Comments on: Acoustic noise barriers and sustainable landscape architecture

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:18:15 +0000

In reply to Paul scott. Sound waves spread like ripples in a pool of water, but in three dimensions. A bowl tends to act like a funnel, directing the sound waves to the rim. If there are environmental barriers beside a road they will direct the sound waves upward. If the road is elevated, without sound barriers, the sound will travel both down and up - but it will not be concentrated if there is no bowl. It would be intersting to walk along the route of the railway line with a sound level meter and take readings for different landscape configurations.

By: Paul scott

Paul scott — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:59:46 +0000

I live close to the scarp slope (25-32 degrees) of the south downs which comprise of bowl-like coombes and with the right wind, ghost trains from three miles away echo hauntingly at night. On such a large scale landscape echo is there an optimum position to hear it. Is it neccesarily on the ground. Could the same effects be heard if significantly elevated ? Regards.

By: christine

christine — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:06:17 +0000

Most international agreements refer to the principle of technology transfer. If wealthy countries did not spend money on developing technology to overcome problems of the environment, human health and human settlement etc there would be nothing to share with poorer countries…

By: Benz

Benz — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:49:18 +0000

Without EU directives and muscle we would be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. UK governments in the past and present do not care about noise, where it is apparently obvious that the governments in many EU countries do and have done so for many years. What happens in the UK regarding actual noise reduction is miniscule compared to what is achieved in noisy environments in most EU countries. Why is this? I don’t really know, but I think it has mainly to do with the public’s apathy in general and because there is no ‘champion’ or ‘Tzar’ to tackle the subject. Can I also say that this discussion would not occur in the developing world. Noise is not an issue. People are not going to put money into noise mitigation when basic services are missing and people are dying because of this. So what we are talking about here is more or less a luxury, although for me an important luxury. The principle that the polluter pays should be held to and thus if road, rail and air traffic increase noise levels, then these ‘industries’ should pay: in the first instance to provide solutions where noise does not become a problem and secondly where it is already a problem steps should be taken to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. If this cannot be achieved then the road, rail and air services should be shut down.

By: Amber

Amber — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:54:50 +0000

I agree about the concept of quiet areas too, I would have attended the recent conference on Tranquil Spaces (re: EU Directive on Environmental Noise), by the Mayor of London’s Office if I hadn’t had classes – however I don’t know how valuable it would have been.
Building Design online provide a review
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3151072#
said that the rsearch present was thought provoking but the Aviation Environmental Federation http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:pO_WNbhNDckJ:www.aef.org.uk/uploads/Tranquil_spaces_conf.doc+london+zoo+quiet+conference&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
found the conference ‘tedious’ except for the final speaker who forwarded that the Eu should opt out of the directive so that resources are used to do something about noise, rather than research it, as virtually nothing being done at the moment.

By: Benz

Benz — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:04:52 +0000

Agreed, agreed, agreed

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:12:30 +0000

The conclusion I have reached is that the focus should be on making Quiet Areas, rather than on “Barriers” but I most certainly agree that any barriers which are built should be multi-purpose. I see this as one of the cardinal principles of landscape planning.

By: Alison

Alison — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:57:19 +0000

Where fast busy noisy roads pass close to the ears/lungs of citizens (mostly between population centres), we should be designing alternative energy production that doubles as an ENB then triples as an air cleaner and also looks amazing.
Where slow busy smelly roads (ie inside population centres) pass close to citizens they should be closed/re-routed/buried/access only!
When new fast roads are being designed they should be designed with all their environmental impacts being mitigated by design (noise and air pollution) and should additionally give back to society/nature (some way to have net environmental gain).

By: Benz

Benz — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 07:25:40 +0000

Some interesting examples. Every action in the landscape affects microclimate in some way.

By: Christine

Christine — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 06:37:49 +0000

Transparent ENB’s are also being used to modify the microclimate of developments.
[ http://www.cdnarchitect.com/asf/principles_of_enclosure/environmental_mediation/environmental_mediation.htm ]