, disturbance and health than
if the same increase would occur at lower noise levels.
The Noise Score (as a single numerical value for the overall annoyance of an area) has
been calculated according to the following formula:
Y Noise Score
ni Number of persons with noise indicator Lden,i at most exposed facade
Lden,j Noise indicator at the most exposed facade of dwelling i
dI Deviation of sound insulation and mean sound insulation of all buildings
dLsource correction for different noise sources (road, railway…)
A detailed description of the Noise Ranking and Scoring Methodology ‘NERS’ has
been presented in Deliverable 1.2 ‘Proposal of a Noise Scoring Methodology’.
5.4 EVALUATION OF PARKS & OPEN SPACE AMENITY AREAS
Analyses show that people living nearby parks feel less annoyed to a certain specific
noise level than those people without open space areas (green corridors) in the
nearby vicinity. From this general hypothesis derives the question to what extent the
quality of life is affected and can be improved due to the creation of parks with
relatively tranquil areas close to residential areas. Of course these effects are difficult
to measure and objectively quantify and cannot necessarily be adequately
expressed in a single numerical value. Therefore in this analysis a method has been
developed which expresses the recreational quality of parks by comparing some
parks and amenity areas with the scenarios of the redevelopment area for three
different parameters described below.
1. Average noise level Lden within the park/amenity area
It is assumed that the recreational quality and therewith the value of parks is
higher, the lower the average noise level within the park.
2. Quiet area per person [m²/inhabitant]
It is assumed that a park has a higher recreational quality the greater the quiet
area with sound levels of Lden < 55 dB that is at each individual person’s disposal.
( )
( )
>⋅
≤⋅= ∑
+−−⋅
+−−⋅
ii,den
dLdI5.57L30.0
i,den
dLdI50L15.0
i
)A(dB65Lfor10n
)A(dB65Lfor10nY
sourcei,den
sourcei,den
TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 17 of 49
QCITY issued: 13-02-08
D5-6_ACC_36M.doc
3. Potential number of people entering the park
It is assumed that a park has a higher recreational quality, the greater the
potential number of people that would actually utilise the park.
In this context it is assumed that the number of people entering the park
(potential park-users) can be calculated by identifying a corridor of 250 m2 width
outside the park and counting up the number of people living within this corridor.
Therefore it is irrelevant if the number of people is accurately quantifiable with
this method, since this analysis is meant to generate qualitative results so that
different parks can be compared against each other in a uniform way.
2 comperable with a 5-minutes foot-walk within a city
TIP4-CT-2005-516420 Page 18 of 49
QCITY issued: 13-02-08
D5-6_ACC_36M.doc
6 T O W N P L A N N I N G M E A S U R E S W I T H I N T H E
S C E N A R I O S
6.1 OVERVIEW OF THE MAXIMILIANSTRASSE
The Maximilianstrasse is characterized by its mixed utilisation. On one hand we have
a busy commercial area with shopping facilities mostly at the ground floor of
buildings alongside the road with apartments in the upper floors. The road itself has a
MDTD (mean daily traffic data ) of approx. 9100 vehicles and its surface consists of
paving stones.
The total number of people living within the area of investigation is 2148, of which
342 people actually live immediately alongside the Maximilianstrasse. Within this
example situation the area of investigation includes a total of approximately 200