Europe Begins Noise Mapping Effort 381
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."
Rich country? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Alternative Traffic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rich country? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Rich country? (Score:1, Insightful)
Already spending a lot.... (Score:1, Insightful)
The US government is already spending billions and billions on infrastructure. The problem is that so much of the money is wasted, such as on overpaid union "workers" through scams such as the Davis-Bacon Act, designed just to waste a lot more money on government projects.
Re:Rich country? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:traffic.equals(noise) returns false (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the article, 100 microphones do, and they agree within 1 decibel.
Re:Rich country? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
seasonal noise differences (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let us outsource it. (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:traffic.equals(noise) returns false (Score:4, Insightful)
So why not spend the billions developing quieter traffic? Put it into fuel cells and electric motors, for example.
Re:Rich country? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually there are a lot of houses built when traffic was minimal (I talking two or three cars an hour minimal here) which only sixty years later find themselves plonked only a couple of yards away from some of the busiest roads in and out of Central London. A lot of people bought these houses back when noise was not an issue, but have found that over the years the roads have been expanded and the traffic levels increaed until it has been a major problem. Councils have never allocated funds to improve the noise levels, either.
Before anyone gets all excited and tries to argue that these people should move, let me just say:
Re:Rich country? (Score:2, Insightful)
Keep your grubby little paws off my wallet.
Data gathering techniques (Score:3, Insightful)
And an introductory remote sensing/GIS class would tell you that unless you have a Big Laser In Space(tm) you just take sample in accessible places that reflect both the landscape in general and prominent landscape features after that it is all overlay functions, baby. I am kriging as we speak!
Re:Rich country? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rich country? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:What next? (Score:2, Insightful)
If any of the words I used in this post were too big for you, just ask and I'll do my best not to answer any questions you might have.
Re:Rich country? (Score:3, Insightful)
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the original comment was discussing the soundproofing of walls in homes. No matter how much money the government gives people to sound insulate their walls, it isn't going to help their yard. (Unless, of course, the major source of sound pollution is in their home. Turn the Stereo down!)
There are reasonable steps that governments can take to reduce outdoor noise pollution at its source. For many years now various agencies have been mandating the use of quieter jet engines. Highways are frequently built with noise barriers. These steps reduce all noise pollution, and allow people to enjoy their gardens as well as their homes.
Re:Rich country? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
-N
Re:Rich country? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It's the peaks which count (Score:2, Insightful)
Example. I would rather live in a tower block looking onto the bvd Peripherique in Paris than in a street-facing apartment in the 5e. Why? Because the sound of traffic on the periph. is fairly constant, whereas if you live in what is generally a quiet street, the sound of some fsking teenager zooming past on a scooter with a tin-can for a silencer will wake you out of any sleep.
The last study done on this concluded that the noise of one scooter crossing Paris at night interrupts the sleep of 250,000 people.
Start by punishing the selfish gits who ride scooters or Harleys. That would eliminate 50% of all complaints about traffic noise.
Re:A thorough understanding (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Rich country? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've seen the same sort of short-sighted buying in the US in rural areas. I've seen places where people have built new houses a half mile from a livestock farm that has been there for 50 years, then when they finally move in, they discover that when the wind is blowing the right way, there's a smell. Then they try to get zoning changed, or they sue, or some other tactic, to try to get the farm closed. What, you didn't think pigs smelled? Or did you even check to see who your neighbors were?
All for it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rich country? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would hope most sane, normal people would agree that if you wanted to make that decision, then go ahead and make that decision for yourself and not everyone else. Or do you really think you're so much smarter than everybody else that your ideas should be mandated by an already fat government?
The Automobile that I contribute to manufacturing is not a goal I consider worthy of my time. I have no problem working, its the *goal* or product of my effort that is worthless.
So you've made the decision to work for a place that produces products contrary to your idealogical goals. That's your fault. Now you'd like government to come in and do... what? Force more regulations on your employer?
You need to do what YOU think is right, regardless of what people around you are doing. YOU need to set an example. We don't need the government forcing new regulations on us.
If you want to set an example by walking more or whatever, bully for you. If your employer CHOOSES to do something to quiet their vehicles, bully for them. There are choices for people trying to get away from noise, there are already solutions for people bothered by noise. I don't care what Europeans decide to do, but we don't need the government in the U.S. to interfere. More often than not, the hidden costs of regulations HURT the people they are trying to help.
Here's a scenario: low cost housing doesn't have adequate sound insulation.
Solution: require builders to include sound insulation. Result: low cost housing is no longer low cost, and more people with marginal incomes can't afford a house.
Solution: government subsidizes sound insulation. Result: income taxes and/or property taxes increase to accomodate. Result: more people with marginal incomes can't afford a house either because of the income tax burden OR the property tax burdon (higher property taxes on a more expensive sound proofed house).
Solution: government allows tax break for people upgrading their houses. Result: people are encouraged to upgrade their house. It shouldn't be limited to sound proofing, but also things like new air conditioning and heating units (more efficient), new windows (more efficient), air purification systems, etc. The difference in income taxes with people writing off these expenses in minimal. Meanwhile, the companies doing the upgrades increase revenue dramatically - the taxes balance out. Everyone is happy, more people are employed, and the government can actually stand to make MORE money.
As usual, LOWERING taxes (or, in this case, giving tax breaks) not only helps homeowners but helps employment and generates MORE revenue for the government and makes everybody happy. Regulation or subsidies has the opposite effect.
Re:Rich country? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because then they wouldn't be able to afford a house AT ALL.
Re:Rich country? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Rich country? (Score:3, Insightful)
The goal of modern societies is to provide for all its people. Sometimes the most cost-effective way to do this is to give them public welfare, and sometimes it isn't. If you're worried about cost, consider what other methods might have been considered.
A better long-term solution is to encourage people to move away from gasoline-powered automobiles, at least moving to hybrids. Or, they could use MDI's air car, perhaps, or EVs. If you're talking about people who seldom drive very far at all, the short range of such vehicles is rarely going to be any kind of problem to them. I should think that the UK's insanely high petrol prices (though we pay that price in lives, and from our military budget, instead of having people just pay it at the pump, which I think is really quite daft) would have done this already but I guess not. The average displacement of cars in the UK is certainly less than it is in the US, though as the old V8-powered beaters are replaced with four bangers here, that gap is certainly narrowing.
Typical Leftist/Collectivist irrational garbage (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the resources that are being dedicated are being seized at gunpoint. Furthermore, while you may not be able to think of better things to investigate, there may be millions of people who want to exercise their freedom and hard-earned money on what they want exercise it on. What gives your opinions so much priority that they justify looting?
The masses are convinced -- almost without pause -- that spending money on single-serving yogurt-like snacks(ever *made* your own yogurt -- VERY VERY GOOD & EASY), RetiredBoxerBrand electric grills (whats wrong with your stove?), ZXY(TM) Brand $200 shoes, and blah blah blah is a good reward in exchange for my personal effort (the $ youve collected in exchange for work).. I say hogwash.
Sure, it's hogwash. For you. For someone else, it's very important. What makes your tastes better than yours? Are you going to trot out your subjective feelings which is exactly what those who buy $200 Indonesian-made shoes use to justify their tastes? While I think many people spend money on pure junk, I still find them more respectable than I find you because at least their desire to spend money doesn't include taking my money.
If Im going to sacrifice 40hrs of ever week, I damn well want something worth while in exchange for my Cached-Work($).
There is nothing preventing you from doing this in a captialist society. You work, you get paid, and you spend your hard-earned dollars on what you want to spend it on. But that's not what you're describing here, is it? I think what you mean to say is, "If I work in any capacity, then I want the government to seize other people's property and spend it on that which I have decided is Good and Right."
Being the sucker in some capitalist's get-rich scheme, at the expense of the planet (pollution/waste/garbage) is not all that attractive -- but insead of paying for research like this (in taxes) people are usually DrivenByMindControl to buying SomeDamnedGarbage.
And you can choose not to be involed in some capitalist's get-rich "scheme". Can I choose not to have my hard-earned tax dollars go to some leftist's idea of what is moral? No! Why is that not also a "scheme"?
Furthermore, pollution, waste, and garbate do not harm the planet. They harm people.
Where am i going with this? What is more useful? What is the greatest benefit of the product of our collective resources (the above mentioned consumer-garbage) **OR** some peace from the endless noise in a mechanized-industrial city....
And it rears it's ugly head: collective resources In other words, everyting that an individual works to earn actually belongs to busybodies in the state (who are, of course, trying to buy votes and maintain power). Is there any reason at all that this vaunted "noise control" could not be addressed privately?
Stop and think occasionally: "what benefit, at what cost is my decision having to bear on myself and my community?
Your religion has defined private property and free enterprise as "evil". It is from these premises that you weigh these alleged benefits and costs. For example, my buying a George Forman Grill would only be falling prey to an Evil Capitalist's Get Rich Scheme. Well, how many people does that evil capitalist employ? How much business does the evil capitalist give to UPS/FedEx to ship their products, and how many jobs does that take? What about the raw materials that go into making the George Forman grills? That takes jobs, too.
Yes, I believe in society very much, just not in the way that you do. I believe that society functions most morally when people are not forced to live their lives for someone else.
Re:Alternative Traffic (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Rich Country? Let's talk about NY City! (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people living in the cities aren't the one who cause the noise pollution. It's the people from the outside who drive into the cities for work or entertainment because they can't get that in their subdivision.
So yes, you are causing it.
Re:Microphones? (Score:3, Insightful)
Professionalism means that I don't have to use three letter "cuss-word" abbreviations to make myself understood.
Re:Rich country? (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess what I'm getting at here is that moving from neighborhoods that predate the automobile to those built on quiet streets that become not so quiet due to changes over time, where do you draw the line? Where does it become the government's problem to compensate and where does it remain the citizen's tough luck?
Obviously the government has the right to aquire property from its citizens should the need arise (tons of legal precidents for that). Should the government be therefore obligated to compensate citizens or to help mitigate the affect of lost property value due to goverment changes to the area? Following from that should the government have the responcibility to zone areas according to noise polution so the commercial area I live next to (which used to contain walk in shops with little or no parking) can't be turned into a parking garage or a car wash?
We're both pointing out the extremes here, which really do have obvious solutions to them. Of course the government should compensate me for noise insulation if they put a 6 lane highway through my back yard. Of course they shouldn't do so if I buy up land next to a six lane highway and build a house on it. The question is the middle ground. Where is the differentiation?
Re:Rich Country? Let's talk about NY City! (Score:3, Insightful)
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?