Noise pollution is one of the most underestimated burdens of modern infrastructure. Although noise protection is a legal requirement in most public construction projects, its implementation often falls short – not due to cost alone, but because of vague or incomplete tender specifications.
Why Are Noise Protection Tenders Often Incomplete?
In infrastructure planning, noise control is still treated as a secondary issue – a reactive measure rather than a proactive design element. While a kilometre of motorway construction may cost around €10 million, the budget allocated for noise protection rarely exceeds 5–10% of that. In many cases, the structural components (foundations, posts, base elements) are designed and built before any clear performance requirements for the noise barrier elements themselves are defined.
Tenders typically specify which standards should apply (e.g., CEN 1793 series) – but fail to define what level of acoustic performance is expected in real-world conditions.
That’s like ordering a window certified to a CEN standard and stating that it should be „transparent“ – but without clarifying whether it needs to be soundproof, thermally insulated, or secure against break-ins.
A Real-World Example: Wiener Neudorf, Austria
A striking example can be found along the A2 motorway near Wiener Neudorf, where existing noise barriers were upgraded following public pressure and increasing traffic volumes. The ASFINAG, Austria’s motorway agency, made a substantial investment – resulting in the tallest noise barrier ever built in the country, reaching an impressive 13 meters in height. And yet, noise levels remained so high that speed limits had to be reduced to improve the acoustic situation.
Not every location requires such extensive measures. In many cases, retrofitted top elements can provide a cost-effective and less invasive solution – especially when designed for seamless integration and tested for real-world performance.
The Problem Behind the Problem: Laboratory Norms vs. Real-Life Noise
A hidden driver of these planning gaps is the reliance on laboratory-based standards. Norms like EN 1793-2 often reflect idealized conditions that don’t match on-site realities. Even EN 1793-5, which enables in-situ performance testing, is not always required – or results in disappointing outcomes for expensive new constructions.
More on this topic – including the gap between certified performance and perceived noise protection – will follow in a dedicated article.
Three Observations for Better Practice
- To planners: Please give careful attention to the actual acoustic effect of noise protection elements. Noise barriers are not just structural objects; their effectiveness depends on their real-world performance, not just conformity with norms.
- To public clients and contractors: Go beyond ticking boxes. When preparing a tender, specify the targeted acoustic outcome – not just the required standard.
- To local authorities and residents: Compliance is not enough. Make sure the measures taken actually reduce the noise in your community – and insist on meaningful evaluations.
Conclusion: From Obligation to Impact
Noise protection deserves more than a marginal role. Only if we define quality – not just compliance – from the outset, can we ensure that infrastructure serves both its functional and human purposes.
No responses yet