A PRE AND POST-STUDY NOISE ANNOYANCE FROM MOTORWAY 3

A PRE AND POST-STUDY NOISE ANNOYANCE FROM MOTORWAY 3 DANISH ROAD INSTITUTE TECHNICAL NOTE 79-2010

NOISE ANNOYANCE FROM MOTORWAY 3 A pre and post-study Technical note 79-2010 AUTHOR: Emine Celik Christensen ISBN ELECTRONIC: 978-87-92094-74-2 DATED: December 2010 COPYRIGHT: Road Directorate, 2010 LAYOUT: Svenning Olm, Berit Jensen PUBLISHED BY: Road Directorate, Danish Road Institute PHOTO: Road Directorate Eagle Luftfoto

INDHOLD PREFACE 5 SUMMARY 7 1. INTRODUCTION 11 1.1 Background 11 1.2 Earlier research 18 1.3 Objective of the investigation 19 2. COMMUNICATION PROCES 20 3. NOISE ABATEMENT 23 3.1 Noise mapping 23 3.2 Noise barrier 24 3.3 Noise reducing pavements 35 3.4 Sound insulation of building facade 35 4. MATERIAL AND METHODS 37 4.1 Study area and study sample 37 4.2 Questionnaire 45 4.2.1 Structure and content 45 4.2.2 Pilot testing 47 4.2.3 Distribution 47 4.2.4 Data processing 48 4.3 Calculations of noise exposure 48 5. RESULTS 52 5.1 Noise levels in the study areas 52 5.1.1 Area A 53 5.1.2 Area B 56 5.1.3 Area C 58 5.1.4 Area D 60 5.1.5 Area E 62 5.1.6 Area F 64 5.1.7 Total noise in all six areas 66 3

5.2 Study population 68 5.2.1 Age (Q37) 68 5.2.2 Gender (Q38) 70 5.2.3 Income (Q40) 71 5.2.4 Sensitivity to noise (Q41) 73 5.2.5 Number of people permanently living in the residence (Q43) 74 5.2.6 Children in the residence (Q39) 76 5.2.7 Type of residence (Q18) 77 5.2.8 Ownership of the residence (Q19) 78 5.2.9 Years in present home (Q42) 79 5.2.10 Plans about moving (Q44, Q45) 80 5.2.11 Participation in the pre-questionnaire (Q46) 82 5.3 Annoyance from road traffic (Q1) 84 5.4 Annoyance from road traffic noise (Q2a) 89 5.4.1 inside the house (Q3, Q4, Q5) 90 5.4.2 Outside the house (Q6, Q7) 95 5.5 Noise abatement 98 5.5.1 What should be done to reduce the noise (Q15) 98 5.5.2 What have the respondents done to reduce noise (Q14) 99 5.5.3 Who should pay for noise reductions (Q17) 101 5.5.4 Willingness to pay (Q16) 103 5.6 Communication process 104 5.6.1 Participation in the process / discussions (Q34) 104 5.6.2 Experience with the communication process with Danish Road Directorate and other actors (Q33, Q35, Q36) 105 5.7 Change regarding noise environment (Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q13) 109 6. CONCLUSION 118 REFERENCES 121 APPENDIX 125 4

PREFACE Due to the increase in traffic, the Danish Parliament decided in January 2001 to widen Motorway 3 which is a city motorway that runs through a heavily populated area around Copenhagen. The construction work started in April 2005 and ended in November 2008. Great efforts were made to reduce the noise exposure from road traffic for the many thousand neighbours who live a short distance from the motorway in connection with the widening of the 17 km long motorway section from two to three lanes in each direction between Jægersborgvej and Holbækmotorvej. As a part of the project, an investigation on noise annoyance due to road traffic noise was carried out by the Danish Road Directorate. The investigation was designed as a pre and post-study which contains the responses from people who live in the residential areas along Motorway 3. Subjective responses were collected by means of two mail questionnaires carried out before the widening in 2003 and a year after the construction work was finalized in 2009. This report describes the investigation and presents the results obtained. It must be emphasised that data collected by means of a questionnaire survey is the participants own perception and report. The responses are from six selected housing areas along the motorway. The criteria for the development of socio-acoustic surveys that have been applied in this survey derive from the work of the International Commission on Biological Effects of Noise - ICBEN [1]. The project was carried out by a group mainly consisting of researchers from the Danish Road Directorate. The design of the questionnaire survey, including the questionnaire itself, was discussed in 2003 with an expert group with the following members: Lene Mikkelsen, Danish Road Directorate Hans Bendtsen, Danish Road Directorate / Danish Road Institute Bent Andersen, Danish Road Directorate / Danish Road Institute Lars Ellebjerg Larsen, Danish Road Directorate / Danish Road Institute Niels Gottlieb, Danish Road Directorate Hanne Lylov Nielsen, Environmental Protection Agency Jørgen Horstmann, Environmental Protection Agency Torben Poulsen, Acoustic Technology, Denmark Technical University Marie Louise Bistrup, National Institute of Public Health 5

Torben Holm Petersen, Delta Acoustic and Vibration Ivan Christensen, Municipality of Gladsaxe Ib Skovgaard, Municipality of Herlev Aslak Fyhri, The Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo The pre-questionnaire survey has been carried out by the consulting company Atkins Denmark, while the post-questionnaire survey has been carried out six years later by the Danish Road Directorate by the same experts who carried out the pre-questionnaire earlier; at that time Hans Bendtsen, Bent Andersen, Lars Ellebjerg Larsen were employed at Atkins Denmark. For many years, the noise indicator L Aeq,24h has been used in Denmark when assessing noise from road traffic. A new indicator, L DEN, was introduced by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2007. The noise mapping for the M3 project was performed using the noise indicator L Aeq,24h. All the noise levels presented in this report are A-weighted. The unit db is used in this report and it is equal to what is often denoted db(a) or dba. The noise calculations were carried out by Lars Find Larsen from COWI. The data analyses were carried out with valuable feedback from Hans Bendtsen. The report is written by Emine Celik Christensen with comments from Hans Bendtsen. Proof reading of the final report and translation (Danish-English) of the questionnaire, cover letter and reminder were made by Helen Hasz-Singh. The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable comments and recommendations of the expert group in the design of the questionnaire and contribution to the pilot testing. The authors would also like to thank all respondents for participating and making this study possible. 6

SUMMARY Due to the increase in traffic, the Danish Parliament decided to widen Motorway 3 (M3) from four to six lanes on a 17 km long stretch in January 2001. By 2005, the traffic volume was 90,000 vehicles/day. M3 is an urban motorway that runs through a heavily populated area around Copenhagen. In a belt of 500 metres on both sides of the motorway around 14,000 dwellings are located meaning that around 30,000 people live along the motorway. Before the widening of M3, there were 1.5-2.0 metres high noise barriers. As part of the reconstruction project, four meter high noise barriers were built and noise reducing road pavements were laid. A detailed noise map showed that if the previously constructed low noise barriers along the M3 were kept until 2010, there would have been approximately 6,300 dwellings exposed to more than 55 db of noise from the motorway traffic. However, by 2010, after the M3 was widened to six lanes and new noise barriers were constructed, only approximately 2,200 dwellings were actually exposed to noise higher than 55 db from the motorway. As a part of this widening process, an investigation on noise annoyance from road traffic noise has been carried out by Danish Road Directorate before and after the construction. The investigation was designed as a pre and post-study containing responses from the people living along the motorway in six residential areas with some 1,200 dwellings situated at distances from a few metres to 500-800 metres from M3. Subjective responses were collected by two mail questionnaires that were sent out during the period of October-November 2003 and November-December 2009 respectively. The response rate was 71% in the pre-study and 65% in the post -study which can be considered quite high for this type of public questionnaires. Detailed noise calculations in the six selected investigation areas show that M3 is the main source of high noise levels. The noise exposure from other main roads and local roads in the six areas is considerably lower. In the aftersituation, no households are exposed to more than 60 db; while in the presituation 5% were exposed to more than 60 db. In the pre-situation, 45% of the population was exposed to noise levels between 55-60 db, and this is significantly reduced to 22% in the post-situation. Around 50% of all dwellings were under 55 db in the pre-situation and this has increased to around 78% in the post-situation after the widening of the M3. 7

The description of the respondents in the pre and the post-study can be summarized as the following: All live in a villa or a terraced house. 90% own their own dwelling. Over 60% have lived in their dwelling for more than ten years. In the post-study, the respondents have lived longer in their dwelling. 70% of the respondents reports having a normal sensitivity to noise. In the post-study, there is a tendency towards higher incomes. Both in the pre and post-study, 10% have plans to move. 38% of the respondents stated that they participated to the pre-study On that background it has been decided that the population of respondents in the pre and the post-study are relatively alike and therefore it is reasonable to compare the results from the two studies. As a start to the questionnaire, the respondents got a general question on annoyance from road traffic. It is clear that noise is the dominant source of annoyance. Before the widening of the M3, 83% of the respondents highlighted noise as a source of annoyance and this reduces to 68% after the construction process. The percentage of respondents who do not experience any annoyance is increased form 10% to 20%. When the respondents were asked if the noise had changed during the last two to three years, 27% in the post-study answered that the noise has been reduced, and 44% think it is more or less unchanged. In the post-study 22% think the noise has increased and this is an improvement from the pre-study where 58% stated that the noise had increased during the latest two to three years. The main result of the two studies is the changes in the generally perceived noise annoyance from road traffic in the whole area including noise from M3 as well as local roads and other main roads. The percentage of very and extremely annoyed respondents decreases from 37% to 16%. The percentage of moderately annoyed is nearly constant with 30% and 27% respectively. Finally, the percentage of slightly or not annoyed increases from 33% to 57% from the pre to the post-study. As a total this is a remarkable reduction of the perceived noise annoyance in the areas studied around M3 for the new situation after the extension of M3. The questionnaire shows that M3 is the main source noise annoyance. After the widening, the perceived noise from M3 decreases while other major roads and local roads became more obvious. 8

There is a reduction of the reported annoyance and disturbance in the poststudy. In the pre-study, 38% reported that they opened the windows less than normal; this has decreased to 28% in the post-study. In the questions on sleeping quality there is a remarkable improvement. In the pre-study 14% reported difficulties in falling asleep or being woken up during night time. This has decreased to app. 7% in the post-study. For all activities related to being outside in the garden, there is a decrease in the reported annoyance in the post-study. The percentage of people who indicate annoyance during conversations is reduced from 36% to 20%. The percentage who indicate annoyance while reading outside decreases from 42% to 29% and finally the percentage annoyed while using the telephone is reduced form 19% to 12%. More than 70% of the respondents were not planning to move from their houses and there is no change between the percentages of respondents who is planning to move. Twenty three percent reported that traffic noise was the main reason for having plans to move in the pre-study and this decreased to 14% in the post-study. The respondents were asked what should be done to reduce the annoyance from road traffic noise. The percentage of respondents who recommend that nothing should be done increased from 13% to 28%, the percentage of respondents who recommended to build noise barriers decreased from 61% to 28%, while the percentage of respondents suggesting to use noise reducing noise pavements decreased from 61% to 40%. Response distribution shows that a large majority of the respondents (app. 70%) did nothing themselves to reduce noise annoyance where they live. Installing noise reducing windows is the second most common answer (15% to 20%). The increase in the installation of noise reducing windows after the widening of M3 may partly be explained by the Danish Road Directorate s offer to subsidize sound insulation of building façades. A large majority of the respondents (more than 70%) see it as the responsibility of the authorities to reduce noise. Most of the respondents are not at all eager to pay themselves to reduce noise. But there is a certain willingness to pay from 23% to 24%. There are 23% who in the pre-study do not know whether they would be willing to do so and this decrease to 18% in the post-study. Thirty percent of the respondents have actively participated in the process/discussion about the rebuilding of M3, while 40% did not want to do so. Eighteen percent of the respondents claimed they did not get the possibility to participate. 9

Fifty eight percent of the respondents found that the way the Danish Road Directorate communicates with them as resident in connection with the widening of M3 satisfactory or very satisfactory. The percentage of respondents who found the communication less satisfactory is only 8%. Both subjective noise annoyance responses and objective noise level calculations showed that there has been a great improvement in the environment along M3 as regards noise. Although the number of daily vehicles passing on M3 has increased significantly compared to six years ago, with the help of combined noise abatement solutions, noise levels have decreased and overall subjective responses on noise annoyance from traffic noise have significantly reduced. 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. INTRODUCTION In modern times, road traffic noise is recognized as a serious environmental problem which raises several aspects in the general public s awareness with regard to the increasing number of vehicles circulating on urban road network. Road traffic noise is a typical example of conflict between the needs for individual mobility and the desire for a quieter lifestyle. Noise is known as one of the most frequently reported negative environmental effects of traffic. It has been estimated that about 30% of the population in Denmark is exposed to road traffic noise at levels exceeding 55 db. Road traffic is the main source of transport noise in urban areas. To achieve an effective road traffic noise policy requires a combined approach that balances overall road-related sound emission without affecting citizens right to mobility. 1.1 BACKGROUND During the 1960 s, due to Denmark s post-war economic boom, the traffic on M3 which was a smaller road around Copenhagen was growing significantly. In order to relieve some of the traffic congestion from this road, the Danish Parliament decided to construct a new road. The new road is called shortly M3. M3 is situated approximately 15 km west of the centre of Copenhagen in Denmark and runs almost parallel between Ring Road 3 and Ring Road 4 (Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2) 11

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Figure 1.1. Map of Copenhagen (left), M3 ( Motorring 3 in Danish) connecting the Danish capital Copenhagen to the rest of Denmark and Europe through six motorways (right). Figure 1.2. Bird eye view over M3. 12

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The construction of the M3 was decided in 1954 and was started in 1966. Figure 1.3 shows a view from M3 around 1960 s. Figure 1.3. M3, a few years after the construction started, in 1960 s. 13

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The section between Jægersborg and Jyllingevej was opened in 1968/71. In 1977, a new section connecting it to Holbækmotorvej was built. All the stages, in which the construction of the M3 was completed [2] are shown in Figure 1.4. Figure 1.4. Stages showing construction of M3. 14

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION M3 connects the growing suburban areas, the city centre and other motorways which connect Denmark with the rest of the Europe [3]. Therefore, a few years after the construction was completed, it became the most important road around Copenhagen. However, over the last 25 to 30 years, traffic on the M3 has increased considerably to the point where long queues occurred during rush hours and vehicle speeds slowed down to 25-30 km per hour. During the 1980 s, there were approximately 35.000 vehicles a day on the M3, during 1990 s this number increased to 55.000 and in 2005, there were more then 90.000 vehicles a day on the M3 [4]. Due to the increase of traffic volume, it became necessary to find a new solution. The Danish Road Directorate carried out a detailed investigation aiming to solve the growing problem. On the basis of this investigation, the widening of the existing two-lane motorway to three lanes in each direction for 17 km was considered and chosen as the best solution among the alternatives [3]. An idea sketch of the solution chosen can be seen in Figure 1.5. Figure 1.5. Idea sketch of the widening of M3 from two to three lanes in each direction. During the widening process, one of the challenges was to keep the motorway functional throughout the entire four year construction period (Figure 1.6). 15

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Figure 1.6. Construction work on M3 during the widening During the construction, 235 properties were partly and 15 properties were fully expropriated. Additionally, 314 properties were used as temporary working areas for a limited period of time (see Figure 1.7). 16

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Figure 1.7. Some of the properties were used as temporary working areas for a limited period of time during the widening of M3. A close communication process was created between Danish Road Directorate and inhabitants living along M3 while the construction was on-going, which made it possible for inhabitants to comment on the process to some extent (Chapter 2). 17

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Figure 1.8. M3 after widening; Denmark s first architecturally designed motorway [5]. 1.2 EARLIER RESEARCH Annoyance from noise is affected by both individual and noise-source related factors. Individual factors are noise sensitivity, attitude to the noise source, physiological and psychological state, and situational factors such as activities performed or intended to be performed. Noise-source related factors are controllability of the noise source, information content and permanence. Hence, the same noise may result in totally different responses and reactions from different people depending on cultural factors [6], attitude to the noise source [7] and [8], noise sensitivity [8], controllability of the source [9], and other situational and individual aspects (see e.g. [10] and [11] for a review). Predicting a community s reaction to urban traffic noise is not easily made, based only on simple quantitative measures. To process suitable descriptors for the subjective judgment of noise exposure by means of simple objective measures is not easy to fulfill when individual differences come into play. Several attempts have therefore been made with the goal of correlating subjective annoyance and noise exposure [12], [13] and [14]. After reviewing numerous surveys, Shultz was able to synthesis a single curve for the relationship between community reaction and noise exposure [15]. 18

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION When attempting to measure the degree of annoyance caused by traffic noise, the questionnaires and interviews to be answered by the responders and the test volunteers are also important. There are several models for such questionnaires. In the present study, the development of the survey derived from the work of the International Commission on Biological Effects of Noise [1]. 1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE INVESTIGATION There have been few Danish surveys covering the subject of annoyance from traffic noise [16], [17]. The first survey dates back to the early 1970 s; since then, society has changed significantly which might have resulted in a change of the actual noise situation as well as people s tolerance to noise. In 2002, a large survey covering three urban areas in Odense, Randers and Århus was published [17]. The aims of the present investigation are; To find out what is the differences in annoyance levels before and after the widening of M3 To obtain a better knowledge on how people are annoyed by road traffic noise To provide up-to-date knowledge on noise annoyance To analyze the noise annoyance in various situations, which people experience during the day. Therefore it was decided to carry out a questionnaire survey covering the selected areas of interest. 19

CHAPTER 2 COMMUNICATION PROCES 2. COMMUNICATION PROCES M3 passes through a number of residential areas in which about 14,000 housing units are located in a range of about 500 metres each side of the road. This means about 30,000 people live close to M3. During the whole process from the earliest to the last phases of the project, communication with the public was taken very seriously and resources have been allocated by the Danish Road Directorate. There has been a full time communication employee working on the project who could be accessed by the neighbours all day. The public received continuous information about the progress of the project via public hearings, neighbour and company forums, information letters and an internet homepage. The Danish Road Directorate has carried out two public project hearings. Each hearing consisting of a number of informational meetings and debates, where citizens could make remarks and comment on the project (Figure 2.1). An introductory hearing was held during the idea and proposal phase of the project. A final hearing with the results of the plan for the M3 was also held. In addition, a number of informational meetings were held between the two hearings. Figure 2.1. Public project hearings, where citizens can make remarks and comment on the project. 20

CHAPTER 2 COMMUNUCATION PROCES Annoyance from traffic noise has often been the most important topic at the meetings. Suggestions and alternative solutions have been discussed during these meetings. To ensure a high level of communication between the Danish Road Directorate and the public, a neighbourhood forum was set up. In the forum there have been about 50 participants such as stakeholders and property owners, which meet two to four times a year to discuss issues and concerns on the M3 project. The forum was also used by the neighbours to influence the design of the noise barrier for the M3, and the type of plants that covers the barriers along each residence etc. These meetings enabled the Danish Road Directorate to give information on the progress of the project and to receive relevant feedback from local authorities and the public. Similar information meetings were also set up for the companies in the areas along the road having more than 100 employees. Danish Road Directorate has sent out letters to each household when there would be work in their area (along M3). It has also been possible to find updated information at the homepage of Danish Road Directorate on the work along M3. Figure 2.2. Construction work along M3 demolition of an old bridge. Saturday morning, 7 o clock. Neighbours from the area were invited to watch the explosion and later have breakfast at Danish Road Directorate. 21

CHAPTER 2 COMMUNICATION PROCES Figure 2.3. The side of the noise barriers facing the residential areas are prepared for plants growing up the barrier. 22

CHAPTER 3 NOISE ABATEMENT 3. NOISE ABATEMENT 3.1 NOISE MAPPING The issue of traffic noise was the greatest concern of the neighbours living close to M3. Therefore, an extremely important part of the project has been to reduce the noise exposure for the inhabitants living along M3. To evaluate the noise related consequences, noise mapping along M3 was carried out in 2002 as a part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (see Figure 3.1). With noise mapping, noise exposure was calculated along M3. The calculations made it possible to evaluate the noise related consequences while changing a number of parameters such as traffic load, speed limits as well as implementing different noise reducing solutions. The construction price of different noise reducing solutions was evaluated for their effects so the noise related effect per invested DKK could be calculated. Based on the results of these calculations it was decided to use primarily four metre high noise barriers, wherever there was a need [18]. A detailed noise map showed that if the former old and low noise barriers along the M3 were kept until 2010, there would have been approximately 6,300 dwellings (housing units) exposed to more than 55 db of noise from the motorway traffic. In 2010, when the widening of the M3 was completed to six lanes and new noise barriers were built, only approximately 2,200 dwellings would be exposed to over 55 db noise from the motorway. 23

CHAPTER 3 NOISE ABATEMENT <50 50-52 52-54 54-56 56-58 58-60 60-62 62-64 64-66 66-68 68-70 >70 Figure 3.1. Noise mapping along M3 was carried out in 2002 as a part of the Environmental Impact Assessment. 3.2 NOISE BARRIER Before the widening of M3, there were noise barriers in the form of old eternite panels that were 1.5-2.0 metres high (see Figure 3.2). In a few places there were newer barriers of about 3 metres in height, and in other places there was no noise protection at all. 24

CHAPTER 3 NOISE ABATEMENT Figure 3.2. Before the widening of M3, noise barriers in the form of 1.5-2.0 metres high, old eternite panels. 25

CHAPTER 3 NOISE ABATEMENT During the widening process, approximately 24 million Euros have been spent on noise abatement. This includes building more than 17 km of noise barriers at a height of 2-4 metres along the road. The noise barriers in many sections include a foundation on a retaining wall, therefore the total height in some places is nine metres above the adjacent residential areas (see Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 and Figure 3.5). Figure 3.3. Noise barriers in many sections include a foundation on a retaining wall. 26

CHAPTER 3 NOISE ABATEMENT Figure 3.4. Noise barriers in idea sketches. 27

CHAPTER 3 NOISE ABATEMENT Figure 3.5. Four metre high aluminium absorbing noise barriers bent 10 towards the road along both sides of M3. 28

CHAPTER 3 NOISE ABATEMENT Figure 3.6 shows the back garden of a single family detached house situated along M3 before, during and after the widening of the motorway. Figure 3.6. Back garden of a single family detached house situated along M3- before (upper left), during (bottom left) and after widening (bottom right). 29

CHAPTER 3 NOISE ABATEMENT In order to have both efficient and economic long lasting solutions, the Danish Road Directorate put high demands for the selection criteria of noise barriers. These were: high efficiency at reducing and absorbing noise long durability installation and maintenance from road side reasonable price (10-12 mio. DKK/km) Figure 3.7. Construction work seen from the road side. To give access to sunlight some housing areas had a noise barrier where the upper metres of the barrier are transparent (Figure 3.8). Transparent noise barriers have been used in the majority of locations and especially on the bridges. 30

CHAPTER 3 NOISE ABATEMENT Figure 3.8. At some places the upper part of the noise barriers were made from transparent acrylic plates. The top sections of the noise barriers were designed with a tilted 10 towards M3 (Figure 3.9, Figure 3.10 and Figure 3.11). The barriers were constructed of 75 cm wide elements of perforated aluminium covering a core of absorbing mineral wool which prevents the noise from being reflected to neighbours, living on the opposite side of the road. The neighbouring side of the noise barriers was covered with espalier for plants which suits the wishes of the neighbours. 31

CHAPTER 3 NOISE ABATEMENT Figure 3.9. Noise barriers seen from the roadside with residential areas on the other side. 32

CHAPTER 3 NOISE ABATEMENT Figure 3.10. Noise barriers seen from the neighbour side (during construction). Figure 3.11. Noise barriers seen from the neighbour side (after construction). As can be seen in Figure 3.12 and 3.13, on the bridges over crossing roads the noise barriers were made only from transparent modules for the bridges to look less massive as seen from the road crossing below. 33

CHAPTER 3 NOISE ABATEMENT Figure 3.12. On the bridges over crossing roads, noise barriers were made only from transparent modules. Figure 3.13. Transparent noise barrier on bridge. 34

CHAPTER 3 NOISE ABATEMENT 3.3 NOISE REDUCING PAVEMENTS It has been decided to use a special type of road surface (noise reducing thin layer pavement) on M3 which reduced the noise by 2-3 db compared to a standard reference pavement (Figure 3.14). The noise reducing effect has been obtained by using a smaller size of stone than usual in the asphalt mix. Furthermore, there were small cavities on the surface which let the air pressure created by the tires, get away from the surface pavement more silently. Figure 3.14. A special type of road surface (noise reducing thin layer pavement) on M3 reduced the noise by 2-3 db compared a standard reference pavement. 3.4 SOUND INSULATION OF BUILDING FACADE Mounting noise barriers alone cannot provide sufficient noise protection in all places along the M3 e.g. buildings in several levels. Thus there has been a need for supplementing the sound insulation of building façades. In order to pinpoint relevant housing areas for supplementary sound insulation, new noise calculations were carried out in 2006, where designed noise barriers and the noise reducing pavement was a part of the input to the calculations. Danish Road Directorate offered to subsidize sound insulation of building facades for all the houses along the M3, which have been built before 1 st April 1984, exposed to noise above 60 db and having legal permission to be used all the year round. An additional condition was that a noise consultant must visit the house to describe what needs to be done in each house. Subsidies range between 50-90% of the entire noise reducing insulation costs to a maximum amount 86.200 DKK per dwelling. Obtaining a quotation from a contrac- 35

CHAPTER 3 NOISE ABATEMENT tor had to be done by the house owner. Subsidies were paid after approval had been obtained from the Danish Road Directorate. The conditions were described in detail in [19]. In total, 135 residences were offered subsidies for sound insulation of their building façade. Figure 3.15 shows en example of a building having façade insulation in the form of glass covering of the balcony. By using the noise abatement methods that have been described above, significant improvements of the noise condition after the widening of M3 have been obtained. Figure 3.15. Buildings with façade insulation such as glass covering of the balcony. 36

CHAPTER 4 MATERIAL AND METHODS 4. MATERIAL AND METHODS The noise annoyance investigation was a pre and post-study, containing the response from people who live along M3 and are exposed to noise from the motorway. Subjective responses were collected by two mail questionnaires that were carried out in the periods October-November 2003 and November- December 2009. The pre-study was carried out in a period where it was known by the public that the M3 motorway would be widened to six lanes and where the first public hearings had been organized. The post-study was conducted around a year after the construction work including the noise abatement measures was finished. Noise levels from road traffic were calculated at the same periods when the pre and post-questionnaires were sent out. This chapter describes the material and methods used to carry out the investigation. In the following subsections; selection criteria of the study area/sample, development, pilot testing, distribution of the questionnaire, noise level calculations and statistical treatment of the data will be given. CONSIDERATIONS: Pre and post-questionnaire enquiries were carried out at the same season (late autumn, early winter) of the year letting people answer the questions under similar physical conditions (open versus closed windows). Post-questionnaires have been sent out one year after the widening of M3 was completed. This gave people the possibility to experience the noise environment after the traffic and the urban conditions have normalized. The postquestionnaire can be seen in English translation in Appendix A and in the original Danish version in Appendix B. Only persons over the age of 18 years were asked to fill in the questionnaire. Both pre and post-questionnaires were sent to all the addresses that are primarily used for residence in each of the selected areas. It was clearly stated in the covering letter that the unanswered questionnaire should be returned in the enclosed pre-paid envelope by putting a tick on the letter, if the house at the address was used for business purposes. 4.1 STUDY AREA AND STUDY SAMPLE This section gives an introduction to the survey areas to which the questionnaires were sent. The criterion for the selection of residential areas was that each area should comprise; House type (single family detached houses, terraced houses) No apartment blocks Sound propagation from M3 (unscreened, screened, planted trees) 37

CHAPTER 4 MATERIAL AND METHODS With/without noise contribution from another large main road With/without change of noise contribution from M3 due to the widening of the motorway East/West of M3 (frequency of wind from different directions) No industrial or commercial areas, or areas dominated by shops and similar buildings It was decided to include six residential areas in order to give a good representation and fulfil the above criteria as well as possible. Figure 4.1 illustrates the location of the six survey areas from A to F. A B C D E MOTORVEJ E47/E55 MOTORVEJ E47/E55 MOTORVEJ E47/E55 F Figure 4.1. Map where survey areas from A to F are shown. The areas belong to Gladsaxe, Herlev og Rødovre municipalities. 38

CHAPTER 4 MATERIAL AND METHODS For all of the six areas, app 50% of the houses were primarily one floor (with a basement) single-family detached houses. AREA A Area A is situated in Bagsværd just northwest of the M3 and is further bounded by Gladsaxe Møllevej, Buddinge Hovedgade, Vibevænget, Rylevænget, Grævlingestien and Hermelinvænget. The accommodation is primarily singlefamily detached houses and terraced houses between Grævlingestien and Espegårdsvej. M3 in this area is placed on a high embankment and has a 1.8 metres high barrier of eternite plates in the pre-situation. The distance from the M3 to the nearest accommodation is approx. ten metres, the furthest it is around 450 metres from the motorway. Seven to eight hundred metres from the area in the western direction is the Hillerød motorway and the area is bounded towards East by Buddinge Hovedgade, which has considerable traffic load. (Response rate: pre-questionnaire 77.5%, post-questionnaire; 60.6%). Typical pictures from area after the widening are shown in Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2. Typical pictures from area A after the widening of the M3. 39

CHAPTER 4 MATERIAL AND METHODS AREA B The area is in Søborg just southeast of the M3, and just southeast of area A. The area is limited by Udmarken, Buddinge Hovedgade, Stengårds Allé, Klausdalsbrovej, Gladsaxe Møllevej, Ræveholmen, Rensdyrvej and Mårvænget. There are some terraced houses, but mostly the accommodation consists of single-family detached houses. The M3 in area B is on an embankment with a noise barrier of 1.8 metres in the pre-situation. The distance to the nearest accommodation is approx. 10 metres and to the furthest accommodation approx. 520 metres. The area is divided into two by Buddinge Hovedgade and Gladsaxe Møllevej. (Response rate: pre-questionnaire 70%, post-questionnaire; 60.9%). Typical pictures from area after the widening are shown in Figure 4.3. Figure 4.3. Typical pictures from area B after the widening of M3. 40

CHAPTER 4 MATERIAL AND METHODS AREA C Area C is situated in Herlev west of the M3 and southeast of Herlev Ringvej. The area is limited by Kagså, Ring 3, Tornerosevej, Elverparken, Nøkkedalen, and Hyldemorsvej. The southern part of the area is dominated by a large area of terraced houses and there is also an area of terraced houses in the northern corner. The remainder consists of single-family detached houses. A large part of the area is on a slope, which faces the M3. There are no noise barriers in the pre- situation. The house closest to the M3 is 75 metres away and the furthest house is 625 metres away. (Response rate: pre-questionnaire 76%, post-questionnaire; 68%). Typical pictures from the area after the widening are shown in Figure 4.4. Figure 4.4. Typical pictures from area C after the widening of M3. 41

CHAPTER 4 MATERIAL AND METHODS AREA D Area D is situated just south of area C, on the other side of Elverparken. Apart from the park, the area is limited by Ederlandsvej, Kagså, the M3, Herlev Hovedgade, Hyrdindestien and Tornerosevej. The area is dominated by single-family detached houses and a few terraced houses. Apart from M3 which is situated on an embankment and is in the pre-situation protected on a part of the stretch by a noise barrier of 1.8 metres height, the nearest roads are Herlev Hovedgade and Ring 3, both highly busy major roads. The house closest to the M3 is approx. 15 metres away, and the house furthest away is approx. 750 metres away. (Response rate: pre-questionnaire 66.5%, postquestionnaire; 66.8%). Typical pictures from the area after the widening are shown in Figure 4.5. Figure 4.5. Typical pictures from area D after the widening of M3. 42

CHAPTER 4 MATERIAL AND METHODS AREA E Area E lies in Mørkhøj, east of the M3 and directly across from area D. The area is limited by M3, Stavnsbjerg Allé, Ilbjerg Allé and Lillegårds Allé. The area only has single-family detached houses. The area is relatively protected from noise from other major roads. However, Mørkhøjvej is just a few rows of houses away. The nearest house is 70 metres from the M3, and the furthest house is 875 metres away. (Response rate: pre-questionnaire 68%, postquestionnaire; 66%). Typical pictures from the area after the widening are shown in Figure 4.6. Figure 4.6. Typical pictures from area E after the widening of M3. 43

CHAPTER 4 MATERIAL AND METHODS AREA F The area is in Rødovre on the other side of the Vestvolden with regard to M3, and thus in the pre situation protected from noise by the earthwork and the green areas. Apart from Vestvolden, the area is limited by Ejbyvej, Grønnemarksvej, Ringstrupvej, Bjødstrupvej, Borgmester Gustav Jensens Vej, Korsdalsvej and Rødovre Parkvej. The southern part of the area has terraced houses, whereas the area north of Lucernevej mainly consists of single-family detached houses. Tårnvej, which apart from the M3 is the only major road nearby, is some 100 metres from the area. The nearest houses are 280 metres from the motorway and those furthest away are 850 metres away. (Response rate: pre-questionnaire 66%). The post questionnaire has not been conducted in this area since there has been a delay in construction work because of an ongoing planning on how to connect the road to another new motorway. Typical pictures from the area after the widening are shown in Figure 4.7. Figure 4.7. Typical pictures from area F after the widening of M3. 44

CHAPTER 4 MATERIAL AND METHODS 4.2 QUESTIONNAIRE In this section the method for designing and conducting the questionnaire survey is presented. The structure and content of the questionnaire is described. Pilot testing, distribution process and data processing are explained in detail. As previously mentioned, the English translation of the questionnaire and the original Danish version are included as Appendix A and B respectively with their accompanying covering letter and reminder. 4.2.1 STRUCTURE AND CONTENT The questionnaire survey derived from an international standard [1] and was further developed with support of a group of experts (see Preface for the names of the members of the expert group). The draft questionnaire was sent to the expert group for their comments and their comments were used to improve the questionnaire further. The questionnaire employed both numerical and verbal scales. A 10-point rating scale was used to indicate satisfaction with the home or neighbourhood, and to rate bother, annoyance, disturbance caused both by noise in general and specifically noise from M3. The scale ranked from 0 to 10, where 0 was equivalent to not at all annoyed and 10 equivalent to extremely annoyed [1]. Noise sensitivity was also measured on a five-point verbal scale from 1= very insensitive to 4= very sensitive in both pre and post-questionnaires. The questions on annoyance from road traffic noise were posed as: "Thinking about the last 12 months when you are at home, how much does noise from.bother, disturb, or annoy you?" The question was a Danish translation of the question proposed in [1]. The same phrase was used to ask about annoyance indoors but with reference to open and closed window. Questions were also posed on how long the respondents had lived at their present address, the number of members in their family, age, gender and household income. The questions in the questionnaire filled six full A3 pages. The questionnaire was printed in black on two folded and stapled sheets of white paper, making a small booklet. Apart from the questionnaire itself, the respondents received a covering letter explaining that the survey was a part of a comprehensive investigation carried out by the Danish Road Directorate. The aim of the investigation was explained in the letter together with some practical information such as the deadline for returning the questionnaire and who should completed it (by a grown-up person over 18 years of age living in the dwelling). It was clearly stated that the Danish Road Directorate guarantees that all personal information will be treated in full confidence. 45

CHAPTER 4 MATERIAL AND METHODS Pre-questionnaire (October-November 2003) The pre-questionnaire survey was carried out by Atkins Denmark for the Danish Road Directorate in the period October-November 2003. In total 1,200 questionnaires covering six neighbourhoods (A, B, C, D, E and F) were distributed in three municipalities namely; Rødovre, Herlev, Gladsaxe (see Figure 4.1). Reminders were sent out to households that had not responded after three weeks. The response percentage was 63.6% before reminder letters were sent out. A total of 848 responses corresponding to 70.7% were received after the reminder was sent. The questionnaire included 43 questions which have been divided into six sections namely: 1) annoyance from road traffic in general 2) noise annoyance from road traffic specifically 3) noise from other roads 4) facts/conditions about respondent s residence 5) what can be done tp reduce road traffic noise 6) information on respondents themselves Of the 43 questions, fourteen questions were presented to the respondents with an additional response category other, where the respondents could specify their definition of other. The final question of the questionnaire was reserved to allow respondents to give their overall comments. All written answers and comments were treated manually. Post-questionnaire (November-December 2009 ) Six years after the first survey, in the period November-December 2009, a post-questionnaire survey has been carried out by the Danish Road Directorate. This questionnaire survey employed the same methodology as the first survey. In total, 986 questionnaires covering five neighbourhoods were distributed to three municipalities (Rødovre, Herlev, Gladsaxe) to the same addresses that were used in the first investigation (Figure 4.8). Households not responding after three weeks received an additional reminder. In total, 636 responses, corresponding to 64.5% were received after the reminding letter had been sent out. The reason why the questionnaire was only distributed to five areas instead of six is that the road construction work in Area F was postponed for a significant period to allow time for the planning of how to connect the road to neighbouring roads. Fourteen properties that were expropriated during the widening of M3 were also excluded during the post-study. 46

CHAPTER 4 MATERIAL AND METHODS Figure 4.8. Post-questionnaires ready to be posted, October 2009 The questionnaire included forty seven questions. In order to be able to compare results and have information about the widening, a new section (widening of M3) consisting of four questions was added to the post-questionnaire. One of these questions was about whether the respondent had participated to the previous enquiry regarding the widening of M3. The other three questions were about communication between the respondents and the Danish Road Directorate/contractors during the planning phase and the construction process. Out of forty seven questions, sixteen questions were presented to the respondents with a response category other. 4.2.2 PILOT TESTING In order to validate the survey procedure and to ensure that instructions were clear and specific, a pre-pilot test with project group members and a pilot test with 35 subjects was carried out prior to each questionnaire survey. Final adjustments were made after the pilot testing. 4.2.3 DISTRIBUTION All the questionnaires were sent to private addresses on the same day by national mail delivery together with a covering letter and a pre-paid envelop (see Figure 4.9). The questionnaires were all individually numbered, allowing the answers to be linked to calculated noise levels (L Aeq,24 ) at the individual addresses and reminder letters. 47

CHAPTER 4 MATERIAL AND METHODS Figure 4.9. Questionnaire, covering letter, pre-paid envelope. 4.2.4 DATA PROCESSING All the questionnaires returned were checked manually before they were sent for optical scanning. The optical scanning was carried out by the Danish IT Centre for Education and Research (UNI-C). This ensured fewer errors than if the responses were typed manually into a database. The coding procedure was also carried out by UNI-C. In order to ensure that the data and coding is correct, randomly selected questionnaires have also been checked manually. Data from scanned questionnaires were saved as SPSS (a commercial statistical analysis software program) data files. 4.3 CALCULATIONS OF NOISE EXPOSURE Before the widening of M3, noise level calculations have been carried out for the selected six residential areas (A, B, C, D, E, F - see Figure 4.1) by using a 3D calculation model that is built into SoundPLAN version 6.2. In the model, input data regarding information on ground, road construction, traffic, noise barriers and buildings was based on Road Directorate s digital ground planner (DGP), digital map and height models. The noise level calculations were based on the common Danish version of the Nordic calculation method for road traffic noise (NBV96) [20], [21], [22] and [23]. The calculations were made before NORD2000 was introduced as the mandatory new prediction method. 48

CHAPTER 4 MATERIAL AND METHODS Noise level calculations for pre-study were carried out with traffic quantity and speed from year 2000, which corresponds to the traffic model that was used in relation to Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) that was carried out by the Danish Road Directorate in 2002. For post-study noise level calculations, the addresses in the residential areas from A to E were delivered by the Danish Road Directorate. The investigation contained 986 addresses in total. Based on National Survey and Cadastre calculated addresses coordinates (CAC), the relevant building polygons have been appointed in the digital base map. The individual building polygons were split into façade parts and a calculation point at a distance of two metres from the façade in the middle of each façade part was made. A minimum façade length of 4 metres has been decided to avoid calculation points at smaller building offsets etc. The calculation points have been numbered so the point (façade) facing M3 and having the shortest distance to M3 is given index 1. The following points are indicated clockwise. An example for placement of positions of calculation points is shown in Figure 4.10. Figure 4.10. An example for placement of positions of calculation points. 49

CHAPTER 4 MATERIAL AND METHODS Calculation height has been set at two metres above the ground. The calculated noise level L Aeq,24h contains reflection contribution from the building façade (The effect of reflection (- 3 db) was subtracted from the noise levels during data treatment). Noise exposure has been defined as the energy equivalent A-weighted sound pressure level over 24 hours (L Aeq,24h ). For each of the four calculation points per house, noise level L Aeq,24h has been calculated both as the total noise level and as the noise level from M3, the main road and the local road alone. As seen in an example in Figure 4.10: Herlev Hovedgade is the main road and Tuskhøjen and Havfruevej the local roads. In this analysis it has been decided to use the noise levels at the façade (without reflection from the façade) of each building facing M3, referring to the read calculation points marked number one in Figure 4.10. A typical example for main road and local roads is shown in Figure 4.11 and Figure 4.12 respectively. Figure 4.11. Typical example of other main road (normally with a large volume of traffic including heavy vehicles). 50

CHAPTER 4 MATERIAL AND METHODS Figure 4.12. Typical example of a local road normally with limited local traffic. 51

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS 5. RESULTS In this chapter, results of the investigation are given in seven groups, namely; study area study population annoyance from road traffic annoyance from road traffic noise noise abatement communication process change regarding noise environment The headings in this chapter are shown with the corresponding question numbers from the questionnaire, for example 5.2.1 Age (Q37). As mentioned previously the pre-questionnaire can be seen in the appendices. All data analyses were carried out using the statistical program SPSS version 18. In this first analysis of the respondents answers to the questionnaires it has been decided to present the results using descriptive statistics in the form of frequency and percentage distribution. Verbal data was treated manually, by grouping the answers and taking their appearing frequency into account. 5.1 NOISE LEVELS IN THE STUDY AREAS Noise exposure levels were calculated as the energy equivalent A- weighted sound pressure level over 24 hours (L Aeq,24h ) (see Section 4.3 for calculation of noise exposure) for each area separately. In the following, the percentage of households exposed to different noise levels is presented for each of the six study areas. Both the total noise levels as well as the individual contributions from M3, other main roads and local roads are presented. In each figure, both the noise in the pre and post-situation are presented as outdoor noise levels. 52

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS 5.1.1 AREA A Figure 5.1. Area A, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (M: M3 alone). Figure 5.1. shows that the noise from M3 is reduced in area A after the widening of the motorway and establishment of noise barriers etc. At the outset, 7% of the dwellings were exposed to more than 60 db and in the post-situation this does not apply to any dwellings. Before the re-construction of the M3, 48% were between 55 and 60 db. This is reduced to 12%. In the aftersituation 82% of the dwellings are under 55 db. The noise exposure from other main roads in area A is shown in Figure 5.2. The contribution from other main roads is nearly the same in the before and after-situation. Around 90% of the dwellings are exposed to rather low noise levels under 45 db from these other main roads, so they only have a marginal influence on the general noise levels in the area. 53

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.2. Area A, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (O: Other main roads alone). Figure 5.3. Area A, calculated noise levels db outside the house, (L: Local street alone). 54

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS In Figure 5.3, the noise exposure from local roads in the area is presented. Also here there is only a marginal difference between the before and the aftersituation. However, the local roads have a larger influence on the noise in the area than the other main roads. Comparing the three figures for M3, other main roads and local roads, it can be clearly be seen that M3 is the far the most important source to noise exposure in area A. Finally, the total noise exposure, predicted as the sum of the noise from the three road types can be seen in Figure 5.4 where the contribution from the M3 has by far the largest impact. There is a significant reduction in the total noise exposure in the after-situation. No dwellings are exposed to 60 db or more. 63% were previously exposed to 55 to 60 db; this is reduced to 47%. At the same time, a large number of dwellings end in the lower noise interval 50 to 55 db before it was 28% and this increases to 46%. Figure 5.4. Area A, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (T: Total). 55

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS 5.1.2 AREA B The noise exposure in area B is presented in the four figures below which show that the main noise source in area B also is M3 and the general situation is very similar to area A. Figure 5.5. Area B, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (M: M3 alone). Figure 5.6. Area B, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (O: Other main roads alone). 56

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.7. Area B, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (L: Local street alone). Figure 5.8. Area B, calculated noise levels in db out side the house, (T: Total). 57

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS 5.1.3 AREA C The noise in area C can be seen in the four figures below. Figure 5.9. Area C, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (M: M3 alone). Figure 5.10. Area C, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (O: Other main roads alone). 58

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.11. Area C, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (L: Local street alone). Figure 5.12. Area C, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (T: Total). In Figure 5.12. it can be seen that the noise reduction in area C is more significant than in areas A and B. 59

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS 5.1.4 AREA D The noise in area D can be seen in the four figures below. Figure 5.13. Area D, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (M: M3 alone). Figure 5.14. Area D, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (O: Other main roads alone). 60

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.15. Area D, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (L: Local street alone). Figure 5.16. Area D, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (T: Total). 61

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS 5.1.5 AREA E The noise in area E can be seen in the four figures below. Figure 5.17. Area E, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (M: M3 alone). Figure 5.18. Area E, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (O: Other main roads alone). 62

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.19. Area E, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (L: Local street alone). Figure 5.20. Area E, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (T: Total). 63

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS 5.1.6 AREA F The noise in area F in the before situation can be seen in the four figures below. Figure 5.21. Area F, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (M: M3 alone). Figure 5.22. Area F, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (O: Other main roads alone). 64

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.23. Area F, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (L: Local street alone). Figure 5.24. Area F, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (T: Total). 65

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Area F is situated at the eastern side of the motorway and there is a 280 m wide green recreational area in between. As for the other five areas also in area F, M3 is the main contributor to noise. Predictions for the after-situation have not been made as area F was excluded in the post-study. However, the noise levels in area F are significantly lower than in the other five areas. Nearly all dwellings are exposed to less than 55 db in the before-situation. The reason for that could be the green area between the motorway and the dwellings. 5.1.7 TOTAL NOISE IN ALL SIX AREAS In the four figures below, the noise is presented for all six areas. In the following Sections 5.2 to 5.7, the results of the two questionnaires are presented as totals for all six areas. Therefore, the figures below represent the noise exposure for all the respondents in the before and after-situations. Figure 5.25. All six areas, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (M: M3 alone). 66

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.26. All six areas, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (O: Other main roads alone). Figure 5.27. All six areas, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (L: Local street alone). 67

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.28. All six areas, calculated noise levels in db outside the house, (T: Total). Figure 5.28 shows the total noise exposure on all the dwellings in the six areas. In the after-situation, no dwellings are over 60 db. 22% are between 55 and 60 db, but this is a significant reduction from the 45% in the beforesituation. Around 50% of all dwellings were under 55dB in the before-situation and this has increased to around 78% in the after-situation after the widening of the ring motorway. 5.2 STUDY POPULATION This section covers information about the study population before and after the extension of M3. Not all respondents have answered all the questions. Therefore, the total number of respondents varies somewhat from question to question. In the pre-study 848, in the post- study 636 questionnaires were received. 5.2.1 AGE (Q37) In question 37, the respondents were asked to state in which year they were born. The answers were converted to their age based on the year when the questionnaires were sent. The survey only included persons above the age of 18 years. The results are shown in Table 5.1 and Figure 5.29. 68

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Age Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After 18-30 39 17 4.6 2.7 31-40 181 95 21.6 15.3 41-50 204 160 24.3 25.7 51-60 152 129 18.2 20.7 61-70 120 102 14.4 16.4 71-80 105 74 12.4 11.9 81-90 38 45 4.4 7.2 Total number of respondents 839 622 Table 5.1. Responses to the question What year were you born? (Converted to age). Figure 5.29. Responses to the question What year were you born? (Converted to age). 69

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS The percentage of people at the age of 18-40 years decreased, while the percentage of people at the age of 40-70 and 81-90 slightly increased during the period of 2003-2009. This can be interpreted that the population got slightly older along M3 during the period between pre and post-study. The age group of 41-50 has the highest percentage by app 25%, while age group of 18-30 has the lowest percentage by 3-5%, which can be explained by income differences between the groups. Increase in house prices makes it difficult for younger age groups to be able to afford to live in a house. 5.2.2 GENDER (Q38) In question 38, the respondents were asked to state their gender. The results are shown in Table 5.2 and Figure 5.30. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After Female 344 304 41.4 48.6 Male 486 322 58.6 51.4 Total number of respondents 830 626 Table 5.2. Responses to the question What is your gender?. Figure 5.30. Responses to the question What is your gender?. 70

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS As can be seen from the above table and figure, according to the collected responses there is a 7% increase of female responding population and vice verse on the male population between 2003 and 2009. 5.2.3 INCOME (Q40) In question 40, the respondents were asked to state what their monthly household income is before tax. The results are shown in Table 5.3 and Figure 5.31. 61 respondents from the pre-study, 50 respondents from the post-study refused to answer this question, mainly because they found the question objectionable on the basis that it is too personal and some of them stated that they could not see any relation between their income and how much they are annoyed from the traffic noise. Since there was a high number of respondents who refused to answer, a new response category as refuse to answer was added to the table and the figure. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After 0-20.000 171 112 20.2 17.6 20.001-50.000 378 205 44.6 32.2 50.001-100.000 226 238 26.7 37.4 > 100.000 12 29 1.4 4.6 Refused to answer 61 50 7.2 8.2 Total number of respondents 787 584 Table 5.3. Responses to the question What is your monthly household income (total monthly income before tax for all in the household)? (The amounts are in Danish Crowns). 71

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.31. Responses to the question What is your monthly household income (total monthly income before tax for all in the household)?. From the figure it can be seen that the survey population received higher incomes during the period from 2003-2009. 72

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS 5.2.4 SENSITIVITY TO NOISE (Q41) In question 41, the respondents were asked to state how sensitive they are to noise. The results are shown in Table 5.4 and Figure 5.32. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After Very insensitive 18 15 2.1 2.4 Relatively insensitive 107 86 12.7 13.7 Normal 604 440 71.9 70.3 Relatively sensitive 84 62 10.2 9.9 Very sensitive 25 23 3 3.7 Total number of respondents 840 626 Table 5.4. Responses to the question How sensitive are you to noise?. Figure 5.32. Responses to the question How sensitive are you to noise?. 73

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS From the figure it can clearly be seen that there is almost no difference between the noise sensitivity of the pre and post-study population. And in both situations, more than 70% of the respondents describe themselves as neither sensitive nor insensitive to noise, while only 3% of the same population describe themselves as very sensitive. 5.2.5 NUMBER OF PEOPLE PERMANENTLY LIVING IN THE RESIDENCE (Q43) In question 43, the respondents were asked to state how many people permanently live in their residence. The results are shown in Table 5.5 and Figure 5.33. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After 1 138 102 16.5 16.4 2 340 253 40.6 40.6 3 133 90 15.9 14.4 4 183 139 21.8 22.3 5 35 35 4.2 5.6 More than 5 9 4 1.1 0.6 Total number of respondents 838 623 Table 5.5. Responses to the question How many people permanently live in your residence?. 74

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.33. Responses to the question How many people permanently live in your residence?. As can be seen from the above figure, in general two people, living in a residence is almost twice as common as four people in their residence, which is the second most stated category. There is almost no difference between pre and post-study population regarding to how many people permanently live in their residence. 75

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS 5.2.6 CHILDREN IN THE RESIDENCE (Q39) In question 39, the respondents were asked to state whether or not there are children at the age of 10 or younger in their residence. The results are shown in Table 5.6 and Figure 5.34. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After No 618 481 73.5 76.8 Yes 223 145 26.5 23.2 Total number of respondents 841 626 Table 5.6. Responses to the question Are there any children at the age of 10 or younger in your residence? Figure 5.34. Responses to the question Are there any children at the age of 10 or younger in your residence?. Approximately 70% of the respondents do not have children at the age of 10 or younger. 76

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS 5.2.7 TYPE OF RESIDENCE (Q18) In question 18, the respondents were asked to state which type of residence they live in. The results are shown in Table 5.7 and Figure 5.35. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After House /villa, 1 floor 451 345 53.2 54.2 House /villa, 2 floor 158 145 18.7 22.8 Row house, 1 floor 81 42 9.6 6.6 Row house, 2 floor 139 88 16.4 13.8 Apartment 1 0 0.1 0 Others 14 16 1.7 2.5 Total number of respondents 844 636 Table 5.7. Responses to the question Which type of residence do you live in?. Figure 5.35. Responses to the question Which type of residence do you live in?. 77

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS The respondents are living in single family in one - two floor detached houses or row houses. There is nearly no difference between the before and the after situation. 5.2.8 OWNERSHIP OF THE RESIDENCE (Q19) In question 19, the respondents were asked to state who owns their residence. The results are shown in Table 5.8 and Figure 5.36. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After Privately owned 752 577 89.0 91.3 Multi-ownership scheme 3 2 0.4 0.3 Rental 88 51 10.4 8.1 Other 2 2 0.2 0.3 Total number of respondents 845 632 Table 5.8. Responses to the question Who owns your residence? Figure 5.36. Responses to the question Who owns your residence?. Approximately 90% of the residences are privately owned, while around 10% are rented. The situation is almost similar in the pre-and post study period. 78

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS 5.2.9 YEARS IN PRESENT HOME (Q42) In question 42, the respondents were asked to state how long they have been living in their residence. The results are shown in Table 5.9 and Figure 5.37. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After 0-2 years 76 63 9.1 10.0 3-6 years 134 67 16.0 10.7 7-10 years 108 60 12.9 9.6 > 10 years 521 438 62.1 69.7 Total number of respondents 839 628 Table 5.9. Responses to the question How long have you been living in your residence?. Figure 5.37. Responses to the question How long have you been living in your residence?. 79

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS More than 60% of the survey population has been leaving in their residence more than 10 years. There is a slight increase in the percentage of people living in their homes for more than 10 years in the post-study. 0-2 years and a large part of the 3-6 years group did not participated in the pre-study, since there is six years in between pre- and post studies. More then 70% of the population have received both pre- and post questionnaires. 5.2.10 PLANS ABOUT MOVING (Q44, Q45) In question 44, the respondents were asked to state whether they are planning to move to another residence within the next few years. The results are shown in Table 5.10 and Figure 5.38. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After No 608 474 72.9 75.7 Yes 84 63 10.1 10.1 Don't know 142 89 17 14.2 Total number of respondents 834 626 Table 5.10. Responses to the question Are you planning to move to another residence in the coming few years? Figure 5.38. Responses to the question Are you planning to move to another residence in the coming few years?. 80

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS More than 70% of the respondents are not planning to move from their houses. There is app 3% increase at the post-studies. There is no change in the percentages of respondents who are planning to move. And there is a slightly decrease in the percentage of respondents who do not know. In question 45, the respondents were asked to state what the most important reason is, if they are planning to move. This corresponds to 10% of the respondents who answered in the previous question that they are planning to move. The respondents were allowed to put more than one mark in the response categories. The results are shown in Table 5.11 and Figure 5.39. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After Want to have another house condition (size, ownership) 112 101 13.2 15.9 Want to live closer to work 9 5 1.1 0.8 Traffic noise 192 88 22.7 13.8 Vibration from road traffic 53 17 6.3 2.7 Dust, smell from road traffic 92 43 10.9 6.8 Unsafe to go out because of road traffic Want to live in an other neighbourhood Want better outdoor surroundings Want to live in a neighbourhood which has better institutions Want to live in a neighbourhood which has better free time offers 18 9 2.1 1.4 29 25 3.4 3.9 57 29 6.7 4.6 1 5 0.1 0.8 2 4 0.2 0.6 Others 54 38 6.4 6 Total number of respondents --- --- Table 5.11. Responses to the question If you are planning to move, what is the most important reason?. 81

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.39. Responses to the question If you are planning to move, what is the most important reason?. Traffic noise was the main reason (23%) for people to have plans to move in the pre- study and this decreased to 14% in the post-study. Another road traffic related response category dust/smell because of road traffic also decreased after the extension of M3. 5.2.11 PARTICIPATION IN THE PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE (Q46) In question 46, the respondents were asked to state whether they had participated in the previous questionnaire investigation regarding noise before the widening of Motorway 3. The results are shown in Table 5.12 and Figure 5.40. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After No --- 247 --- 39.8 Yes --- 234 --- 37.7 Don't know --- 140 --- 22.5 Total number of respondents --- 621 Table 5.12. Responses to the question Did you participate to the previous questionnaire investigation regarding noise before the widening of Motorway (M3)?. 82

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.40. Responses to the question Did you participate in the previous questionnaire investigation regarding noise before the widening of Motorway (M3)?. 38% of the respondents stated that they participated in the pre-study, while 23% mentioned that they do not know. Probably, the real participation from the same residence is somewhere between the sum of these two values (38-60%) since the participation of another person living at the same address is included in do not know option. There is in most areas an ongoing process of people moving to new homes for different reasons. Therefore it cannot be expected that it was exactly the same population who lived in the six areas in the before and in the after-situation. In the survey, the answers from all the respondents are included, both the people who participated in both the surveys and the ones who only participated in either the before or the aftersurvey. The description of the respondents in the before and after-survey can be summarized as the following: Everybody lives in a villa or a row house. 90% owns their own dwelling. Over 60% have lived in their dwelling for more than 10 years. 41% of the households have two inhabitants and 22% four inhabitants. In the post-study the respondents have lived longer in their dwelling. 83

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS 70% of the respondents have a normal sensitivity to noise. More people under 40 have participated in the pre-study. More people over 40 have participated in the post-study. The percentage of female respondents has increased from 41% to 49% in the post-study Approximately 70% of the respondents do not have children at the age of 10 or younger. In the post-study the respondents have somewhat higher income. 38% of the respondents participated in both the pre- and post-study. Both in the pre and post-study 10% have plans to move. In the pre-study 23% give noise as a reason for planning to move. This has decreased to 14% in the post-study. 5.3 ANNOYANCE FROM ROAD TRAFFIC (Q1) In question 1, the respondents were asked to state when they are at home, in which way are they annoyed by road traffic, where they live. The respondents were allowed to put more than one mark in the response categories. The results are shown in Table 5.13 and Figure 5.41. In Figure 5.42 these results are shown for each of the six areas. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After There is no annoyance from traffic 81 130 9.6 20.4 Unsafe to go out 37 36 4.4 5.7 Unsafe for children to go out 147 104 17.3 16.4 There is noise 705 429 83.2 67.5 There is vibration/shaking 130 66 15.3 10.4 There is air pollution/smell 202 91 23.8 14.3 There is dust/dirt 148 74 17.5 11.6 Other 72 59 8.5 9.3 Total number of respondents ---- ---- Table 5.13. Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months when you are at home, in which way are you annoyed by road traffic, where you live? 84

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.41. Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months when you are at home, in which way are you annoyed by road traffic, where you live? (Total). As can be seen from figure 5.41 there is a significant decrease in the percentage of respondents who are annoyed by noise - from 83% to 68%. Increase in no annoyance from traffic in the post-study is in agreement with the results from question 45 (what the most important reason is if you are planning to move) where noise is a less important reason to plan to move in the poststudy. In the post study 20% did not experience any annoyance from road traffic. This was an improvement since it was 10% in the pre-study. 85

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS 86

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS 87

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.42. Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months when you are at home, in which way are you annoyed by road traffic, where you live? (Area A-F). 88

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS 5.4 ANNOYANCE FROM ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE (Q2A) In question 2, the respondents were asked how much noise from road traffic annoy or disturbs them when they are at home. The respondents were asked to put mark in only one response category. Responses covering all six areas are shown in Table 5.14 and Figure 5.43. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After Not at all 74 111 8.8 17.7 Slightly 203 247 24.3 39.4 Moderately 253 169 30.2 27.0 Very 216 79 25.8 12.6 Extremely 91 21 10.9 3.3 Total number of respondents 837 627 Table 5.14. Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months when you are at home, how much does noise from road traffic annoy or disturb you here, where you live? (5-point verbal scale). Figure 5.43. Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months when you are at home, how much does noise from road traffic annoy or disturb you here, where you live? (5-point verbal scale). 89

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS The percentage of very and extremely annoyed persons decreases from 37 % in the pre-study to 16 % in the post-study. The percentage of moderately annoyed is nearly constant with 30 % and 27 % respectively in the pre and poststudy. Finally the percentage of slightly or not annoyed increases from 33 % to 57 % from the pre to the post-study. As a total this is a remarkable reduction of the noise annoyance in the survey areas around M3 for the new situation after the extension of M3. 5.4.1 INSIDE THE HOUSE (Q3, Q4, Q5) In question 3 the respondents were asked how much noise from road traffic annoy or disturb them when they are indoors in their home with closed windows. The respondents were asked to put mark on only one response category. Responses covering for all six areas are shown in Table 5.15 and Figure 5.44. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After 0=Not at all 178 202 22.6 35.9 1 145 124 18.4 22.1 2 124 83 15.7 14.8 3 118 57 15.0 10.1 4 51 32 6.5 5.7 5 62 24 7.9 4.3 6 38 15 4.8 2.7 7 38 12 4.8 2.1 8 17 9 2.2 1.6 9 11 1 1.4 0.2 10=Extremely 6 3 0.8 0.5 Total number of respondents 788 562 Table 5.15. Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months, how much does noise from road traffic annoy or disturb you when you are indoors in your home with closed windows?. 90

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.44. Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months, how much does noise from road traffic annoy or disturb you when you are indoors in your home with closed windows?. Figure 5.44 shows an increase in the not at all annoyed response category from 23% to 36% indoors with closed windows after the extension of M3. At the same time there is an increase in all the annoyance categories from 2 to 10 (extremely annoyed). In question 4 the respondents were asked how much noise from road traffic annoys or disturbs them when they are indoors in their home with open windows. The respondents were asked to mark only one response category. Responses covering for all six areas are shown in Table 5.16 and Figure 5.45. 91

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After 0=Not at all 45 66 5.7 11.7 1 64 76 8.1 13.5 2 68 75 8.6 13.3 3 98 87 12.5 15.5 4 77 71 9.8 12.6 5 80 50 10.2 8.9 6 74 41 9.4 7.3 7 84 32 10.7 5.7 8 90 28 11.4 5 9 45 18 5.7 3.2 10=Extremely 62 18 7.9 3.2 Total number of respondents 787 562 Table 5.16. Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months, how much does noise from road traffic annoy or disturb you when you are indoors in your home with open windows?. Figure 5.45. Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months, how much does noise from road traffic annoy or disturb you when you are indoors in your home with open windows?. 92

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS When comparing the results from Figure 5.44 and 5.45, it can be seen that the annoyance increases markedly for the indoor situation when the windows are open compared to the situation with closed windows. In question 5, the respondents were asked how noise from road traffic annoys or disturbs them inside their home. The respondents were allowed to put more than one mark in the response categories. Responses covering all six areas are shown in Table 5.17 and Figure 5.26. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After Disturbs conversation 48 23 5.7 3.6 Disturbs phone talk 35 18 4.1 2.8 Disturbs listening radio/watching TV 62 24 7.3 3.8 Disturbs reading/working 158 86 18.7 13.5 Open windows less normally 325 177 38.4 27.8 Use rooms differently than intended 31 15 3.7 2.4 Difficulties in falling asleep 122 39 14.4 6.1 Wake up at night 119 45 14 7.1 Do not sleep with open windows 149 124 17.6 19.5 Use earplugs when sleeping 21 8 2.5 1.3 Use sleeping pills 3 2 0.4 0.3 Other 125 126 14.8 19.8 Total number of respondents --- --- Table 5.17. Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months, how does noise from road traffic annoy or disturb you inside your home?. 93

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.46. Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months, how does noise from road traffic annoy or disturb you inside your home?. As can be seen in Figure 5.25, there is a reduction of the reported annoyance and disturbance in the post-study. In the pre-study, 38% reported that they opened the windows less than normal; this has decreased to 28% in the poststudy. In the questions on sleeping quality, there is a remarkable improvement. In the pre study 14% reported difficulties falling asleep or being woken up during night time. This has decreased to 6% and 7% in the post-study. 94

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS 5.4.2 OUTSIDE THE HOUSE (Q6, Q7) In question 6, the respondents were asked how much road traffic noise annoy or disturb them, when they are out in the garden, on the terrace or balcony. The respondents were asked to put a mark in only one response category. Responses covering all six areas are shown in Table 5.18 and Figure 5.27. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After 0=Not at all 22 27 2.8 4.9 1 33 47 4.2 8.5 2 52 69 6.7 12.4 3 63 74 8.1 13.3 4 57 58 7.3 10.5 5 66 60 8.5 10.8 6 47 48 6 8.6 7 88 60 11.3 10.8 8 127 53 16.3 9.5 9 89 32 11.4 5.8 10=Extremely 134 27 17.2 4.9 Total number of respondents 778 555 Table 5.18. Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months, how much does road traffic noise annoy or disturb you, when you are out in the garden, on the terrace or balcony?. 95

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.47. Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months, how much does road traffic noise annoy or disturb you, when you are out in the garden, on the terrace or balcony?. In the post-study, there is a remarkable reduction in the respondents reporting high levels of annoyance (rating 8 to 10). In question 7, the respondents were asked how road traffic noise annoys or disturbs them when they are out in the garden, on their terrace or balcony. The respondents were allowed to put more than one mark in the response categories. Responses covering all six areas are shown in Table 5.19 and Figure 5.48. 96

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After Disturbs conversation 308 129 36.4 20.3 Disturbs phone talk 162 77 19.1 12.1 Disturbs while resting 509 322 60.2 50.6 Disturbs while reading 359 186 42.4 29.2 Disturbs while working in the garden Use garden when there is less noise 204 105 24.1 16.5 212 131 25.1 20.6 Occasionally avoid to be outside 149 52 17.6 8.2 Other 101 77 11.9 12.1 Total number of respondents --- --- Table 5.19. Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months, how does road traffic noise annoy or disturb you when you are out in the garden, on your terrace or balcony?. Figure 5.48. Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months, how does road traffic noise annoy or disturb you when you are out in the garden, on your terrace or balcony?. 97

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.48 shows the reported annoyance when being outdoors. For all situations, there can be observed a decrease in the post-study. The percentage indicating annoyance during conversations is reduced from 36% to 20%. The percentage indicating annoyance while reading outdoors, decreases from 42% to 29%. Finally, the percentage annoyed while using the telephone is reduced form 19% to 12% 5.5 NOISE ABATEMENT 5.5.1 WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO REDUCE THE NOISE (Q15) In question 15, the respondents were asked what they think should be done to reduce noise annoyance from road traffic, where they live. The respondents were allowed to mark more than one response category. Responses covering all six areas are shown in Table 5.20 and Figure 5.49. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After Nothing 113 157 13.4 24.7 Noise reducing windows 57 47 6.7 7.4 Noise barriers 520 102 61.3 16 Noise reducing road surface 515 255 60.7 40.1 Less noisy car tyres 218 119 25.7 18.7 Number of passenger cars reduced 150 95 17.7 14.9 Number of lorries reduced 230 162 27.1 25.5 Driving speed reduced 243 161 28.7 25.3 Other 84 79 9.9 12.4 Total number of respondents ---- ----- Table 5.20. Responses to the question What do you think should be done to reduce annoyance from road traffic noise where you live? 98

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.49. Responses to the question What do you think should be done to reduce annoyance from road traffic noise where you live?. As can be seen from Figure 5.49, in the pre-study 13% answered that nothing should be done to reduce the noise. This increased to 25% in the post-study. In the pre study around 60% of the respondents answered that noise barriers and noise reducing road surfaces should be used. Both tools to reduce noise were used in the project of widening the M3. In the post-study only 16% suggest noise barriers and 40% noise reducing road surfaces. In total, 89 written responses were given to the category other. Respondents recommended solutions such as reducing speed limit along the motorway, having continuous and intensive speed checks, building speed bumps along local roads, creating intensive vegetation along the motorway, reducing speed limit from 110 km/h to 90 km/h on the motorway, driving in electric cars, building higher noise barriers, increasing vegetation on the back side of noise barriers etc. Some of the answers covered more specific local situations such as stopping the neighbour s son driving on a moped or changing traffic direction along a specific road, while a few suggested more radical solutions such as closing down the motorway or building a tunnel instead. 5.5.2 WHAT HAVE THE RESPONDENTS DONE TO REDUCE NOISE (Q14) In question 14, the respondents are asked whether they have done anything where they live, to reduce noise annoyance from road traffic. The respondents were allowed to put a mark in more than one response category. Responses covering all six areas are shown in Table 5.21 and Figure 5.50. 99

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After Not done anything 581 454 68.9 71.4 Chose another room as a living room 12 9 1.4 1.4 Chose another room as a sleeping room 57 22 6.7 3.5 Installed noise reducing windows 122 124 14.5 19.5 Built noise barrier 6 10 0.7 1.6 Contacted the municipality/authorities 38 15 4.5 2.4 Got property taxes/rent reduced 45 16 5.3 2.5 Other 79 35 9.3 5.5 Total number of respondents ---- ---- Table 5.21. Responses to the question Have you yourself done anything where you live to reduce noise annoyance from road traffic?. Figure 5.50. Responses to the question Have you yourself done anything where you live to reduce noise annoyance from road traffic?. 100

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Response distribution shows that both in the pre and the post-study, a large majority of the respondents (approx. 70%) did nothing to reduce noise where they live. Installing noise reducing windows is the second most common answer. The increase in the installation of noise reducing windows after the widening of M3 may partly be explained by the Danish Road Directorate s offer to subsidize sound insulation of building façades. In total, 38 written responses were given to the category other in question 14. The responses indicated that respondents also choose other solutions such as, planting higher trees, building up screens around their terrace, covering the terrace area completely etc. The other responses in that category are mostly repetition of already existing categories like installing noise reducing windows, to contact authorities and choose another room as a living/ sleeping room. 5.5.3 WHO SHOULD PAY FOR NOISE REDUCTIONS (Q17) In question 17, the respondents are asked who do they think should pay to reduce annoyance from noise, in their home. The respondents were allowed to put several marks in the response categories. Responses covering for all six areas are shown in Table 5.22 and Figure 5.51. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After No one 58 82 6.8 12.9 Vehicle Drivers 221 157 26.1 24.7 I / We 49 51 5.8 8 House owners association etc. 31 11 3.7 1.7 Local authority/government 689 459 81.3 72.2 EU 152 73 17.9 11.5 Others 44 24 5.2 3.8 Total number of respondents ---- ---- Table 5.22. Responses to the question In your opinion, who do you think should pay to reduce annoyance from noise?. 101

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.51. Responses to the question In your opinion, who do you think should pay to reduce annoyance from noise, here?. As seen from the figure, a large majority of the respondents see it as the responsibility of the authorities to reduce noise. In the pre-study, this was 81% and this was reduced to 72% in the post-study. Only 6 to 8% reply that they should pay themselves. The category none increases from 7% to 13% in the post-study. In total, 31 written responses were given to the category other in question 14. The responses cover a large number of very different answers. Some are repetitions or variations of the categories already provided (e.g. municipality, Danish Road Directorate, lorry drivers, motorcyclist, car owners), some are concerned with specific local problems (e.g. neighbouring gas station, post service, local business owners). There were also some unrelated responses that suggested solutions (e.g. to build more street bumps, to install noise reducing windows) instead of pointing out who should pay for it. 102

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS 5.5.4 WILLINGNESS TO PAY (Q16) In question 16, the respondents are asked How much they are willing to pay in order to reduce traffic noise by one half where they live. The respondents were asked to put a mark in only one response category. Responses covering all six areas are shown in Table 5.23 and Figure 5.52. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After Nothing 447 364 54.1 58.2 Up to 100 DKK per month 76 69 9.2 11.0 Up to 250 DKK per month 57 34 6.9 5.4 Up to 500 DKK per month 35 29 4.2 4.6 More than 500 DKK per month 22 16 2.7 2.6 Don't know 190 113 23 18.1 Total number of respondents 827 625 Table 5.23. Responses to the question How much are you willing to pay in order to reduce traffic noise by one half her, where you live?. Figure 5.52. Responses to the question How much are you willing to pay in order to reduce traffic noise by one half her, where you live?. 103

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS As seen from the figure, most of the respondents are not eager to pay at all (54% to 58%). This response shows agreement with question 17, where they see it as the responsibility of the authorities to reduce noise. But there is a certain willingness to pay (23% to 24%). There are 23% who in the pre-study do not know and this decrease to 18% in the post-study. 5.6 COMMUNICATION PROCESS 5.6.1 PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCESS / DISCUSSIONS (Q34) In question 34, the respondents are asked whether they participated in the process/discussion about the rebuilding. The respondents were allowed to put more than one mark in the response categories. Responses covering all six areas are shown in Table 5.24 and Figure 5.53. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After I have participated at the residents meeting I have written letter/ reader letter to DRD I have participated at the house owners associations or similar group meeting 65 10.2 18 2.8 104 16.4 I didn't want to participate 253 39.8 I didn't get possibility to participate 113 17.8 I have moved to the area after rebuilding has started 79 12.4 Other 33 5.2 Total number of respondents ---- ---- Table 5.24. Responses to the question Did you participate in the process/discussion about the rebuilding?. 104

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.53. Responses to the question Did you participate in the process/discussion about the rebuilding?. 29% of the respondents have actively participated in the process/discussion about the rebuilding of M3, while 40% did not wish to do so. 12% moved to the area after the rebuilding of M3 started. 18% of the respondents claimed they did not get the possibility to participate. 5.6.2 EXPERIENCE WITH THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS WITH DANISH ROAD DIRECTORATE AND OTHER ACTORS (Q33, Q35, Q36) In question 33, the respondents are asked how they experienced the way the Danish Road Directorate communicates with you as resident in connection with the widening of M3. The respondents were asked to put a mark in only one response category. Responses covering all six areas are shown in Table 5.25 and Figure 5.54. 105

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After Very satisfying 110 17.5 Satisfying 259 41.1 Less satisfying 47 7.5 There has not been any communication 120 19.0 Don't know 94 14.9 Total number of respondents 630 Table 5.25. Responses to the question How do you experience the way the Danish Road Directorate communicates with you as resident in connection with the widening of Motorway 3?. Figure 5.54. Responses to the question How do you experience the way the Danish Road Directorate communicates with you as resident in connection with the widening of Motorway 3?. 59% of the respondents found the way the Danish Road Directorate communicates with them as resident in connection with the widening of M3 satisfying or very satisfying. The percentage of respondents who found the communication less satisfying is only 8%. 19% replied that there has not been any communication and 15% answer that they do not know. 106

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS In question 35, the respondents are asked whether their opinions or complaints been taken seriously by the Danish Road Directorate. The respondents were asked to put a mark in only one response category. Responses covering all six areas are shown in Table 5.26 and Figure 5.55. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After Yes 35 7.4 Partly 23 4.8 No 25 5.3 Don't know 393 82.6 Total number of respondents ---- 476 Table 5.26. Responses to the question Have your opinions or complaints been taken seriously by the Danish Road Directorate?. Figure 5.55. Responses to the question Have your opinions or complaints been taken seriously by the Danish Road Directorate?. 160 respondents did not give an answer to this question. The main reason is that there has been a lack of response categories which should cover people who did not state an opinion or complain. Most of this group ended up putting mark on response category of don t know. 107

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS In question 36, the respondents are asked whether the Danish Road Directorate and the involved contractors have been thoughtful to them /residents living along the Motorway 3 during the construction period in order to limit annoyance from noise, dust, smell etc. The respondents were asked to put a mark in only one response category. Responses covering all six areas are shown in Table 5.27 and Figure 5.56. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After Very thoughtful 78 12.9 Reasonable thoughtful 119 19.7 Little thoughtful 29 4.8 Not thoughtful 30 5 Don't know 347 57.5 Total number of respondents ---- 603 Table 5.27. Responses to the question Has the Danish Road Directorate and the involved contractors been thoughtful to residents living along the way (Motorway 3) during the construction period in order to limit annoyance from noise, dust, smell etc? Figure 5.56. Responses to the question Have the Danish Road Directorate and the involved contractors been thoughtful to residents living along the way (Motorway 3) during the construction period in order to limit annoyance from noise, dust, smell etc? 108

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Most respondents (58%) state that they do not know whether the Danish Road Directorate and the involved contractors have been thoughtful to residents living along Motorway 3 during the construction period.the respondents are living at different distances form the construction site from being close neighbours to living 800 m away. It is presumably people living at larger distances who answer that they do not know. The remaining 42% of the respondents have an opinion about this and here 33% answer in the very or moderately thoughtful categories. 5% answer little thoughtful and only 5% answers not thoughtful. 5.7 CHANGE REGARDING NOISE ENVIRONMENT (Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q13) In question 8, the respondents are asked whether they think the traffic noise where they live, has changed in the last two to three years. The respondents were asked to put a mark in only one response category. Responses covering all six areas are shown in Table 5.28 and Figure 5.57. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After No, it is more or less unchanged 276 271 36.3 43.8 Yes, it is a little lower 8 164 1.1 26.5 Yes, it has become somewhat stronger 438 134 57.6 21.6 Other 39 50 5.1 8.1 Total number of respondents 761 619 Table 5.28. Responses to the question Do you think the traffic noise here where you live, has changed in the last two to three years?. 109

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.57. Responses to the question Do you think the traffic noise here where you live, has changed in the last two to three years? When the respondents were asked if the noise had changed during the last 2 to 3 years 27% in the post-study answered that the noise has been reduced, and 44% think it is more or less unchanged. But also in the post-study 22% think the noise has increased. This is an improvement from the pre-study, where 58% stated that the noise had increased during the latest 2 to 3 years. In question 9 the respondents are asked from which roads they hear road traffic noise when they are at home. The respondents were allowed to put marks in more than one response category. Responses covering all six areas are shown in Table 5.29 and Figure 5.58. 110

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After From Motorway 3 746 508 88.3 79.9 From other major roads 289 248 34.3 39.0 From local roads 190 167 22.4 26.3 Total number of respondents ---- --- Table 5.29. Responses to the question From which roads do you hear road traffic noise when you are at home? Figure 5.58. Responses to the question From which roads do you hear road traffic noise when you are at home? M3 is the main noise source in the pre-study. 88 % can hear M3 and that is reduced to 80% in the post-study, indicating a reduction in the noise from M3 (see Figure 5.37). There is a slight increase in respondents who in the postsituation can hear noise from other main roads or local roads. 111

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS In the following questions about annoyance perceived separately from the three road types are presented: M3 Other main roads Local roads In question 10, the respondents are asked how much road traffic noise from the Motorway 3 annoys or disturbs them, when they are at home. The respondents were asked to put only one mark in the response categories. Responses covering all six areas are shown in Table 5.30 and Figure 5.59. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After Not at all 53 83 6.7 14.7 Slightly 174 231 22.1 40.8 Moderately 239 165 30.3 29.2 Very 231 68 29.3 12.0 Extremely 92 19 11.7 3.4 Total number of respondents 789 566 Table 5.30. Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months, when you are at home, how much does road traffic noise from the Motorway 3 annoy or disturb you? (The Motorway 3 not the Ring Road). 112

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.59. Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months, when you are at home, how much does road traffic noise from the Motorway 3 annoy or disturb you? (The Motorway 3 not the Ring Road). Figure 5.38 shows the results of annoyance from M3. The results are nearly identical to the results when the respondents were generally asked about the noise annoyance in the area as shown in Figure 5.21, not specifying specific roads as the source of noise. This illustrates that M3 is the main source to road traffic noise in the areas. It can be seen that in the post-situation the percentage that are very and extremely annoyed decreases from 41% to 15%. At the same time, the percentage of not or slightly annoyed increases from 29 to 56%, whereas the percentage of moderately annoyed respondents is rather constant around 30% to 29% both in the pre and the post-study. This indicates a clear and significant reduction of the noise annoyance from M3 after the reconstruction of the road and instalment of noise barriers and noise reducing pavements. In question 11, the respondents are asked how much road traffic noise from other major through roads annoys or disturbs them, when they are at home. The respondents were asked to put only one mark in response category. Responses covering all six areas are shown in Table 5.31 and Figure 5.60. 113

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After Not at all 307 217 39.2 38.8 Slightly 256 207 32.7 37.0 Moderately 157 89 20.0 15.9 Very 52 37 6.6 6.6 Extremely 12 10 1.5 1.8 Total number of respondents 769 560 Table 5.31. Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months, when you are at home, how much does road traffic noise annoy or disturb you from other major through roads? (not the Motorway). Figure 5.60. Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months, when you are at home, how much does road traffic noise annoy or disturb you from other major through roads? (not the Motorway). Figure 5.60 presents the degree of annoyance from other major roads in the areas. Around 80% of the respondents are not at all or slightly annoyed. The level of annoyance is quite similar in the pre and post-study. Very much the same results can be seen for local roads where up to 90% are not at all or slightly annoyed (see Figure 5.40). 114

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS In question 12, the respondents are asked how much road traffic noise from local residential roads annoy or disturb them, when they are at home. The respondents were asked to put only one mark in response category. Responses covering all six areas are shown in Table 5.32 and Figure 5.61. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After Not at all annoyed or disturbed 424 305 53.7 54.3 Slightly annoyed or disturbed 262 174 33.2 31.0 Neither annoyed nor disturbed 76 59 9.6 10.5 Very annoyed or disturbed 24 19 3.0 3.4 Extremely annoyed or disturbed 4 5 0.5 0.9 Total number of respondents 790 562 Table 5.32 Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months, when you are at home, how much does road traffic noise annoy or disturb you from local residential roads?. Figure 5.61 Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months, when you are at home, how much does road traffic noise annoy or disturb you from local residential roads?. 115

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS In question 13, the respondents are asked whether there are other annoying or disturbing noise sources other than road traffic in the area. The respondents were allowed to put more than one mark on response categories. Responses covering for all six areas are shown in Table 5.33 and Figure 5.62. Frequency Percentage [%] Before After Before After No 485 363 57.6 57.1 Yes, railways 64 26 7.5 4.1 Yes, airplanes 187 123 22.1 19.3 Yes, business (e.g. restaurant, shop, workshop) 15 10 1.8 1.6 Yes, public institutions, schools 44 31 5.2 4.9 Yes, neighbours 81 72 9.6 11.3 Yes, others 79 75 9.3 11.8 Total number of respondents ---- ---- Table 5.33 Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months, are there other annoying or disturbing noise sources other than road traffic in the area?. Figure 5.62. Responses to the question Thinking about the last 12 months, are there other annoying or disturbing noise sources other than road traffic in the area? 116

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Figure 5.62 shows that road noise is the primary source to noise annoyance as around 60% of the respondents answer no to the question if there are other annoying or disturbing noise sources other than road traffic in the area. Around 20% also mention noise from airplanes. There is no significant difference between the pre and post-study. 117

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUTION 6. CONCLUSION Noise exposure levels were calculated as the energy equivalent A- weighted sound pressure level over 24 hours (L Aeq,24h ) for each survey area separately. Results shows that in all survey areas the main source to higher noise levels in the before situation is M3. The noise exposure from other main roads and local roads is remarkable lower. Therefore M3 is the main contributor to the total noise levels. In the after situation the noise from M3 is reduced and this also reduces the total noise exposure. In the after situation no households are exposed to more than 60 db; in the before situation it was 5%. In the after situation no dwellings are over 60 db. 22% are between 55 and 60 db but it is a significant reduction from the 45% in the before situation. Around 50% of all dwellings were under 55 db in the before situation and this has increased to around 78% in the after situation after the widening of the ring motorway. The description of the respondents in the pre and the post-studies can be summarized as the following: Everybody lives in a villa or a row house. 90% owns their devilling. Over 60% have lived in their dwelling for more than 10 years. 41% of the households have two inhabitants and 22% four inhabitants. In the post-study the respondents have lived longer in their dwelling. 70% of the respondents have a normal sensitivity to noise. More people under 40 have participated in the pre-study. More people over 40 have participated in the post-study. The percentage of female respondents is increased from 41% to 49% in the post-study. Approximately 70% of the respondents do not have children at the age of 10 or younger. In the post-study respondents have somewhat higher incomes. 38% of the respondents stated that they participated to the pre study while 23% mentioned that they don t know. Probably the real participation from the same residence is somewhere between the sum of these two values (38-60%) since the participation of another person living in the same address is included in don t know option. 118

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUTION Condensed it is the evaluation that the population of respondents in the pre and the post-study are relative alike and that it therefore is reasonable to compare the results from the two studies. The response rate was 71% in the pre-study and 65% in the post-study which must be considered quite fine is this type of public questioners. As a start the respondents got a general question on annoyance from road traffic. It is clear that noise is the dominant source to annoyance. Before the widening of the motorway 83% highlighted noise and after the reconstruction this was reduced to 68% and at the same time the percentage who do not experience any annoyance is increased form 10% to 20%. When the respondents were asked if the noise had changed during the last 2 to 3 years 27% in the post-study answered that the noise has been reduced, and 44% thinks it is more or les unchanged. In the post-study 22% thinks the noise has increased and this is an improvement from the pre-study where 58% stated that the noise had increased during the latest 2 to 3 years. The main result of the two studies is the changes in the generally perceived noise annoyance form road traffic in the whole area including noise from M3 as well as local roads and other main roads. The percentage of very and extremely annoyed respondents decreases from 37% in the pre-study to 16% in the post-study. The percentage of moderately annoyed is nearly constant with respectively 30% and 27%. Finally the percentage of slightly or not annoyed increases from 33% to 57% from the pre to the post-study. As a total this is a remarkable reduction of the perceived noise annoyance in the survey areas around M3 for the new situation after the extension of M3. The questionnaire shows that M3 is the main source noise annoyance. After extension process the effect of M3 decreases while other major roads and local roads became more obvious. There is a reduction of the reported annoyance and disturbance in the poststudy. In the pre-study 38% reported that they opened the windows less than normal; this has decreased to 28% in the post-study. In the questions on sleeping quality there is a remarkable improvement. In the pre-study 14% reported difficulties falling asleep or being woken up during night time. This has decreased to 6% and 7% in the post-study. For all activities related to being outside in the garden there is a decrease in the reported annoyance in the post-study. The percentage who indicates annoyance during conversations is reduced from 36% to 20%. The percentage who indicates annoyance while reading outside decreases from 42% to 29% and finally the percentage annoyed while using telephone is reduced form 19% to 12%. 119

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUTION More than 70% of the respondents are not planning to move from their houses. There is app 3% increase at the post studies. There is no change between the percentages of respondents who is planning to move. Traffic noise was the main reason (23%) for people to have plans to move in the pre study and it decreased to 14% in the post study. The respondents were asked what should be done to reduce the annoyance from road traffic noise. The percentage of respondents recommend that nothing should be done increased from 13% to 28%, the percentage of respondents who recommended to build noise barriers decreased from 61% to 28% while the percentage of respondents suggestion to use noise reducing noise pavements decreased from 61% to 40%. Response distribution shows that a large majority of the respondents (ca 70%) did nothing themselves to reduce noise where they live. Installing noise reducing windows is the second most pointed answer (15% to 20%). The increase on the installation of noise reducing windows after the widening of M3 may partly explained by the Danish Road Directorate s offer on subsidizing for sound insulation of building façade. A large majority of the respondents (more than 70%) see it as the responsibility of the authorities to reduce the noise. Most of the respondents are not eager to pay themselves at all to reduce noise. But there is a certain willingness to pay of 23% to 24%. There is 23% who in the pre-study don t know and that decreases to 18% in the post-study. 30% of the respondents have been actively participated to the process/discussion about the rebuilding of M3 while 40% didn t want to. 18% of the respondents claimed not getting the possibility for participation 58% of the respondents found the way the Danish Road Directorate communicates with them as resident in connection with the widening of Motorway 3 satisfying or very satisfying. The percentage of respondents who found the communication less satisfying is only 8%. 120

CHAPTER 7 REFERENCES REFERENCES [1] Fields, J. M., Jong, R. G. DE, Gjestland,T., Flindell, I. H., Job, R. F., S. Kurra, S. Lercher, P. Vallet,M. Yano T., Research Team at Ruhr University, Guski, R., FELSCHER-Suhr, U. and Schumer, R. Standardized general-purpose noise reaction questions for community noise surveys: research and a recommendation, J. Sound Vib., 242 (4), p. 641-679. [2] Pedersen, C. Widening of the Motorway 3 presentation, IABSE, May 2006. [3] Langkjær, A. Interview- Motorway 3 Project, October 2006. [4] Vitchen, C., Experience with traffic management during road works on Motorway around Copenhagen, Danish Road Directorate, 2006. [5] Egebjerg, U., Augustenborg D., 2008, Motorring 3-en moderne bymotorvej ISBN 978-87-7060-186-3. [6] Kuwano, S., Namba, S., Hashimoto, T., Berglund, B., Zhen, D. A., Schick, A., Hoege, H., and Florentine, M., 1991, Emotional expression of noise: A cross-cultural study, J. Sound Vib. 151, 421-428. [7] Fields, J. M., 1993. Effects of personal and situational variables on noise annoyance in residential areas, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93, 2753-2763. [8] Job, R. F. S., 1988, Community response to noise: A review of factors influencing the relationship between noise exposure and reaction, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 83, 991-1001. [9] Hatfield, J., Job, R. F., Hede, A. J., Carter, N. L., Peploe, P., Taylor, R. and Morrell, S., 2002, Human response to environmental noise: the role of perceived control Int. J. Behavioral Med. 9, 341 59. [10] Cohen, S., and Weinstein, N., 1981, Non-auditory effects of noise on behavior and health, J. Social Issues 37, 36-70. [11] Jones, D. M., Miles, C., and Page, J., 1990, Disruption of proofreading by irrelevant speech - effects of attention, arousal or memory, Appl. Cognitive Psych. 4, 89-108. [12] Langdon F. J. and Scholes W.E., 1968 The Traffic noise Index; a Method of Assessing Noise Nuisance, Architects Journal, April 1968, p.813-820. 121

CHAPTER 7 REFERENCES [13] Matschat K., Muller E. A. and Zimmermann G., 1977, On the formulation of noise Indices Acustica 37, p. 267-272. [14] Osada Y., 1991 Comparison of Community Reactions to Traffic Noise Journal of Sound and vibration 151, p. 479-486. [15] Schultz T.J., 1978, Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise annoyance, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 64, p.377-405). [16] Relster, E., 1975, Traffic Noise Annoyance, ISBN 87 502 0394 0. [17] Larsen, L. E,. Bendtsen,H. and Mikkelsen, B. Traffic Noise annoyance- A survey in Aarhus, Odense and Randers, Denmark Transport Research, Rapport 5, 2002. [18] L. F. Larsen, N. Gottlieb, Støjdæmpning langs Motorring 3 I København, Trafik & Veje Dansk Vejtidsskrift, May 2010, 05, p. 30-31. [19] Danish Road Directorate, Rapport Nr: 225, Støjbekæmpelse Langs Statsvejene- Tilskud til støjisolering af Boligfacader, Vejledning for boligejere, 2001. [20] Kragh, J., Jonasson, H., Plovsing, B., Sarinen, A., 2006, User s Guide Nord2000 Road, Hørsholm. [21] Danish Environmental Protection Agency / Danish Road Directorate Rapport Nr: 178 Beregningsmodel for vejtrafikstøj, revideret 1996. [22] Danish Road Directorate, Rapport Nr: 240 Beregning af vejtrafikstøj- en manual, 2002. [23] Orientering nr. 39 fra Miljøstyrelsens referencelaboratorium for støjmålinger: Praktisk anvendelse af Nord2000 til støjberejninger. [24] Kuwano, S., Namba, S., and Schick, A., 1986, A cross-cultural study on noise problems, J. Acoust. Soc. Jpn. 7, 279-289. [25] Kuwano, S., Namba, S., and Fastl, H., 1988, On the judgment of loudness, noisiness and annoyance with actual and artificial noises, J. Sound Vib. 125, 457-465. [26] Abel, S. M.,1990, The extra-auditory effects of noise and annoyance: an overview of research, The Journal of Otolaryngology 19, 1-13. [27] Weinstein, N. D. (1978). Individual differences in reactions to noise: A longitudinal study in a college dormitory, J. Appl. Psychol. 63, 458-466. 122

CHAPTER 7 REFERENCES [28] Öhrström, E., Björkman, M., and Rylander, R. (1988). Noise annoyance with regard to neurophysiological sensitivity, subjective noise, noise sensitivity and personality variables, Psychol. Med. 18, 605-613. [29] Dornic, S. (1990). Noise and information processing: findings, trends and issues, Reports from the Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, No. 715. [30] Van Kamp, I., Job, R. F. S., Hatfield, J., Haines, M., Stellato, R. K., and Stansfeld, S. A. (2004). The role of noise sensitivity in the noiseresponse relation: A comparison of three international airport studies, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116, 3471-3479. [31] Ekehammar, B., and Dornic, S. (1990). Weinstein noise sensitivity scale - reliability and construct-validity, Percept. Motor Skill. 70, 129-130 and [29]. 123

124

APPENDIX Appendix A: Covering letter of the post-questionnaire (in English) Reminder letter of the post-questionnaire (in English) Post-questionnaire (in English) Appendix B: Covering letter of post-questionnaire (in Danish) Reminder letter of the post-questionnaire (in Danish) Post-questionnaire (in Danish) 125

To Inhabitants on Road no Postal Code, Town Registration number Questionnaire regarding annoyance from road traffic noise Guldalderen 12 2640 Hedehusene Tlf. 7244 7000 Fax 7244 7105 vd@vd.dk Vejdirektoratet.dk SE 60729018 Giro 7 09 40 00 EAN 5798000893450 29. oktober 2009 Sagsbehandler Hans Bendtsen Dir. tlf. 7244 7164 hbe@vd.dk Ref.: «loebenr» Before the work started regarding the extension of Motorway 3, the Danish Road Directorate sent out a questionnaire regarding the annoyance from noise in different areas along the road. Now, that the extension has been completed in these areas, a new investigation is being carried out. Apart from showing in which way the extension has influenced the annoyance in the individual areas, it is also the purpose of the examination to update the basis which is being used to evaluate noise annoyance along roads. It is therefore of great importance to obtain as many answers as possible from all areas, even if the annoyance from noise is not so great. The questionnaire should be completed by a grown-up person over 18 years of age who is permanently resident at the address. If the address houses a business, shop, etc. without permanent residence, please put a tick on the following page and return this letter and the unanswered questionnaire in the enclosed envelope. In some questions you will find that we ask about the annoyance in two ways: Firstly you should choose the description of the annoyance which fits best. Then you should state on a scale from 0 to 10, how badly you are disturbed by the noise. If you feel no irritation, please choose 0. If you are extremely disturbed, please choose 10. If you feel your irritation lies between these two extremes, please place your tick somewhere in between, so it applies as best as possible. It is important that you answer both types of questions. The reason we put the questions in both ways is to be able to make a comparison with other international enquiries of a similar type. In some questions and at the end of the questionnaire there is a possibility to add some comments. Here we would ask you to write only within the space available, since your comments will be read by machine.

The questionnaire should be returned in the enclosed pre-paid envelope provided by the Danish Road Directorate. Please return the questionnaire no later than 6 November. It is important for the enquiry that we can identify where you are resident. Thus the questionnaires have been numbered. The Danish Road Directorate guarantees that all personal information will be treated in full confidence. If you have any further questions to the questionnaire or the enquiry, you are welcome to contact the undersigned by e-mail or phone. Yours sincerely and thank you for your assistance f/hans Bendtsen There is no permanent resident at this address: (Please return this letter and the questionnaire thank you).

To Inhabitants on Road no Postal Code, Town Registration number We have not received your answers to our questionnaire regarding annoyance from road traffic noise Guldalderen 12 2640 Hedehusene Tlf. 7244 7000 Fax 7244 7105 vd@vd.dk Vejdirektoratet.dk SE 60729018 Giro 7 09 40 00 EAN 5798000893450 18 November 2009 Sagsbehandler Hans Bendtsen Dir. tlf. 7244 7164 hbe@vd.dk Ref.: Since we have not received a reply from your address on our enquiry on the annoyance of noise, which we sent three weeks ago, we are sending you a reminder. It is important for the enquiry that as many as possible send their reply. We therefore hope that you or someone else in the house will use about 30 minutes to answer the attached questionnaire. If you have sent your reply within the last two to three days, your answer and this letter have crossed in the mail and you should not answer again, but instead throw away this letter and the new questionnaire. The questionnaire should be completed by a grown-up person over 18 years of age who is permanently resident at the address. If the address houses a business, shop, etc. without permanent residence, please put a tick on the following page and return this letter and the unanswered questionnaire in the enclosed envelope. In some questions you will find that we ask about the annoyance in two ways: Firstly you should choose the description of the annoyance which fits best. Then you should state on a scale from 0 to 10, how badly you are disturbed by the noise. If you feel no irritation, please choose 0. If you are extremely disturbed, please choose 10. If you feel your irritation lies between these two extremes, please place your tick somewhere in between, so it applies as best as possible. It is important that you answer both types of questions. The reason we put the questions in both ways is to be able to make a comparison with other international enquiries of a similar type. In some questions and at the end of the questionnaire there is a possibility to add some comments. Here we would ask you to write only within the space available, since your comments will be read by machine.

The questionnaire should be returned in the enclosed pre-paid envelope provided by the Danish Road Directorate. Please return the questionnaire no later than 30 November. It is important for the enquiry that we can identify where you are resident. Thus the questionnaires have been numbered. The Danish Road Directorate guarantees that all personal information will be treated in full confidence. If you have any further questions to the questionnaire or the enquiry, you are welcome to contact the undersigned by e-mail or phone. Yours sincerely and thank you for your assistance f/hans Bendtsen There is no permanent resident at this address: (Please return this letter and the questionnaire thank you).

Questionnaire on noise from road traffic Reference no.

Instruction for the completion of the questionnaire The questionnaire is about your evaluation of annoyance from traffic. It consists of 47 questions which are divided into a number of sections regarding; annoyance from traffic, noise near your home, what can be done regarding traffic noise, about your home, about the extension of the road and about yourself. The questionnaire should be completed by a grown-up person over 18 years of age who has permanent residence at the address. Please complete the questionnaire while you are at home (at this address) this will take some 15 minutes. The questionnaire will be read by a machine. Please use an ordinary ballpoint pen blue or black and make a clear cross from one corner to the other corner:. If you put a cross in the incorrect place, please cover the cross completely until the box is fully covered:. Then put your cross in the correct box. Before you answer a question, please read the entire question and all the possible answers. If you are in doubt what to answer, use what came to your mind first.

Questions regarding annoyance from road traffic generally 1. Thinking about the last 12 months when you are at home, in which way are you annoyed by road traffic, where you live? You may put several crosses. There is no annoyance from traffic. It feels unsafe to be on or near the roads in the area. It is unsafe for children to be on or near the roads in the area. There is traffic noise. There are vibrations from the traffic. There is air pollution or smells from the exhaust of cars. There is dust from traffic. Other Please describe

Questions regarding noise 2. a) Thinking about the last 12 months when you are at home, how much does noise from road traffic annoy or disturb you here, where you live? Put only one cross. Not at all annoyed or disturbed. Slightly annoyed or disturbed. Moderately annoyed or disturbed. Very annoyed or disturbed. Extremely annoyed or disturbed. b) Please answer the same question using numbers between 0 and 10: Put only one cross. Not at all annoyed/disturbed Extremely annoyed/disturbed 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 If you are not at all disturbed by noise from road traffic, please go to question 8. 3. Thinking about the last 12 months, how much does noise from road traffic annoy or disturb you when you are indoors in your home with closed windows? Put only one cross. Not at all annoyed/disturbed Extremely annoyed/disturbed 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4. Thinking about the last 12 months, how much does noise from road traffic annoy or disturb you when you are indoors in your home with open windows? Put only one cross. Not at all annoyed/disturbed Extremely annoyed/disturbed 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5. Thinking about the last 12 months, how does noise from road traffic annoy or disturb you inside your home? You may put several crosses. Traffic noise disturbs during normal conversation. Traffic noise disturbs when talking on the telephone. Traffic noise disturbs when I listen to the radio or watch television. Traffic noise disturbs when I read or work. I open the windows less than I normally would do, if there was no noise from traffic. I use the rooms in the home differently than was originally intended. I find it difficult to fall asleep, due to traffic noise. I wake up at night due to road traffic noise. I do not sleep with open windows due to road traffic noise. I sleep with earplugs due to road traffic noise. I use sleeping pills due to road traffic noise. Other. Please describe: If you do not have outdoor facilities next to your home, please go to question 8. 6. Thinking about the last 12 months, how much does road traffic noise annoy or disturb you, when you are out in the garden, on the terrace or balcony? Put only one cross. Not at all annoyed/disturbed Extremely annoyed/disturbed 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7. Thinking about the last 12 months, how does road traffic noise annoy or disturb you when you are out in the garden, on your terrace or balcony? You may put several crosses. Traffic noise disturbs during normal conversation. Traffic noise disturbs when talking on the telephone. Traffic noise disturbs periods of rest. Traffic noise disturbs when I read. Traffic noise disturbs when I do gardening. I choose to be in these places in the garden, where there is least road traffic noise. Occasionally I choose not to go outdoors because of the road traffic noise. Other Please describe 8. Do you think the traffic noise here where you live, has changed in the last two to three years? Put only one cross. No, more or less it is unchanged. Yes, it is a little lower. Yes, it has become somewhat stronger. Other Please describe

Questions regarding noise from other roads 9. From which roads do you hear road traffic noise, when you are at home? You may put several crosses. From the motorway (Motorway 3). From other major through roads. From local roads. If you have answered in question 2 that you are not at all annoyed or disturbed by road traffic noise please go to question 13. 10. a) Thinking about the last 12 months, when you are at home, how much does road traffic noise from the Motorway 3 annoy or disturb you? (Motorway 3 not the Ring Road). Put only one cross. Not at all annoyed or disturbed. Slightly annoyed or disturbed. Moderately annoyed or disturbed. Very annoyed or disturbed. Extremely annoyed or disturbed. b) Please answer the same question using numbers between 0 and 10: Put only one cross. Not at all annoyed/disturbed Extremely annoyed/disturbed 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11. a) Thinking about the last 12 months, when you are at home, how much does road traffic noise annoy or disturb you from other major through roads? (not Motorway 3). Put only one cross. Not at all annoyed or disturbed. Slightly annoyed or disturbed. Moderately annoyed or disturbed. Very annoyed or disturbed. Extremely annoyed or disturbed. b) Please answer the same question using numbers between 0 and 10: Put only one cross. Not at all annoyed/disturbed Extremely annoyed/disturbed 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12. a) Thinking about the last 12 months, when you are at home, how much does road traffic noise disturb you from local residential roads? Put only one cross. Not at all annoyed or disturbed. Slightly annoyed or disturbed. Moderately annoyed or disturbed. Very annoyed or disturbed. Extremely annoyed or disturbed. b) Please answer the same question using numbers between 0 and 10: Put only one cross. Not at all annoyed/disturbed Extremely annoyed/disturbed 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

13. Thinking about the last 12 months, are there other annoying or disturbing noise sources other than road traffic in the area? You may put several crosses. No. Yes, railways. Yes, aeroplanes. Yes, businesses (for example restaurant, shop or workshop). Yes, public institutions, schools, etc. Yes, neighbours. Yes other Please describe:

Questions regarding what can be done about traffic noise 14. Have you yourself done anything where you live to reduce noise annoyance from road traffic? You may put several crosses. No, not done anything. Yes, chosen a room as living room which is free from noise, even though it was not originally intended to be used for this purpose. Yes, chosen a room away from the road as bedroom, even though it was not originally intended to be used for this purpose. Yes, have installed noise reducing windows. Yes, have constructed a noise barrier. Yes, contacted the local authority or other public authorities so that something can be done. Yes, got property taxes or rent reduced. Other Please describe:

15. What do you think should be done to reduce annoyance from road traffic noise where you live? You may put several crosses. Nothing Noise reducing windows should be installed. Noise barriers should be constructed. Noise reducing road surfaces should be used. Less noisy car tyres should be used. The number of passenger cars should be reduced. The number of lorries should be reduced. The driving speed should be reduced. Other Please describe: 16. How much are you willing to pay in order to reduce traffic noise by one half her, where you live? Put only one cross Nothing. Up to 100 DKK per month in future. Up to 250 DKK per month in future. Up to 500 DKK per month in future. More than 500 DKK per month in future Do not know

17. In your opinion, who do you think should pay to reduce annoyance from noise, here? You may put several crosses. No one Vehicle drivers. I / we. House owners association, housing association or cooperative association. The local authority or the State. EU. Other. Please state who:

Questions regarding your residence 18. Which type of residence do you live in? Bungalow (on one floor) (possibly with a basement). House with several floors Row house on one floor (possibly with a basement). Row house with several floors Apartment Other Please describe 19. Who owns your residence? Put only one cross I / we do. It is a shared ownership property. It is rented residence. Other Please describe

20. When was your residence constructed? Put only one cross. Before 1940. 1940 1954. 1955 1969. 1970 1985. After 1985. 21. Which type of windows are there in your living room? You may put several crosses. Special soundproofed windows 3-layer double glazing windows Ordinary double glazing windows with two layers of glass Two layers of glass, but not double glazing windows (connected frame) One layer of glass. Other Please describe 22. How tight are the windows in your living room? Put only one cross Completely tight. Relatively tight Rather untight. Very untgiht.

23. How long do you open your windows in the living room in summer? Put only one cross Less than ½ hour/day. ½ - 1 hour/day. 1-2 hours/day. 2-4 hours/day. More than 4 hours/day. 24. How long do you open your windows in the living room in winter? Put only one cross. Less than ½ hour/day. ½ - 1 hour/day 1-2 hours/day. 2-4 hours/day. More than 4 hours/day. 25. Which direction do the windows in your living room face? You may put several crosses. East (morning sun). South (midday sun). West (evening sun). North.

26. Which type of windows are there in your bedroom? You may put several crosses. Special soundproofed windows 3-layer double glazing windows Ordinary double glazing windows with two layers of glass Two layers of glass, but not double glazing windows (connected frame) One layer of glass. Other Please describe 27. How tight are your windows in the bedroom? Put only one cross Very tight Reasonably tight. Rather untight. Very untight. 28. Are your windows in the bedroom open at night? You may put several crosses. No. Yes, in summer Yes, in winter.

29. Which direction do the windows in your bedroom face? You may put several crosses. East (morning sun). South (lunchtime sun). West (evening sun). North. 30. On which floor is your bedroom? Put only one cross. Basement or ground floor. First floor or higher. 31. Which directions does your terrace, balcony or garden face? You may put several crosses. East (morning sun). South (midday sun). West (evening sun). North. 32. Can you see the vehicles or a noise barrier along the motorway (Motorway 3) from your residence? You may put several crosses. No. Yes, vehicles. Yes, a noise barrier.

Questions regarding the extension process 33. How do you experience the way the Danish Road Directorate communicates with you as resident in connection with the extension of Motorway 3? Put only one cross Very satisfactory. Satisfactory. Less satisfactory. There was no communication. Do not know 34. Did you participate in the process/discussion about the rebuilding? You may put several crosses. I have participated in public meetings. I have written letters to the editor and/or the Danish Road Directorate. I have participated via my house owners association, co-operative associatio etc. I did not wish to participate. I did not get the opportunity to participate. I have moved to the area, after the reconstruction had started. Other Please describe:

35. Have your opinions or complaints been taken seriously by the Danish Road Directorate? Put only one cross Yes. Partly. No. Do not know. 36. Have the Danish Road Directorate and the involved contractors been thoughtful to residents living along the way (Motorway 3) during the construction period in order to limit annoyance from noise, dust, smell etc? Put only one cross Very thoughtful. Moderatly thoughtful. Little thoughtful. Not thoughtful. Do not know.

Questions regarding yourself 37. What year were you born? 1 9 38. What is your gender? Female. Male. 39. Are there any children at the age of 10 or younger in your residence? No. Yes. 40. What is your monthly household income (total monthly income before tax for all in the household)? Put only one cross 0 20.000 DKK. per month. 20.001 50.000 DKK. per month. 50.001 100.000 DKK. per month. Mere end 100.000 DKK. per month.

41. How sensitive are you to noise? Put only one cross Very insensitive. Relatively insensitive. Normal. Relatively sensitive. Very sensitive. 42. How long have you been living in your residence? Put only one cross 0 2 years. 3 6 years. 7 10 years. More than 10 years. 43. How many people permanently live in your residence? Put only one cross 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. More than 5.

44. Are you planning to move to another residence in the coming few years? Put only one cross No. Yes. Do not know. 45. If you are planning to move, what is the most important reason? You may put several crosses. I/we wish another housing conditions (house in another size, other standard or other ownership). I/we wish to live closer to work (or new work). There is noise from road traffic. There is vibrations from road traffic There is air pollution, dust or smells from road traffic. It feels unsafe to be on or near the roads in the area because of traffic I/we wish to live in another neighbourhood. I/we wish er at få bedre udendørs opholdsarealer. I/We to live in another neighbourhood having better institutions (daycares, school, library, music school etc). I/We to live in another neighbourhood having better service and free time offers (shops, sport clubs etc) Other. Please describe:

46. Did you participate to the previous questionnaire investigation regarding noise before the extension of Motorway (Motorway 3)? No Yes, I participated. Do not know 47. Other remarks regarding noise from road traffic: Please return the questionnaire in the enclosed pre-paid envelope. Thank you very much for your help.

Til Beboerne på Guldalderen 12 2640 Hedehusene Tlf. 7244 7000 Fax 7244 7105 vd@vd.dk Vejdirektoratet.dk SE 60729018 Giro 7 09 40 00 EAN 5798000893450 Spørgeskema om støjgener fra vejtrafik 29. oktober 2009 Sagsbehandler Hans Bendtsen Dir. tlf. 7244 7164 hbe@vd.dk Ref.: Før arbejdet med at udvide Motorring 3 begyndte, udsendte Vejdirektoratet et spørgeskema om støjgener i forskellige områder langs vejen. Nu, hvor udvidelsen er afsluttet ved disse områder, gentager vi undersøgelsen. Ud over at vise, hvordan udvidelsen har påvirket genen i de enkelte områder, har undersøgelsen til formål at opdatere det grundlag, der benyttes til at vurdere støjgener langs veje. Det er derfor vigtigt med en høj svarprocent også fra områder, hvor generne ikke er så store. Skemaet bedes besvaret af en voksen over 18 år med fast bopæl på adressen. Hvis der er tale om en virksomhed, butik eller lignende uden fast beboelse, bedes du blot sætte et kryds nederst på næste side og returnere dette brev og det blanke skema i den vedlagte kuvert. I nogle af spørgsmålene er der spurgt til gene på to måder: Først bedes du vælge den beskrivelse af genen, der passer bedst. Dernæst bedes du angive på en skala fra 0 til 10, hvor generet du er. Hvis du slet ikke er generet, vælger du 0. Hvis du er voldsomt generet, vælger du 10. Hvis du vurderer støjgenen til at ligge mellem disse to yderpunkter, sætter du kryds ved det tal mellem 0 og 10, der passer bedst. Det er vigtigt, at du besvarer begge typer spørgsmål. Der er spurgt på disse to måder for at kunne sammenligne resultaterne med andre internationale undersøgelser. Ved enkelte spørgsmål og til sidst i spørgeskemaet er der mulighed for at skrive kommentarer. Her beder vi dig om at holde dig inden for rammen, da kommentarerne ligesom svarene aflæses maskinelt. Spørgeskemaet returneres i den vedlagte svarkuvert til Vejdirektoratet portoen er betalt. Send venligst skemaet retur senest den 6. november.

Det er vigtigt for undersøgelsen, at svarene kan stedfæstes. Derfor er spørgeskemaerne nummereret. Vejdirektoratet garanterer, at alle personlige oplysninger behandles fortroligt. Har du spørgsmål til skemaet eller undersøgelsen, er du velkommen til at kontakte undertegnede pr. e-mail eller telefon. Med venlig hilsen og tak for hjælpen f/hans Bendtsen Der bor ikke nogen fast på denne adresse: (Vi beder dig returnere dette brev og skemaet og siger tak for hjælpen).

Til Beboerne på Guldalderen 12 2640 Hedehusene Tlf. 7244 7000 Fax 7244 7105 vd@vd.dk Vejdirektoratet.dk SE 60729018 Giro 7 09 40 00 EAN 5798000893450 Vi mangler dine svar til vores undersøgelse om støjgener! 18. november 2009 Sagsbehandler Hans Bendtsen Dir. tlf. 7244 7164 hbe@vd.dk Ref.: Da vi ikke har modtaget svar fra din husstand på det spørgeskema om støjgener, som vi sendte for tre uger siden, tillader vi os at sende en påmindelse. Det er vigtigt for undersøgelsen, at så mange som muligt deltager. Vi håber derfor, at du eller end anden fra husstanden vil bruge ca. 30 minutter på at besvare det vedlagte skema. Hvis du har svaret inden for de seneste 2-3 dage, så svaret og dette brev har krydset hinanden, skal du ikke svare igen men blot smide dette brev og spørgeskema ud. Skemaet bedes besvaret af en voksen over 18 år med fast bopæl på adressen. Hvis der er tale om en virksomhed, butik eller lignende uden fast beboelse, bedes du blot sætte et kryds nederst på næste side og returnere dette brev og det blanke skema i den vedlagte kuvert. I nogle af spørgsmålene er der spurgt til gene på to måder: Først bedes du vælge den beskrivelse af genen, der passer bedst. Dernæst bedes du angive på en skala fra 0 til 10, hvor generet du er. Hvis du slet ikke er generet, vælger du 0. Hvis du er voldsomt generet, vælger du 10. Hvis du vurderer støjgenen til at ligge mellem disse to yderpunkter, sætter du kryds ved det tal mellem 0 og 10, der passer bedst. Det er vigtigt, at du besvarer begge typer spørgsmål. Der er spurgt på disse to måder for at kunne sammenligne resultaterne med andre internationale undersøgelser. Ved enkelte spørgsmål og til sidst i spørgeskemaet er der mulighed for at skrive kommentarer. Her beder vi dig om at holde dig inden for rammen, da kommentarerne ligesom svarene aflæses maskinelt. Spørgeskemaet returneres i den vedlagte svarkuvert til Vejdirektoratet portoen er betalt. Send venligst skemaet retur senest den 30. november.

Det er vigtigt for undersøgelsen, at svarene kan stedfæstes. Derfor er spørgeskemaerne nummereret. Vejdirektoratet garanterer, at alle personlige oplysninger behandles fortroligt. Har du spørgsmål til skemaet eller undersøgelsen, er du velkommen til at kontakte undertegnede pr. e-mail eller telefon. Med venlig hilsen og tak for hjælpen f/hans Bendtsen Der bor ikke nogen fast på denne adresse: (Vi beder dig returnere dette brev og skemaet og siger tak for hjælpen).

Spørgeskema om støj fra vejtrafik Nr: løbenr.

Vejledning til udfyldning af spørgeskemaet Spørgeskemaet drejer sig om din vurdering af gener fra trafikken. Det består af 47 spørgsmål, som er delt op i en række afsnit om gener fra trafikken, om støj ved din bolig, om hvad der kan gøres ved trafikstøj, om boligen, om udvidelsesprocessen og om dig selv. Spørgeskemaet bedes udfyldt af en voksen person over 18 år, som bor fast på denne adresse. Udfyld venligst spørgeskemaet, mens du er hjemme (på denne adresse) det tager ca. et kvarters tid. Spørgeskemaet aflæses maskinelt. Brug derfor en almindelig kuglepen blå eller sort og sæt venligst et tydeligt kryds fra hjørne til hjørne:. Hvis du kommer til at sætte kryds i en forkert kasse, skal du overstrege det forkerte kryds, indtil kassen er helt fyldt ud:. Herefter kan du sætte kryds i den rigtige kasse. Inden du besvarer et spørgsmål, bedes du læse hele spørgsmålet og alle svarmulighederne igennem. Hvis du bliver i tvivl om, hvilket svar du skal vælge så brug din første indskydelse.

Spørgsmål om forskellige gener fra trafikken 1. Tænk på det seneste års tid, når du er hjemme. På hvilke måder bliver du generet af vejtrafik her, hvor du bor? Sæt eventuelt flere krydser. Der er slet ingen gener fra trafikken. Det er utrygt at færdes på eller ved vejene i området. Det er utrygt for børn at færdes på eller ved vejene i området. Der er støj fra trafikken. Der er vibrationer eller rystelser fra trafikken. Der er luftforurening eller lugt fra bilernes udstødning. Der er støv fra trafikken. Andet. Skriv venligst hvad:

Spørgsmål om støj 2. a) Tænk på det seneste års tid, når du er hjemme. Hvor meget generer eller forstyrrer støj fra vejtrafik dig her, hvor du bor? Sæt kun ét kryds. Slet ikke generet eller forstyrret. Lidt generet eller forstyrret. Noget generet eller forstyrret. Meget generet eller forstyrret. Voldsomt generet eller forstyrret. b) Svar på det samme spørgsmål med et tal mellem 0 og 10: Sæt kun ét kryds. Slet ikke generet eller forstyrret Voldsomt generet eller forstyrret 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Hvis du slet ikke er generet af støj fra vejtrafik, springer du helt frem til spørgsmål 8. 3. Tænk på det seneste års tid. Hvor meget generer eller forstyrrer støj fra vejtrafik dig, når du er inde i din bolig med lukkede vinduer? Sæt kun ét kryds. Slet ikke generet eller forstyrret Voldsomt generet eller forstyrret 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4. Tænk på det seneste års tid. Hvor meget generer eller forstyrrer støj fra vejtrafik dig, når du er inde i din bolig med åbne vinduer? Sæt kun ét kryds. Slet ikke generet eller forstyrret Voldsomt generet eller forstyrret 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5. Tænk på det seneste års tid. Hvordan generer eller forstyrrer støj fra vejtrafik dig inde i din bolig? Sæt eventuelt flere krydser. Trafikstøjen forstyrrer ved almindelig samtale. Trafikstøjen forstyrrer ved telefonsamtale. Trafikstøjen forstyrrer, når jeg hører radio eller ser TV. Trafikstøjen forstyrrer ved læsning eller arbejde. Jeg åbner vinduerne mindre, end jeg ville gøre uden støj fra vejtrafik. Jeg bruger rummene i boligen anderledes, end de oprindelig var tænkt. Jeg har svært ved at falde i søvn på grund af trafikstøj. Jeg vågner om natten på grund af trafikstøj. Jeg sover ikke med åbne vinduer på grund af trafikstøj. Jeg sover med ørepropper på grund af trafikstøj. Jeg bruger sovemedicin på grund af trafikstøj. Andet. Skriv venligst hvad: Hvis du ikke har udendørs opholdsarealer ved boligen, springer du til spørgsmål 8. 6. Tænk på det seneste års tid. Hvor meget generer eller forstyrrer støj fra vejtrafik dig, når du er ude i haven, på terrassen eller på altanen? Sæt kun ét kryds. Slet ikke generet eller forstyrret Voldsomt generet eller forstyrret 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7. Tænk på det seneste års tid. Hvordan generer eller forstyrrer støj fra vejtrafik dig, når du er ude i haven, på terrassen eller på altanen? Sæt eventuelt flere krydser. Trafikstøjen forstyrrer ved almindelig samtale. Trafikstøjen forstyrrer ved telefonsamtale. Trafikstøjen forstyrrer ved hvile. Trafikstøjen forstyrrer ved læsning. Trafikstøjen forstyrrer ved havearbejde. Jeg vælger opholdssted i haven, hvor der er mindst trafikstøj. Jeg undlader nogle gange at gå ud på grund af trafikstøj. Andet. Skriv venligst hvad: 8. Synes du, at trafikstøjen her, hvor du bor, har ændret sig de seneste 2 3 år? Sæt kun ét kryds. Nej, den er stort set uændret. Ja, den er blevet noget svagere. Ja, den er blevet noget kraftigere. Andet. Skriv venligst hvad:

Spørgsmål om støj fra forskellige veje 9. Fra hvilke veje kan du høre trafikstøj, når du er hjemme? Sæt eventuelt flere krydser. Fra motorvejen (Motorring 3). Fra andre store gennemfartsveje. Fra de lokale boligveje. Hvis du i spørgsmål 2 har svaret, at du slet ikke er generet eller forstyrret af støj fra vejtrafik, springer du helt frem til spørgsmål 13. 10. a) Tænk på det seneste års tid, når du er hjemme. Hvor meget generer eller forstyrrer trafikstøj fra Motorring 3 dig? (motorvejen ikke ringvejen). Sæt kun ét kryds. Slet ikke generet eller forstyrret. Lidt generet eller forstyrret. Noget generet eller forstyrret. Meget generet eller forstyrret. Voldsomt generet eller forstyrret. b) Svar på det samme spørgsmål med et tal mellem 0 og 10: Sæt kun ét kryds. Slet ikke generet eller forstyrret Voldsomt generet eller forstyrret 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11. a) Tænk på det seneste års tid, når du er hjemme. Hvor meget generer eller forstyrrer trafikstøj fra andre store gennemfartsveje dig? (ikke motorvejen). Sæt kun ét kryds. Slet ikke generet eller forstyrret. Lidt generet eller forstyrret. Noget generet eller forstyrret. Meget generet eller forstyrret. Voldsomt generet eller forstyrret. b) Svar på det samme spørgsmål med et tal mellem 0 og 10: Sæt kun ét kryds. Slet ikke generet eller forstyrret Voldsomt generet eller forstyrret 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12. a) Tænk på det seneste års tid, når du er hjemme. Hvor meget generer eller forstyrrer trafikstøj fra de lokale boligveje dig? Sæt kun ét kryds. Slet ikke generet eller forstyrret. Lidt generet eller forstyrret. Noget generet eller forstyrret. Meget generet eller forstyrret. Voldsomt generet eller forstyrret. b) Svar på det samme spørgsmål med et tal mellem 0 og 10: Sæt kun ét kryds. Slet ikke generet eller forstyrret Voldsomt generet eller forstyrret 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

13. Tænk på det seneste års tid. Er der andre generende eller forstyrrende støjkilder end vejtrafik her i området? Sæt eventuelt flere krydser. Nej. Ja, jernbaner. Ja, fly. Ja, virksomheder (for eksempel restaurant, butik eller værksted). Ja, institutioner, skoler eller lignende. Ja, naboer. Ja, andre. Skriv venligst hvilke:

Spørgsmål om hvad der kan gøres ved trafikstøj 14. Har du selv foretaget dig noget for at formindske støjgener fra vejtrafik her, hvor du bor? Sæt eventuelt flere krydser. Nej, ikke foretaget noget. Ja, valgt et rum der vender væk fra vejen til stue, selv om dette ikke passer med, hvordan rummene oprindeligt var tænkt anvendt. Ja, valgt et rum der vender væk fra vejen til soveværelse, selv om dette ikke passer med, hvordan rummene oprindeligt var tænkt anvendt. Ja, fået indsat støjisolerende vinduer. Ja, fået opstillet støjskærm. Ja, kontaktet kommunen eller andre myndigheder for at få gjort noget. Ja, fået nedsat ejendomsvurderingen eller huslejen Andet. Skriv venligst hvad:

15. Hvad mener du der bør gøres for at formindske støjgener fra vejtrafik her, hvor du bor? Sæt eventuelt flere krydser. Ikke noget. Der bør indsættes støjisolerende vinduer. Der bør opstilles støjskærme. Der bør lægges støjdæmpende asfalt. Der bør anvendes mindre støjende bildæk. Trafikken af personbiler bør mindskes. Trafikken af lastbiler bør mindskes. Farten for bilerne bør sættes ned. Andet. Skriv venligst hvad: 16. Hvor meget ville du betale for en halvering af trafikstøjen her, hvor du bor? Sæt kun ét kryds. Ingenting. Op til 100 kr. pr. måned fremover. Op til 250 kr. pr. måned fremover. Op til 500 kr. pr. måned fremover. Mere end 500 kr. pr. måned fremover. Ved ikke.

17. Hvem bør efter din mening være med til at betale for at formindske støjgenerne her? Sæt eventuelt flere krydser. Ingen. Bilisterne. Jeg selv / os selv. Grundejerforeningen, boligforeningen (udlejer) eller andelsboligforeningen. Kommunen eller staten. EU. Andre. Skriv venligst hvem:

Spørgsmål om din bolig 18. Hvilken type bolig bor du i? Parcelhus eller villa i ét plan (eventuelt med kælder). Parcelhus eller villa med stue og 1. sal eller 2. sal. Række- eller kædehus i ét plan (eventuelt med kælder). Række- eller kædehus med stue og 1. sal eller 2. sal. Etagebolig (lejlighed). Andet. Skriv venligst hvad: 19. Hvem ejer din bolig? Sæt kun ét kryds. Det gør jeg/vi selv. Det er en andelsbolig. Det er en lejebolig. Andet. Skriv venligst hvad:

20. Hvornår er din bolig bygget? Sæt kun ét kryds. Før 1940. 1940 1954. 1955 1969. 1970 1985. Efter 1985. 21. Hvilken type vinduer er der i din stue? Sæt eventuelt flere krydser. Specielle lydisolerende vinduer (lydruder). 3-lags termoruder. Almindelige termoruder med 2 lag glas. 2 lag glas, men ikke termoruder (forsatsruder eller koblede rammer). 1 lag glas. Andet. Skriv venligst hvad: 22. Hvor tætte er vinduerne i din stue? Sæt kun ét kryds. Helt tætte. Forholdsvis tætte. Forholdsvis utætte. Meget utætte.

23. Hvor ofte har du åbne vinduer i stuen om sommeren? Sæt kun ét kryds. mindre end ½ time pr. dag. ½ - 1 time pr. dag. 1-2 timer pr. dag. 2-4 timer pr. dag. mere end 4 timer pr. dag. 24. Hvor ofte har du åbne vinduer i stuen om vinteren? Sæt kun ét kryds. mindre end ½ time pr. dag. ½ - 1 time pr. dag. 1-2 timer pr. dag. 2-4 timer pr. dag. mere end 4 timer pr. dag. 25. Hvilken retning vender vinduerne i din stue mod? Sæt eventuelt flere krydser. Øst (morgensol). Syd (middagssol). Vest (aftensol). Nord.

26. Hvilken type vinduer er der i dit soveværelse? Sæt eventuelt flere krydser. Specielle lydisolerende vinduer (lydruder). 3-lags termoruder. Almindelige termoruder med 2 lag glas. 2 lag glas, men ikke termoruder (forsatsruder eller koblede rammer). 1 lag glas. Andet. Skriv venligst hvad: 27. Hvor tætte er vinduerne i dit soveværelse? Sæt kun ét kryds. Helt tætte. Forholdsvis tætte. Forholdsvis utætte. Meget utætte. 28. Har du åbne vinduer i soveværelset om natten? Sæt eventuelt flere krydser. Nej. Ja, om sommeren. Ja, om vinteren.

29. Hvilken retning vender vinduerne i dit soveværelse mod? Sæt eventuelt flere krydser. Øst (morgensol). Syd (middagssol). Vest (aftensol). Nord. 30. Hvilken etage ligger dit soveværelse på? Sæt kun ét kryds. Kælder- eller stueplan. 1. sal eller højere. 31. Hvilken retning vender terrassen, altanen eller haven mod? Sæt eventuelt flere krydser. Øst (morgensol). Syd (middagssol). Vest (aftensol). Nord. 32. Kan du se bilerne eller en støjskærm langs motorvejen (Motorring 3) fra din bolig? Sæt eventuelt flere krydser. Nej. Ja, bilerne. Ja, en støjskærm.

Spørgsmål om udvidelsesprocessen 33. Hvordan oplever du Vejdirektoratets kommunikation til dig som beboer i forbindelse med udvidelsen af Motorring 3? Sæt kun ét kryds. Meget tilfredsstillende. Tilfredsstillende. Mindre tilfredsstillende. Der har ikke været nogen kommunikation. Ved ikke. 34. Har du deltaget i processen/debatten om ombygningen? Sæt eventuelt flere krydser. Jeg har deltaget i borgermøder. Jeg har skrevet læserbreve og/eller breve til Vejdirektoratet. Jeg har deltaget via grundejerforening, andelsforening eller lignende. Jeg har ikke ønsket at deltage. Jeg har ikke fået muligheden for at deltage. Jeg er flyttet til efter, at ombygningen var påbegyndt. Andet. Skriv venligst hvad: 35. Er dine synspunkter og klager blevet taget seriøst af Vejdirektoratet? Sæt kun ét kryds. Ja. Delvist. Nej. Ved ikke.

36. Har Vejdirektoratet og de involverede entreprenører været hensynsfulde overfor beboerne langs vejen i byggeperioden for at begrænse gener fra støj, støv, lugt med videre? Sæt kun ét kryds. Meget hensynsfulde. Moderat hensynsfulde. Lidt hensynsfulde. Ikke hensynsfulde. Ved ikke.

Spørgsmål om dig selv 37. Hvilket år er du født? 1 9 38. Er du kvinde eller mand? Kvinde. Mand. 39. Er der børn på 10 år eller derunder i hjemmet? Nej. Ja. 40. Hvad er din månedlige husstandsindkomst (samlet månedlig indkomst før skat for alle i husstanden)? Sæt kun ét kryds. 0 20.000 kr. pr. måned. 20.001 50.000 kr. pr. måned. 50.001 100.000 kr. pr. måned. Mere end 100.000 kr. pr. måned.

41. Hvor følsom er du over for støj? Sæt kun ét kryds. Meget ufølsom. Forholdsvis ufølsom. Normal. Forholdsvis følsom. Meget følsom. 42. Hvor længe har du boet i din bolig? Sæt kun ét kryds. 0 2 år. 3 6 år. 7 10 år. Mere end 10 år. 43. Hvor mange personer bor fast her i din bolig? Sæt kun ét kryds. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Flere end 5.

44. Har du planer om at flytte til en anden bolig inden for de næste par år? Sæt kun ét kryds. Nej. Ja. Ved ikke. 45. Hvis du har planer om at flytte, hvad er da de vigtigste årsager? Sæt eventuelt flere krydser. Jeg/vi ønsker andre boligforhold (bolig med en anden størrelse, anden standard eller andre ejerforhold). Jeg/vi ønsker kortere til arbejde (eller til nyt arbejde). Der er støj fra vejtrafikken. Der er vibrationer eller rystelser fra vejtrafikken. Der er luftforurening, støv eller lugt fra vejtrafikken. Det er utrygt at færdes på eller ved vejene i området på grund af trafikken. Jeg/vi ønsker at bo i et andet kvarter. Jeg/vi ønsker at få bedre udendørs opholdsarealer. Jeg/vi ønsker at bo i et område med bedre institutioner (børnehave, skole, bibliotek, musikskole med mere). Jeg/vi ønsker at bo i et område med bedre service og fritidstilbud (butikker, sportsklubber med mere). Andet. Skriv venligst hvad:

46. Deltog du i den tidligere spørgeskemaundersøgelse om støj forud for udvidelsen af motorvejen (Motorring 3)? Nej. Ja, deltog. Ved ikke. 47. Andre bemærkninger om støj fra vejtrafik: Send venligst skemaet retur i den vedlagte svarkuvert. Tak for hjælpen!

Eksternt notat / Technical notes Nr. No. Titel/Title Forfatter/Author 58/07 Replacement of Porous Top Layer - Process and noise effect Jørgen Kragh Sigurd N. Thomsen 59/07 Faglig strategi for støjtemaet Hans Bendtsen 60/07 Clogging of porous pavements - The cleaning experiment Carsten B. Nielsen 61/07 Noise Classification - Asphalt pavement Jørgen Kragh 62/07 Inter Noise konferencen 2007 i Istanbul - Rejserapport Hans Bendtsen 63/07 HSD Measurements at the BASt Test Track - COST 354: Short Term Scientific Mission, 2006 Susanne Baltzer Gregers Hildebrand 65/07 Fremtidens Vej - Tre skridt til fremtiden Carsten B. Nielsen Erik Nielsen Finn Thøgersen Knud A. Pihl 66/08 Optimized thin layers urban roads - the Kastrupvej experiment 67/08 Traffic noise measurements in Malmö - Results from 1 st and 2 nd year Sigurd N. Thomsen Hans Bendtsen Bent Andersen Bent Andersen Hans Bendtsen Sigurd N. Thomsen 68/08 Surface dressings - Noise measurements Hans Bendtsen Sigurd N. Thomsen 69/08 Use of noise reducing pavements - European experience Hans Bendtsen Jørgen Kragh Erik Nielsen 70/08 Strategy for the DRI noise research theme Hans Bendtsen 71/08 Tema Klima & Miljø Strategi for FUD 2009-2012 72/08 Belægningsskift og støjgener - Øster Søgade 2007-2008 73/09 Lyse belægningsoverflader i tunneler - Energibesparelse 74/09 Noter fra STØJKONFERENCE Euronoise 2009 i Edinburgh Michael Larsen Knud A. Pihl Marianne Grauert Lars Ellebjerg Bjarne Schmidt, Vejdirektoratet Kåre Ulrich Hansen, A/S Øresund Hans Bendtsen Emine Celik Christensen Gilles Pigasse Jørgen Kragh 75/10 Staderapport for vejstribers holdbarhed Bjarne Schmidt, Vejdirektoratet DELTA 76/10 Støj ved to nye rundkørsler før og efter ombygning Hans Bendtsen Gilles Pigasse Bent Andersen 77/10 Rolling resistance - Copenhagen 2009 NordFoU project Road surface texture - low noise and low rolling resistance Jørgen Kragh 78/10 Inter.noise konferencen 2010 i Lissabon. Noter Hans Bendtsen Jørgen Kragh Gilles Pigasse Jakob Fryd 79/10 Noise Annoyance from Motorway 3. A pre and post-study Emine Celik Christensen

Road Directorate has local off ces in Aalborg, Fløng, Herlev, Herning, Middelfart, Næstved, Skanderborg and a head off ce in Copenhagen. Find more information on roaddirectorate.dk. ROAD DIRECTORATE Guldalderen 12, Fløng DK-2640 Hedehusene Phone +45 7244 7000 vd@vd.dk roaddirectorate.dk