D5-6 ACC 36M - Qcity

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 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

Nils-Åke

Ny stämpel

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49

QCITY issued:13-02-08

D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................4

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 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 11

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 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

8 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................................... 40

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 of 49


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 of 49


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 of 49


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 of 49


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 of 49


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 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

Figure 1: Noise map - traffic noise Lden / City of Augsburg

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


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 of 49


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 of 49


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 of 49


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 of 49


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 of 49


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 of 49


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 of 49


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 of 49


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

residential buildings.

Figure 5: Investigation area “Maximilanstrasse”

© Microsoft Virtual Earth™

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

6.1.1 Insulated glazing and ventilation provisions

Within this study it has been assumed that acoustic glazing is only effective during

the night time period as the windows might be open during the day which would

nullify the positive effect of the additional sound insulated glazing. At night the

ventilation provisions would be in use so that the windows would take an additional

insulating effect of 15 dB. Alternatively one could say that only bedrooms would be

equipped with insulated glazing so that there would be an effect at nighttime only

as during the day time people would utilise other rooms. The costs for this measure

can be subsumed as follows:

If only bedrooms are equipped with insulated glazing it generally is assumed that

each person would have a window area of 1.5 m². Each square meter of insulated

glazing costs roughly between 300 € and 500 €. Additionally, there are the costs for

the ventilation. In general one calculates that two persons would need one

ventilator. Each Ventilator costs about 400 €. Therewith in the following we calculate

total costs of 800 € per person.

6.1.2 Silent road surface

Mitigation measures at receiver points cannot be regarded as being equal to those

that are implemented at or near the source. These types of mitigation measures

reduce the noise level on an area wide basis which results in a much wider effect so

that living areas outside of buildings, like balconies, terraces or gardens would also

be less exposed. Accordingly, the general noise climate would be improved both

inside and outside of buildings.

One of these possibilities to reduce noise at source which has been analysed is the

improvement of the acoustical attributes of the road surface so that more noise

energy gets absorbed. When changing parts of the road surface from standard

pavement to smooth mastic asphalt (SMA) a noise reduction of up to 6 dB can be

expected.

The costs of a ‘silent’ road surface differ from those of standard asphalt by a wide

margin. Whilst standard asphalt costs about eight Euros per square meter, the costs

of smooth mastic asphalt are between 30 and 50 Euros per square meter.

6.1.3 Building layout with noise sensitive rooms on quiet sides

This measure can be regarded as a medium-term strategy for actual situations and

new development areas.

In general it is assumed that the total number of inhabitants per building are

homogeneously spread alongside the facade points of a building for which the

noise level Lden can be determined. According to the approach chosen within this

study all inhabitants live alongside “quiet” facades. That means that by definition no

person gets exposed to a level Lden > 65 dB or Lnight > 55 dB. Planning the building

layout with noise sensitive rooms on quiet sides of course is subjected to restrictional

parameters just like any other measure. One of these restrictions for example is the

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

geographical orientation of the facades, so that the allocation of inhabitants on the

northwardly orientated facades is generally regarded as critical. However the extent

to which this theoretical approach is realistic is not part of this study as the focus here

remains on the analysis of its potential benefits, regardless of whether it can be

realised.

6.2 OVERVIEW OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA NO. 8

The redevelopment area No.8 of the city of Augsburg is presumed to have a special

demand for sustainable development which can be implemented in the long-term.

The different utilisations that can be found are partially in functional conflict. Since

many of the changes within the redevelopment area and surrounding areas were

taking place during the last couple years, a solution for development without

conflicts should be found. The redevelopment area is bounded by surrounding roads

and an existing industrial estate. Alongside the “Donauwörther Straße” and

“Ahornerstrasse” (in the west, respectively the north of the area) the utilisation is

mixed between residential and industrial use. Within some areas we find

undeveloped/derelict areas and a scrap yard, whilst in the middle we find

apartment buildings. In the south-western part there is a large office building. In the

middle of the area there is a supermarket.

The large overall construction level of the redevelopment area is medium or good

with the exception of the factory workshops in the east which are in a poor

condition.

The dominating road connections are located in the south as well as in the west

(road B 2). All other roads within or surrounding the redevelopment area are

restricted to 30 km/h. For the status quo scenario the total number of inhabitants in

the area of investigation is ‘400’.

The following aerial photo shows the actual situation and location of the

investigated redevelopment area. (Further maps of the redevelopment area for its

present state as well as the single scenarios can be found in Annex A.)

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

Figure 6: Redevelopment area No. 8

The present state of land utilisation shows the following diagram:

status quo

11%

4%

74%

7%4%

residential ares

mixed ares

industrial area including office buildings

open space

rest

Figure 7: Present state of land utilisation

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

6.2.1 General conditions and potential for development:

The distinctive structures (buildings) in the southern area have to be considered and

the apartment buildings with a good construction level have to be maintained in the

long term. Already existing traffic connections should be supplemented with

reasonable, additional connections. A development plan originally developed in the

1960s has not at this time been implemented and thus can be disregarded.

6.2.2 Planning concept

Within all scenarios the area between “Donauwörther Straße” and “Schönbach-

straße” should be modified into an area with mixed utilisation between living

accommodation and commerce in order to have an area which is preferably, free

of conflict. In the south of the “Ahornerstrasse” the public use for a school should

result in conjunction with a residential use.

6.2.3 Scenario A

The eastern properties alongside “Schönbachstraße” will be developed into

residential areas. Alongside the “Äußere Uferstraße” the big workshop in the north will

be maintained, and the existing parking area can further utilised. The halls in the

south can be maintained in line with an industrial park. Residential areas are

separated from industrial areas by green space.

In scenario ‘A’ the total amount of inhabitants in the area of investigation is ‘695’.

Main usage:

• industrial real estate

• apartment buildings

• office buildings

scenario A

18%

4%

60%

13%

5%

residential ares

mixed ares


open space

rest

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

6.2.4 Scenario B

The eastern properties alongside “Schönbachstraße” will be developed into areas

with office buildings. Also alongside the “Äußere Uferstraße” areas with office

buildings will be developed. The workshops at “Hettenbach” will be transformed into

cultural areas with art galleries for public and private use. The single areas with

different utilisation will be separated from each other by green space.

In scenario ‘B’ the total amount of inhabitants in the area of investigation is ‘644’.

Main usage:

• office buildings


• cultural park

scenario B

16%

3%

56%

21%

4%

residential ares

mixed ares


open space

rest

6.2.5 Scenario C


residential areas. In the south of “Ahornerstraße” the residential area will be

extended. The existing industrial workshops at “Hettenbach” will be transformed and

used as a cultural park. The existing parking area in the north can be further utilised.

Between the cultural park and areas with residential use a small park will be

implemented with green space in all directions.

In scenario ‘C’ the total amount of inhabitants in the area of investigation is ’807’.

Main usage:


• cultural park

• some office buildings

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

scenario C

23%

4%

50%

19%

4%

residential ares

mixed ares


open space

rest

6.2.6 Scenario D


residential areas. Also alongside the “Äußere Uferstraße” residential areas will be

developed. The industrial workshops will give way for a residential area alongside the

“Hettenbach”. In the central area between the apartment buildings a small park

with green space in all directions will be created.

In scenario ‘D’ the total amount of inhabitants in the area of investigation is ‘1387’.

Main usage:


• few office buildings

• parks

scenario D

37%

4%37%

18%

4%

residential ares

mixed ares


open space

rest

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

6.2.7 Scenario E


residential areas. The halls at “Hettenbach” will be transformed into a cultural park

with a focus on public use. Between the cultural park and areas with residential use

there is the “Hettenbachpark” with green space in the direction to the river

“Wertach”.

In scenario ‘E’ the total amount of inhabitants in the area of investigation is ‘940’.

Main usage:

• parks

• residential buildings

• few office buildings

scenario E

25%

37%

3%

4%

31% residential ares

mixed ares


open space

rest

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

7 E F F E C T S O F T O W N P L A N N I N G I N T E R V E N T I O N

M E A S U R E S

Town planning is, unlike heavy vehicle routing for example, a measure that takes

effect only within a locally bounded area. Through this specific, local improvements

can be focused which however in some cases can only be realised with major

financial input for the communes. When considering the cost-value ratio with regard

to the number of people gaining a benefit from such improvements, some of these

measures are relatively expensive but might be necessary in order to obtain and

sustain an acceptable noise climate for everyone.

7.1 INSULATED GLAZING AND VENTILATION PROVISIONS

Insulated glazing and ventilation provisions can be realized relatively easily and

therefore are counted among measures for a short-term strategy.

7.1.1 Effects on the number of people exposed

The following figure shows the number of people exposed to noise classes Lden within

the ‘status quo’ and when insulated glazing with ventilation provisions are applied

according to the description in 0.

people exposure statistics

1 645

76 67 85

170105

1648

75 69 90

164101

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

1 600

1 800

2 000

< 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 > 70

level Lden [dB]

tota

l n

um

ber

of

peo

ple

exp

os

ed

(wit

hin

th

e a

rea o

f M

ax

imilia

nstr

asse)

actual state insulated glazing and ventilation provisions

Figure 8: people exposure statistic with insulated glazing and ventilation provisions

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

As one can see not much is changing within this diagram. This is, because only the

people living close to the street are affected by high levels in the first place (the

status quo) and it is only those people that claim for compensation in the form of

insulated glazing. This however means that only a small number or people gain

benefit from this particular measure. On top of this the effect on the Lden level is

relatively small as the measure only has an effect during the night time period (see.

0). Therefore not much can be identified within an interval of 5 dB (which is the

standard size of noise intervals for noise mapping according to Directive

2002/49/EC). Within the night time period however the effect is that there are no

persons exposed to high levels anymore. For this reason the target achievement

could still be regarded as of high-value as it is the night time that is important for

healthy sleep and a higher quality of life.

7.1.2 Effects on the Noise Score

As Table 1 shows the Noise Score within the example situation at the

Maximilianstrasse could be reduced to 43.7 % of its value, when insulated glazing

and ventilation provisions are applied.

Table 1: Effects on the Noise Score with insulated glazing and ventilation provisions

actual state

insulated glazing and ventilation provisions

absolute percentaged

2.281.191 100 %

Noise Score

996.466 43.7 %

Although the total amount of people in the noise classes does not change much the

Noise Score shows a drastic change. This is because the Noise Score is dominated by

high values of Lden (see 5.3). Therefore even small changes at the higher values can

have a significant effect on the Noise Score (every change of 1 dB doubles the

Noise Score).

7.1.3 Costs of the insulated glazing and ventilation provisions

As described in 0 the costs of insulated glazing and ventilation provisions are about

800 € per person. In this situation 342 people actually live alongside the

Maximilianstrasse and require this measure. Therefore the total costs are 273.600

Euros.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

7.2 SILENT ROAD SURFACE

Changes in road surfacing normally occur when a road is due for maintenance or

complete renewal of the surface. This measure is therefore a medium to long term

strategy.


Implementing silent road surfaces takes effect exactly at source which is why the

overall sound level gets reduced, a wider area is affected and more people benefit

from the measure.


1 645

76 67 85

170105

1690

67 81 87

209

14

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

1 600

1 800

2 000

< 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 > 70

level Lden [dB]

tota

l n

um

ber

of

peo

ple

exp

os

ed

(wit

hin

th

e a

rea o

f M

ax

imilia

nstr

asse)

actual state silent road surface

Figure 9: people exposure statistic / silent road surface

Figure 9 demonstrates that there is a significant change within the noise class above

70 dB Lden so that many people living close to the street become much less exposed.

In general we can see that within each noise class a specific number of people shift

towards the lower noise classes.


As Table 2 shows, the Noise Score decreases to 8.8 % of its initial value if a silent road

surface is implemented. This is because there are less facade points exposed to high

noise levels and therefore less people exposed to high noise levels.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

Table 2: Noise Score / silent road surface, actual state

silent road surface


2.281.191 100 %

Noise Score

200.439 8.8 %

7.2.3 Costs of the silent road surface

The costs of a silent road surface are dependent on the surface area that needs to

be covered. Within this study the area of investigation has been set relatively small so

that the road length is only 246 meters. When implementing the measure in reality of

course a much longer length of road would have to be covered with special smooth

mastic asphalt as the road is much longer. The width of the road differs between 10

and 15 meters. Accordingly, a width of 13 meters has been chosen. The costs have

been averaged to 40 Euros per square meter. Accordingly the measure in this

example situation would cost 127.920 Euros. Therefore the costs for the

implementation of a silent road surface at the Maximilianstrasse are very high

compared to those of standard asphalt. However, the costs of silent road surface

should not be compared with those of standard asphalt, as the implementation of

silent road surface is much more than building a standard road – it is the

implementation of noise mitigation measures and therefore has to be compared

with the costs of other mitigation measures such as the construction of noise barriers,

tunnels or additional insulated glazing.

7.3 BUILDING LAYOUT WITH NOISE SENSITIVE ROOMS AT QUIET SIDES

Providing a building layout with noise sensitive rooms located on the quiet façade

requires master-planning of new developments and is therefore a medium to long

term strategy.


As mentioned in 6.1.3 it is a theoretical approach to plan all buildings with noise

sensitive rooms on the quiet sides. Nevertheless it is interesting to see what the

maximum potential of this measure is within an example situation.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc


1 645

76 67 85

170105

1 768

81 80130

6822

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

1 600

1 800

2 000

< 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 > 70

level Lden [dB]

tota

l n

um

ber

of

peo

ple

exp

os

ed

(wit

hin

th

e a

rea o

f M

ax

imilia

nstr

asse)

actual state building layout with noise sensitive rooms at quiet side

Figure 10: people exposure statistic / building layout with noise sensitive rooms at quiet sides

Figure 10 shows that there is a significant change within the upper noise classes. The

number of people exposed to levels of Lden > 65 dB decreases from 285 to 90

(-68.4 %). Nevertheless 90 people remain exposed to these high levels because their

buildings do not have any potential for quiet facades and therefore there is no

change for the inhabitants of these buildings.

When comparing this measure in this example situation with the implementation of a

silent road surface, it shows a higher potential for the reduction of noise exposure

(see the diagram in the enclosure).


Table 3: Noise Score / building layout with noise sensitive rooms at quiet side, actual state

Building layout with noise sensitive rooms at quiet side


2.281.191 100 %

Noise Score 1

1.267.469 55.6 %

1.973.368 100 % Noise Score 2

12.818 0.6 %

1) Noise Score summed up over all buildings

2) Noise Score summed up over all buildings except those without “quiet” facades

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

Table 3 shows the Noise Score of the actual state as well as when the measure is

applied. When allocating all inhabitants alongside the quiet facades and scanning

the Noise Score over all buildings, including those that do not have any quiet

facades with levels of Lden <65 dB and Lnight < 55 dB, the Noise Score decreases to

55.6 % of its initial value. This also shows the maximum potential of this measure within

the example situation if no other measures were applied.

When considering the Noise Score, whilst referring to Figure 10, which shows the

number of people exposed, it is noticeable that the Noise Score could still remain

that high. Again this is caused by a few, extremely high noise levels (above 70.0 dB

Lden). However, the most interesting question is how much the Noise Score decreases

if all inhabitants could be allocated to quiet facades so that no person would be

exposed to these extremely high levels? For this reason in a second investigation the

buildings that do not have any quiet facades (seven in total) were blanked out and

the Noise Score of the new ‘status quo’ as well as when the measure is applied was

determined. There was a Noise Score reduction of 99.4 % achieved, see Table 3.

7.4 REORGANISATION / RECONSTRUCTION OF ENTIRE URBAN AREAS

Reconstruction of the entire urban areas can be counted as a measure for a long-

term strategy.


The following diagrams show the effect of the town planning measures on the total

number of people being exposed to an Lden > 65 dB.

Note: The total amount of people within each scenario changes due to the fact that

the amount of residential buildings varies.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc


9

8

6

8

18

23

10

19

22

11

18

22

10

19

22

10

19

22

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70

level Lden [dB]

tota

l n

um

ber

of

peo

ple

exp

os

ed

(wit

hin

red

evelo

pm

en

t are

a)

status quo scenario A scenario B scenario C scenario D scenario E

total inhabitants: 400 695 644 807 1387 940

Figure 11: people exposure statistic within the redevelopment area

Figure 11 shows the upper noise classes between 55 and 70 dB. There are no people

exposed to noise levels above 70 dB. As can be seen each scenario brings a

worsening in the noise classes mentioned, as more people become exposed to

higher noise levels than in the status quo. This is a logical effect when considering the

change of the total number of inhabitants within the entire area which rises from 400

people in the status quo up to 1387 people within scenario D and therefore causes

the area to be more densely populated. However, it is important to consider the

overall effect. Figure 12 shows the effect also for the lower noise classes.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc


247

13

0

9 8 6

47

2

174

8 18 23

41

3

18

1

10 19

22

557

199

11 18 22

1 0

64

272

10 19

22

698

191

10 19

22

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 000

1 100

1 200

1 300

< 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70

level Lden [dB]

tota

l n

um

ber

of

peo

ple

exp

ose

d

(wit

hin

red

ev

elo

pm

en

t a

rea

)


total inhabitants: 400 695 644 807 1387 940


Even though the total amount of people being exposed to high noise levels

increases this should not be overvalued as in each scenario also the number of

people exposed to lower noise levels increases and this change comes about much

stronger. In fact when taking into account the total number of people living within

the area of investigation the overall number of people exposed within scenario D,

for example, rises from 1.4 % to 1.6 % within the high level noise class between 65 and

70 dB. The number of people exposed within the low level noise class below 50 dB

instead rises from 61.8 % to 76.7 %.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc


61.7

5%

32.6

0%

2.3

3%

1.9

3%

1.4

3%

67

.93

%

25.0

1%

1.2

1%

2.6

0%

3.2

5%

64.0

5%

28

.07

%

1.5

8%

2.9

0%

3.3

9%

68.9

7%

24.6

7%

1.3

5%

2.2

7%

2.7

4%

76. 6

8%

19. 6

1%

0.7

4%

1.3

8%

1.5

9%

74.2

7%

20.2

7%

1.0

9%

2.0

3%

2.3

5%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

< 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70

level Lden [dB]

nu

mb

er

of

peo

ple

exp

os

ed

[%

]

(co

mp

are

d t

o t

ota

l am

ou

nt

wit

hin

red

ev

elo

pm

en

t are

a)



When determining the appropriate level of decision making, additional measures

should also be discussed to take account of those few people being exposed to

high noise levels.


As mentioned in 5.3 the Noise Score sums up an overall situation in one single

numerical value. Thus different scenarios become comparable, which is precondi-

tioned on the basis that the calculation is constant. Within the example the total

number of people changes within the different scenarios, which is why the Noise

Score has been scaled on the value “Noise Score per person”.

Figure 14 shows how the Noise Score changes in each scenario. The last bar within

the diagram shows the Noise Score per person within the entire city.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

Noise Score

(summed up within the entire redevelopment area and scaled on

Noise Score per person)

23

63 6653

3146

135

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

No

ise

Sc

ore

(p

er

pe

rso

n) status quo

scenario A

scenario B

scenario C

scenario D

scenario E

entire city

Figure 14: Noise Score comparison

As one can see in each scenario the Noise Score per person is higher than for the

status quo. Nevertheless, across the board the Noise Score is significantly smaller

than the Noise Score per person within the entire city. Therefore the overall situation

can be regarded as positive as here we have a good concept for an area with

mixed utilisation. On closer examination of the function of the Noise Score we can

see that high levels of Lden can have a dominating effect on the overall value of the

Noise Score. Therefore it is necessary to find out where exactly these high levels

occur so that the situation can be judged more precisely and, if necessary, endemic

measures such as changing the land use, the orientation of sensitive rooms towards

the quiet facades, additional insulation or sound barriers can be implemented. In this

situation the highest noise levels appear alongside the main road B 2.

Figure 15 demonstrates how the Noise Score performs within specific areas (inside

the calculation area):

Noise Score [%]

(aside main road B2)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

No

ise S

co

re (

per

pers

on

) status quo

scenario A

scenario B

scenario C

scenario D

scenario E

Figure 15: Noise Score aside road B 2

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

It can be seen that alongside the main road B 2, the Noise Score drops in each

scenario compared to the ‘status quo’ although the number of people living in that

area rises from 20 people within the status quo to 80 people in scenarios A to E.

Scenario D performs best of all.

Figure 16 below shows how many people live inside the area of investigation and

how many of them actually live alongside the road B 2. Here we can see that within

scenario D significantly more people live within the area of investigation than in any

other scenario.

number of inhabitants in specific areas within the area of investigation

380

615 564

727

1307

860

80

80

80

80

20

80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

sta

tus q

uo

sce

na

rio

A

sce

na

rio

B

sce

na

rio

C

sce

na

rio

D

sce

na

rio

E

nu

mb

er

of

inh

ab

ita

nts

alongside B2

aside B2

Figure 16: number of inhabitants in specific areas within the area of investigation

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

Noise Score [%]

(alongside main road B2)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

No

ise S

co

re (

per

pers

on

) status quo

scenario A

scenario B

scenario C

scenario D

scenario E

Figure 17: Noise Score alongside road B 2

The Noise Score per person alongside the main road B 2 in each scenario is higher

than at status quo. This however derives from the fact, that in each of the five

scenarios more people live alongside the road than at status quo (see Figure 16)

and from the fact, that the value of a noise level (especially with high levels) has a

greater weighting than the number of people. Given that any of the five scenarios

would be implemented, additional endemic measures alongside the road B 2 would

be scheduled. Therefore the Noise Score has also been calculated assuming an

additional insulation of 10 dB caused by passive noise reduction measures (insulated

glazing).

Noise Score [%]

(alongside main road B2 - with additional insulation -10dB)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

No

ise S

co

re (

per

pers

on

) status quo

scenario A

scenario B

scenario C

scenario D

scenario E

Figure 18: Noise Score alongside road B 2 with sound barrier –10 dB

Figure 18 above demonstrates that in each scenario the newly calculated Noise

Score is up to approx. 30 % lower than in the status quo because of the additional

10 dB reduction caused by insulated glazing.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

The diagram below shows the Noise Score value of the overall situation inside the

redevelopment area when there are additional insulation measures implemented at

buildings alongside the road B 2. Here scenario D performs best, its Noise Score drops

to about 55 % of its initial value.

Noise Score [%] within entire redevelopment area

with additional insulation -10dB alongside road B2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

No

ise S

co

re (

per

pers

on

) status quo

scenario A

scenario B

scenario C

scenario D

scenario E

Figure 19: Noise Score with sound barrier / entire redevelopment area

7.4.3 Recreational quality of parks

As expounded in 5.4 the recreational quality of parks is hard to measure. Therefore a

diagram has been created that combines three different parameters which can be

assumed to have a major influence on the recreation quality of parks. In the

diagram the axis of abscissas shows the average area with Lden < 55 dB that is at

each person’s disposal while the axis of ordinates gives the average sound level Lden

within the park. This means that the quality of a park is higher the more the mark is

down to the right. The size of the mark expresses the potential number of people that

could make use of the park. In the diagram the three town planning scenarios of the

redevelopment area No. 8 which actually have green corridors that can be

regarded as parks are compared to three already existing parks within Augsburg. As

one can see in all scenarios of the redevelopment area the average noise level Lden

inside the parks are below 50 dB and therefore very tranquil. The average area with

Lden < 55 dB at each person’s disposal differs from less than 4 m²/person up to about

13 m²/person. Comparing the potential number of people entering the park

scenario E called “Hettenbachpark” brings the biggest effect (compared to

scenario C and D) as here up to approx. 2700 people would make use of the park.

The Gögginger Park of Augsburg is exposed to higher levels of Lden and only very few

people would potentially make use of the park, but the people actually using the

park do have quite a big and quiet area for their availability. The biggest park within

this investigation is the “Wittelsbacher Park” which potentially 4067 people would

make use of and each person would on average have 23 m² of quiet area for

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

themselves. However the overall sound level of this park is higher with approx.

58.7 dB (max. 70.2 – see also table 4 in Annex A). Therefore the overall situation within

the scenarios of the redevelopment area can be regarded as very satisfactory.

Scenarios D and E probably are to be preferred before scenario C.

recreation quality of parks

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

m²/inhabitant

lev

el L

de

n

(av

era

ge w

ith

in t

he

park

)

Prinz-Karl-Park

Gögginger Park

Wittelsbacher Park

scenario C

scenario D

scenario E "Hettenbachpark"

assumed number

of people entering

the park

3958

1402

4067

1985

2612

2688

Figure 20: Recreation quality of parks

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

8 C O N C L U S I O N

All measures investigated do have advantages and disadvantages alike. Often the

costs of the measures are their biggest disadvantage. Therefore it is not that easy to

choose between one or another measure. Instead the best choice will often be a

combination of different measures.

When hot spots are determined and there is an acute need for action, short-term

strategies are sensible and effective.

If new residential areas are developed or the reconstruction of an area is addressed

in the context of city beautification, measures like the planning of buildings with

noise sensitive rooms at quiet sides and the redevelopment of entire blocks with the

construction of parks etc. should be considered in order to avoid or reduce the

effects of noise exposure. The present study shows that there are quite some

attractive and efficient possibilities to do so.

Within this investigation about the construction of the redevelopment area No. 8

scenario D especially distinguishes itself from the other scenarios, since here factual

the number of people exposed to high levels does not increase, compared to the

other scenarios however the total number of people living within the redevelopment

area is by far the highest. At the same time a large number of people (above the

total number of inhabitants within the redevelopment area) gain access to a green

area with a quite large area for each person’s disposal and low noise levels.

Nevertheless alongside the main road B 2 additional endemic measures such as

silent road surface, noise barriers or insulated glazing are necessary in order to

protect the few people highly exposed. The question as to whether such a big

number of apartments is necessary would of course have to be clarified in the first

place. The fundamental question is ‘Are cities without conflicts realisable?’ and this

cannot be readily answered. In general it is possible but costly, using extensive

measures or measures with a strong impact on the traffic. A reasonable cost-benefit

ratio can be reached with the combination of different measures and limited effort

for the city as well as owners of property, if the costs of the measures accrue to both

parties.

In the long run a sustainable, positive development can be realised through the

implementation of a mixed utilisation.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

9 A N N E X A

9.1 MAXIMILIANSTRASSE

Following diagram gives an overview of the effect of the investigated noise

mitigation measures, in comparison to each other, on the number of people

exposed within the area of “Maximilianstrasse”


1 645

76 67 85

170105

1648

75 69 90

164101

1690

67 81 87

209

14

1 768

81 80130

6822

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

1 600

1 800

2 000

< 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 > 70

level Lden [dB]

tota

l n

um

ber

of

peo

ple

exp

os

ed

(wit

hin

th

e a

rea o

f M

ax

imilia

nstr

asse)

actual state

insulated glazing and ventilation provisions

silent road surface

building layout with noise sensitive rooms at quiet side

Figure 21: Effect of the investigated noise mitigation measures

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

The diagram below demonstrates the cost-benefit ratio of the two investigated

measures, whose costs could be determined. The axis of abscissa shows the

reduction of the initial Noise Score of the status quo when the corresponding

measure is applied, the axis of ordinates give the corresponding costs. The diameter

of the mark shows the cost-benefit ratio.

cost-benefit ratio of measures within examplary situation at

Maximilianstrasse

4.70 [∆ NS/€]

16.27 [∆ NS/€]

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000

∆ Noise Score

co

sts

[€]

insulated glazing and ventilation provisions silent road surface

Figure 22: Cost-benefit ratio of the two investigated measures

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

9.2 REDEVELOPMENT AREA NO. 8

Quality of parks within the redevelopment area No. 8:

Table 4: Comparison of existing and planned parks in Augsburg

name total area number of area < 55 dB ("Quiet Area") noise level Lden

inhabitants min average max

[ha] [%] [ha] [m²/inhabitant] [dB] [dB] [dB]

status quo 0 - - - - - - -

scenario A 0 - - - - - - -

scenario B 0 - - - - - - -

scenario C 0.8 1 985 100 % 0.8 4.0 46.6 48.0 51.4

scenario D 0.7 2 612 100 % 0.7 2.7 46.1 47.6 53.0

scenario E "Hettenbachpark"

3.4 2 688 100 % 3.4 12.6 42.4 49.2 53.6

Prinz-Karl-Park 1.7 3 958 100 % 1.7 4.3 45.6 48.3 52.9

Gögginger Park 4.5 1 402 60 % 2.7 19.1 45.7 56.7 68.1

Wittelsbacher Park

15.0 4 067 63 % 9.4 23.1 47.7 58.7 70.2

In the following there are the original maps of the different town planning scenarios

of Augsburg created by “Baur & Deby, Architekten & Stadtplaner” presented. The

original maps are in German which is why there is a translation into English at first.

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

9.2.1 Land utilisation – status quo

Figure 23: Widely spread industrial area with extensive soil sealing

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

9.2.2 Land utilisation – scenario A

Figure 24: Mixed area with industrial real estate and residential areas

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

9.2.3 Land utilisation – scenario B

Figure 25: Mixed Old industrial areas are transformed into cultural areas with art galleries

Maximum on industrial (offices) land-use

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

9.2.4 Land utilisation – scenario C

Figure 26: Old industrial areas are transformed into cultural areas with art galleries and

residential areas Similar to scenario B with compressed living areas

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

9.2.5 Land utilisation – scenario D

Figure 27: Old industrial areas are mainly transformed into residential areas Maximum on

residential land-use

TIP4-CT-2005-516420 of 49


D5-6_ACC_36M.doc

9.2.6 Land utilisation – scenario E

Figure 28: Old industrial areas are mainly transformed into parks and residential areas,

Maximum on green area

D5-6 ACC 36M - Qcity

Documents

Transcript of D5-6 ACC 36M - Qcity