The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
This makes sense: they want to force the DB to develop modern techniques against the noise. DB is legally required to reduce the noise, the standard measure (the 7m wall) is ridiculous, that's the lever for the VCD (which is an organisation supporting railway and bike, not some NIMBY group). They want to force DB and authorities to be innovative.
so, why should people who moved into the area when the railway was already there get to complain about it being noisy ?
I am reminded of a shocking example from the UK. A preserved steam railway built a workshop a long way out of town because of the noise of their working. then some bright spark built a new housing development nearby and forced the railway to move their workshop "because of the noise". I still can't work out how that is right. keep to the Fen Causeway
What would you do, if you were living there? I find it easy: there are modern methods of noise reduction, so DB can bloody well use them.
The reasonable distribution of those costs, given the fact that the city built around the rail rather than the other way around, would be for the city to spring for noise shielding. Or at least a non-trivial fraction of the cost.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
The problem comes that the west bank of the river rises rather steeply and so the noise of the railway is rather more apparent from the medieval castle 1.5 km away than from the housing 2 or 3 streets from the trains.
but this is the 21st century. We know what trains sound like. They're there for a minute or two and then they're gone. I stayed at a hotel 100 metres from the railway and had my windows open all night. I heard the trains if I happened to be awake, but my sleep wasn't disturbed by them. keep to the Fen Causeway
Less noise will not immediately be a subsidy to real estate owners: Flats in areas like that are usually rented, not owned by the inhabitants. And you can't raise the rent for a slight decrease of noise.
Noise from railways may be music for enthusiasts, but people have a right not to be enthusiasts.
To make this shorter: beware of sounding like the advocates of nukes of thirty years ago. If there is a broad movement against something we advocate, we are just making a mistake.
I had to google this particular protest and the more I read the more I like it. This movement is putting a finger on insufficient and outdated methods of noise protection. Well done.
Noise (and the costs of reducing it) is the responsibility of the emitter. Even if it hits the most environment-friendly sort of transport, the principle still is right. Noise damages the health of those who are exposed to it, because they can't afford to live elsewhere. This is not their responsibility, but that of the emitter, and that of the planning authorities.
Besides, the population can't force an emitter to develop new technologies. They can only force the emitters to carry the cost of not developing more efficient noise reduction.
That's not "polluter pays." That's a cross-subsidy from non-polluting new plant to polluting legacy plant.
And yes, my decision would explicitly depend on whether I favor capacity expansion or retrenchment of that particular sector. In a sector where capacity expansion is desirable, it is more important to make certain that new plant is built to modern standards than dealing with legacy plant. Partly because technology will improve before the expansion is finished, meaning that upgrading before expansion will either leave you with a system which is not of uniform standard or require you to upgrade both before and after expansion.
We should not build new highways until funds have been secured for upgrading noise protection from existing highways. Pollution control measures should be used as an inroad to shut down coal burners ahead of schedule. But these are sectors where existing plant is adequate or excessive, not sectors which should be the focus of expansion.
I agree with that.
My entry into this debate was the demand that 7 metre barriers be used in Bamberg: Which is an obviously more significant and expensive structure than the fences I saw elsewhere. This seemed to my eyes an absurd visually intrusive over-protection and, if the excuse of protecting the medieval part of Bamberg is being used, very poorly justified.
You cannot eliminate noise in the urban environment and, just as with a flat overlooking a busy road, a flat right next to a railway may well have to accept a certain raised level of noise. I agree with the 2 metre walls being used elsewhere. It may, as you point out, spoil the view for enthusiasts, but it seems a reasonable thing to do. However, 7 metres is simply absurd. keep to the Fen Causeway
I would have thought anything thinner than a couple of m of concrete would be partly porous to sound anyway. It won't do much to eliminate LF vibration and rumble.
But those rules are silly: The alignment of a passenger capacity increase should not be influenced by pre-existing noise from freight which, unless the upgrade is expected to increase freight volumes as well. Now, noise shielding would be a perfectly worthwhile project to spend money on. And I happen to think that the German government should be spending a lot more money than it currently is. But tying it to the choice of through line upgrade vs. new bypass creates a perverse set of incentives. And diverting funds allotted to maintenance or capacity upgrades to cover that sort of legacy costs is unacceptable.
Tl,dr: Noise shielding from existing traffic should be decided (and funded) independently of decisions about new traffic.
Because the line is being upgraded for 200 km/h, which means a lot more noise. (And noise walls aren't built in reaction to complaints, but according to EU-level and national-level regulations that set noise limits.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
the noise of freight trains (which are much louder than the ICE)
Hm. At the same speed, true. But a passenger train at 200 km/h is much noisier than at 100 km/h. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
You can check limits for vehicles in the relevant Technical Specification of Interoperability (TSI). They correspond to noise at the top speed of the vehicle.
Comparing freight trains and high-speed trains for the purpose of noise protection is problematic because we are speaking about different noise types, with different noise reduction potentials. For rail vehicles, the dominant noise type is speed-dependent:
There is now serious effort to find replacements for standard freight wagon running gear (composite tread brakes, new bogies with disc brakes and rubber springs). A wagon replacement/retrofit may happen over the same timescale as the fitting of all non-upgraded conventional lines with noise walls and screens, and may make more sense. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
For the existing routes the legally conceded noise protection is much weaker, the rumbling freight trains can make noise as much as they want
It's true that there is no legal requirement for noise protection of already noise-polluted places (largely along Helen's logic). However, there is a government programme to fund noise protection measures in such places anyway, basically using the same limits as qualification criteria. The issue here is that the noise protection of all exposed areas along non-upgraded lines would either take a long long time or a lot of money.
they want to force the DB to develop modern techniques against the noise
More like forcing them to apply what they are developing or testing. The problem with DB's planning depaetment is that (1) by default, they don't want to change their plans, (2) if they do get to changing plans, they cannot do it without a significant planning cost increase... *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 7
by Oui - Feb 4 33 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 63 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Oui - Feb 7
by Oui - Feb 433 comments
by Oui - Feb 314 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 28 comments
by Oui - Feb 2109 comments
by Oui - Feb 16 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 313 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 2735 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 263 comments
by Cat - Jan 2563 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1841 comments
by Oui - Jan 1591 comments
by Oui - Jan 145 comments