TYNE CROSSINGS ALLIANCE

COMMENTS ON MR MANNING'S RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS (NOISE)

Questions 1 and 2: I appreciate that noise is measured logarithmically but I find it hard to accept that a 25 percent increase in traffic gives rise to only 1 dB increase in sound level. Perhaps Mr Manning is referring to the maximum "swish" when vehicles pass. In practice however increased traffic means that one can converse with a companion (such as children accompanied to school on foot) (say) 25% less 25% = none of the time. That is in fact my experience and my particular sum assumes the road starts 75% full and increases in traffic level to 100% full (or a higher level of "stress") which is the apprehension we have.

Time exposed to a noise impulse DOES increase with traffic levels, and I suspect that at least in this sense the increase is disproportionate in the opposite sense to what Mr Manning claims. I.e., small increases produce disproportionally large amounts of distress. In the above example the situation changes from snatched conversation between passing vehicles, to no conversation. This is also my direct experience and seems to me to justify my remarks.

Question 3 "It is not until one gets to much higher levels of noise than are being considered here that a threshold of tolerance might be considered.......". This tells us everything we need to know, namely that we are expected to put up with noise levels "such as 100dB" before we are considered to be "inconvenienced". What drivel! My comments about night workers apply, additionally. I take it that any concept of "tranquility" has gone not out of the window (more exactly, is expected to come in through the window by way of its denial, at up to 100dB).

Question 4 Mr Manning makes the point that those exposed to over 68dB road noise are not entitled to insulation unless this arises from a new or altered highway. I note that extra traffic from the proposed new tunnel would technically not qualify since the alterations to the highway occur mainly under the river, even though the extra traffic impacts directly on people's houses (and even worse, gardens, public places and pavements) all over the region. No joy here, then.

Question 5 I gather that we can expect maximum noise on pavements, public places and, in effect nearly all gardens, as I anticipated.

Question 6 I simply don't accept that no one would use a pavement or other public place where the noise is "unacceptable". People have no choice............... Oh yes they do! I'm wrong! They could avoid the problem (but add to the suffering of others) and go by car! Best of all, they could drive across the River in a new tunnel!

M Manning's answer, like my comment which is facetious, is cut off from reality. By "reality" I mean what myself and neighbours have to contend with every day of the week. Clearly there is a question over what we mean by "unacceptable". I mean "intrusive, making conversation difficult, and one's environment bloody awful".

Question 7 I think Mr Manning's point here is that we must all move into the country. But we must not all move to the same bit of country or we will simply transfer the problem we now have in towns, to the country. (This is exactly what will happen if traffic growth is not restrained). I don't accept Mr Manning's assertion that we have simply to put up with increasing noise as a consequence of living in an urban area and I regard this view as profoundly worrying, coming as it does from a noise specialist. Having lived in towns most of my life (although I was brought up in the country so I know what quiet is), and having lived in central London as well as in London's suburbs, Kent, various parts of Newcastle and now South Tyneside, I know that urban areas can be remarkably quiet. Unless you're near a busy road..............

Just to accept ever-increasing noise is indeed "unacceptable" in my book, and I expect it would be in Mr Manning's experience were he exposed to the problem. I take it that he isn't, since I can't believe he would respond to these questions, in this way, if he were.

Question 8 I take it we will happily be deafened on pavements, plus or minus 3 dB, and whether or not we can or cannot actually detect a 3 dB change. By "happily" I am not referring to the victim of this injustice, and I beg forgiveness for more irony.

Question 9 I'm glad noise nuisance outside buildings gets some acknowledgment.

Questions 10 and 11 If Government guidelines are based on "normal" hearing then they do automatically discriminate against those with better hearing. In fact I suggest that the sort of standards we are talking about are unacceptable to people who are all but deaf. I define "unacceptable" as in my response to Question 6 (above).

Question 12 (Re: people on night duty) Mr Manning agrees this is a problem, but he writes that the small increase predicted to arise from the tunnel scheme will be marginally detectable. We contend that: a) the increase is underestimated (my response to Mr Emms and others refer), and b): the tunnel scheme is part of a traffic growth policy which does what it says and "grows" traffic. We seek a traffic reduction policy. So comparing our scheme with the NTC scheme, the difference in noise nuisance between the NTC proposal and our alternative would be large.

Question 13 (Re: scheme comparisons with alternatives) My comments are the same as for (12) above.

Question 14 (Re: House price reductions due to noise). My comments are as for (12) above.

Question 15 (Re: Health impacts). Mr Manning claims that increases are so small they will have negligible effect. We disagree with this too, along the lines of (12) above.

END