Annex A - Lambeth Residents concerns on NLE noise impacts This dossier sets out the ongoing concerns which

residents feel about the proposals as set out in the current TWAO application and accompanying Environmental Statement, and in particular on the issue of noise and vibration, which are likely to be the single biggest source of nuisance and health impacts on local residents. For the majority of Lambeth residents on the NLE route, the issue of operational noise will be the principal ongoing impact, and this group has received a great deal of correspondence on the possible effects on health of low rumblings every couple of minutes, from 05h30 till 01h00, 364 days a year (and potentially further into the night at weekends, if TfL decides to adopt later running). This will be accompanied by periodic vibrations, which when combined with noise could have the effect of damaging health and property. Much greater impacts will also be felt in the concentrated period during construction, when noise levels close to the main works sites could be so significant as to require remedial actions including potentially evacuating particularly-affected people. Methodological issues There are a number of different scientific techniques to measure noise levels, of which the most important in this context is dB L(A)max. A comparison between these techniques can be found in the Appendix at the end of this paper. This supports our and TfLs view (in the Environmental Statement) that the most stringent test, dB L(A)max,fast , is the appropriate measurement for comparing the effects of the Northern Line Extension with other relevant projects and standards. Health implications of operational noise Noise arises from many different types of sources and activities. The simple definition of noise is that it is unwanted sound, and as such, may have both direct physical and psychological effects on people if it is intense or persistent enough; causing sleep disturbance, interfering with normal conversations, or annoyance and stress. Evidence is accumulating that noise has real health effects on people and can be particularly damaging to normal human behaviour: it can interfere with complex task performance, modify social behaviour and cause annoyance, and that transport noise in particular, with its peaks and troughs in intensity is associated with psychological symptoms and with the use of psychotropic medication1 . A number of studies have been carried out over the years which demonstrate the clear linkages between ongoing noise and detrimental health2 1
Stephen Stansfield, Mary Haines & Bernadette Brown, Noise and Health in the Urban Environment, Reviews on Environmental Health (vol 15, no.1, 2000)

Annoyance: The World Health Organisation3 noted that annoyance responses in individuals are not just conditioned by acoustic factors such as noise source, exposure level and time of day exposure, but also nonacoustic al factors such as the extent of interference experienced, ability to cope, expectations, fear associated with the noise source and beliefs about whether those responsible for causing the noise could also reduce it. Hyper-tension and coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis found that for aircraft noise, a 5dBA rise in noise was associated with a 25% increase in the risk of hypertension compared with those not exposed to noise.4 Sleep disturbance: a recent synthesis of field studies concluded that there was sufficient evidence that night-time noise exposure was causing direct biological responses, at approximately 40dB, as well as affecting wellbeing and quality of sleep.5 Railway noise has generally been considered as the least annoying transportation source, and, therefore, it has not achieved the same attention as road traffic and airport noise. However, recent studies suggest that nocturnal railway noise is as disturbing to sleep as road traffic noise6 and that railway noise has important short-term impact on the cardiovascular system and might increase the risk for hypertension. Underground railways do mitigate some of the pure decibel intensity of standard noise pollution caused by rail and in particular the often shrill frequency of this noise. However, groundborne noise brings subtly different challenges, in that it cannot be mitigated by the standard approaches used for airborne noise, such as double-glazing. Other recent studies demonstrate that where there are ground-borne noise and vibration, significantly lower noise levels are needed in order to generate annoyance and the associated ill-health effects.7 In Norway, the requirement for structure-borne noise from tunnels is no higher than 32
Stephen Stansfield & Charlotte Clark, The Effect of Transportation Noise on Health and Cognitive Development: A Review of Recent Evidence, International Journal of Comparative Psychology (vol 20, pp.145-158, 2007)

3
World Health Organisation, Guidelines for Community Noise, 2000

4
E. van Kempen et al, The Association between noise exposure and blood pressure and ischemic heart disease: a meta-analysis, Environmental Health Perspectives (issue 110,3, pp.307317, 2002)

5
HCN, The influence of night time noise on sleep and health, Health Council of the Netherlands publication 2004/1E, 2004

6
P Lercher et al, The effects of railway noise on sleep medication intake: results from the ALPNAP-study, Noise Health (2010, 12:110-119) and J Hong et al The effects of long-term exposure to railway and road traffic noise on subjective sleep disturbance , Journal of the Acoustic Society of America (2010, 128:2829-2835)

dB L(A)max, fast inside dwellings, and yet this level of noise has been shown to cause annoyance to 20% of the exposed population.8 Relevant international standards for noise levels which cause health disturbance The World Health Organisation9 set out in 2009 a list of what it considered to be the threshold noise levels which would have health impacts on individuals, and its list is the following: Biological/health issue Noise threshold10 Motility, onset of motility 32 dB L(A)max, inside EEG awakening 35 dB L(A)max, inside Changes in sleep structure 35 dB L(A)max, inside Waking up in the night 42 dB L(A)max, inside Increased use of sedatives and 40 dB (L)night, outside somnifacient drugs Self-reported sleep disturbance 42 dB (L)night, outside Onset of hypertension 50 dB (L)night, outside On the basis of the above effects, the World Health Organisation suggested that night noise above 40 dB(L)night, outside would be positively damaging to health, while recognising that vulnerable individuals (for example children, the chronically ill and the elderly) would be susceptible to health impacts given noise levels in the 30-40 dB (L)night, outside range It should be noted that the WHOs guidelines on night noise are expressed in terms of decibels encountered at night, and that this measure assumes that for part of the year, bedroom windows will be open for the purposes of ventilation. Rupert Thornley-Taylor, who is incidentally the noise consultant engaged by TfL for the Northern Line Extension, explained to a group of Lambeth residents in January 2013 that to make the these WHO night noise guidelines meaningful, this figure needs to be converted into a figure for noise encountered inside a bedroom, which he stated would be approximately 25 dB L(A)eq, 8hr.
Anita Gidlf-Gunnarsson et al, Railway noise annoyance and the importance of number of trains, ground vibration, and building situational factors , Noise and Health, (vol14, issue 59, 2012)

8
Gunn Marit Aasvang et al, Annoyance and self-reported sleep disturbances due to structurally radiated noise from railway tunnels, Applied Acoustics (vol 68, Issue 9, Sep 2007, Pages 970981) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003682X06000892

9
World Health Organisation, Night Noise Guidelines for Europe, (WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009) http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/43316/E92845.pdf

10
N.B. WHO did not make clear whether these figures are quoted as dB L(A) max,fast or dB L(A)max,
slow

Given the long average of this 8-hour figure which is not equivalent to the peak noises that could be expected from a railway it is safer and better to use the dB L(A) max, inside figures quoted by the WHO in their report on when peak noise can cause biological effects on sleep patterns. In this case, as quoted above, WHO believes that noise levels of 32 dB L(A) max, inside can cause the onset of motility, and so it is safer for TfL and other designers of underground railways to ensure that their systems to a better standard than this. As has previously been noted, this is already the maximum level of ground-borne noise permitted from new tunnels in Norway. British Standards for operational noise Currently no British Standards exist which recommend a method by which to assess intermittent ground-borne or structure-borne noise, such as that induced by trains. TfLs Environmental Statement also makes reference to levels of adverse reaction which might be expected to result in adverse reactions and complaints. Whilst there is no widely accepted method of evaluation of ground-borne noise, there is some consensus that for levels at and above 50 dB L(A) max, slow during daytime, there is likely to be significant adverse reaction. For residential situations, the dB L(A) max, slow noise levels for which there are likely to be very little adverse comment can be taken as around 30 dB L(A) max, slow during the daytime and around 25 dB L(A) max, slow during night time. These levels do not equate to the train pass-by being inaudible, but are considered to be reasonable. For reference, 25 dB L(A) max, slow is approximately equivalent to 28 dB L(A) max, fast On the basis of the above publications, Lambeth residents are therefore suggesting 30 dB L(A) max, fast is a suitable target for TfL to aim for in designing the Northern Line Extension, and would be better for health than the 35 dB L(A) max, fast which TfL is currently aiming to deliver. This view is shared by the statement of Ramboll, engineering advisors to Lambeth Council, who in their report in December 2012 stated that a target of 30 dB L(A) max, fast would be preferable, compared to TfLs existing target. Can the Northern Line Extension be designed so that operational noise is below 35 dB L(A) max, fast? International standards in tunnelling construction have progressed greatly in recent years, and noise mitigation is now routinely designed into tunnels from the earliest stage as part of current best practice. As an example, Rupert Thornley-Taylor stated to residents in January 2013 that continuous welded track on resilient base plates is now the standard practice since the development of the Jublilee Line Extension. Since Crossrail was approved, technology has further improved, and also noise forecasting techniques. Indeed, since Crossrail, a number of railway tunnelling projects have been developed internationally which incorporate noise standards in excess of

the 35 dB L(A) max, fast which TfL is working towards. A table outlining a number of these is attached below:
Operational noise level commitments from selected recent tunnelling projects Railway system Maximum noise limit Dublin metro centre of town 25 dB L(A)max,slow Oslo metro 30 dB L(A)max,slow Malmo Citytuneln 30 dB L(A)max,slow Gothenburg Vstlnken project 30 dB L(A)max,slow Stockholm Citybanan 30 dB L(A)max,slow LUL 2012 Noise and Vibration Asset Design Guidance reasonable endeavours Dublin metro suburbs 35 dB L(A)max,slow LUL 2012 Noise and Vibration Asset Design Guidance maximum allowable Crossrail 40 dB L(A)max,slow international Equivalent in dB L(A)max,fast 28 32 32 32 32 35 38 40 43
11

Source: Experts Report on Environmental Statement for Dublin Metro North

On this basis, it seems eminently possible for TfL to design its project to a higher degree of tolerance than its current design reference and this without needing to adopt some of the more expensive techniques for noise mitigation, of which examples have been shown in the Environmental Statement. Procurement strategy While Lambeth residents believe it is entirely possible for TfL to achieve, and indeed exceed, its target operational noise limit without incurring excessive costs, we recognise that this may be all that it is willing to guarantee to residents at this stage in the procurement of contractors. In this context, it is vital for TfL to outline precisely what its procurement strategy for tendering suitably qualified contractors, and what standards they will be held to as part of the tendering process. Outstanding questions which need to be tested further during a public inquiry include: how does TfL intend to procure contractors who are able to operate at the cutting edge of noise mitigation technology? What standards will TfL require to be demonstrated by contractors, as part of a wider requirement on their own behalf to demonstrate best practical means to reduce operational noise levels? What remedies could be available to residents at a later date, if it becomes clear that noise levels are above those predicted in the Environmental Statement included in the TWAO application? Construction noise Lambeth residents recognise that it is inevitable that the tunnelling process will require a certain amount of temporary noise in certain locations, which will take place in a concentrated duration. In order to 11
http://www.pleanala.ie/news/na0003/rNA0003B.pdf

ensure that this noise is kept to the minimum necessary, the following questions need to be tested further in a public inquiry: What standards does TfL intend will apply to their contractors in order to demonstrate compliance with best practical means to reduce construction noise impacts? What is the content of a Code of Construction Practice that TfL intends to enter into with the relevant local authorities, and enforce on their contractors? What role do local authorities intend to play in enforcing best practice, and what assurances can they offer to local residents that they are ready and willing to enforce these standards? In particular, what standards will there be in order to limit working time involving significant construction noise, such that at the very minimum it is limited to daytime during the working week. The fact that TfL intends to seek a statutory defence to common law claims for nuisance means that it is vital that limits on acceptable noise levels are clearly stated as part of the TWA Order it ultimately receives. Furthermore, questions need to be asked about how TfL intends to implement the Construction Noise and Vibration Mitigation Scheme which is enclosed as an annex to its TWAO application: What measures will TfL put in place to ensure that all qualifying residents are made aware of their rights under this scheme? How will TfL and the local authority plan to assist affected residents to benefit from the scheme, and in particular the right to seek compensation, either in the shape of monetary payments, temporary resettlement and/or double-glazing? Vibration TfL further need to answer questions about how they intend to deal with the damage to properties along the line due to vibration and/or ground settlement: What arrangements do TfL intend to put in place to conduct before and after surveys on all homes within the limits of deviation, in order to assess damage caused by vibration and/or ground settlement? What terms will be available to carry out remedial works to properties, even if TfL initially predicts that effects of vibration and/or settlement will be in the low-risk categories? In what timescales can property owners expect that remedial works will be carried out and/or monetary compensation paid?

Appendix - Note on measurements Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. The standard measurement of sound is in terms of the pressure changes in acoustic waves against a logarithmic (decibel) scale. In these terms, a 5dB increase represents a 50% increase above the baseline, while a 10dB change represents a doubling of the baseline level. The standard dB unit of noise measurement can be adjusted such that it concentrates on the bandwidths which are within the range of frequencies that can be detected by the human ear this is represented by the dB L(A) measure. It is not easy to compare directly constant, background noise levels against intermittent, time-sensitive noises which have distinct peaks of intensity. There are two main ways of describing such peak noises. dB L(A)eq measures the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level over a given period of time; dB L(A)max measures the maximum value that the A-weighted averaged sound pressure level reaches during a measurement period. This can subdivided according to the measurement technique that divides peak sound by 1 second (dB L(A)max,slow), or by 0.125 seconds (dB L(A)max,fast). For underground trains, the dB L(A)max,fast measurement is the most accurate way of measuring peak sound intensity, and a rough comparison of the same noise level, when measured by the different techniques, is attached below. dB L(A)max,fast 30 32 35 38 40 dB L(A)max,slow 28 30 32 35 38