City Living

Quiet’s hard to come by

Russell Wangersky, The Telegram, writes about being somewhere so quiet that he could hear two birds flying 20 feet above him.  He describes the sound their feathers made as they moved through the air–“It is a sound that almost defies description: both a swoosh and a rustle, and a hint of the sweep of a soft brush–a sound he notes he will likely never hear again. And that experience prompts his essay on sound and modern living, as he considers “how much sound there is all around us, and how that complication of noises gets ever-larger.”

Click the link to read this thoughtful essay.

 

 

Fresh thinking about quiet, space-saving urban transportation

Introducing the URB-E

by David M. Sykes, Vice Chair, The Quiet Coalition

By now we’ve all seen battery-powered Segways, battery-powered bicycles, and battery-powered motorcycles—awkward, cumbersome, big, heavy commuter vehicles that have enough power to get you from home to the train station or bus stop. Then what do you do with it? Granted they take less space than cars and don’t spew exhaust fumes, but their bulk and weight is a problem.

Now comes URB-E, a cleverly designed, small-scale, apparently foldable electric scooter that you can take right onto the bus or train with you. Brilliant! Kudos to the designers in Pasdena who thought this up. Can’t wait to see them on the roads and campuses around here when spring rolls around. Looks like fun.

In addition to serving as vice chair of the The Quiet Coalition, David Sykes chairs several professional organizations in acoustical science: The Acoustics Research Council, American National Standards Institute Committee S12, Workgroup 44, The Rothschild Foundation Task Force on Acoustics, and the FGI Acoustics Working Group—a partner of the American Hospital Association. He is the lead author of “Sound & Vibration 2.0 (2012, Springer-Verlag), a contributor to the National Academy of Engineering report “Technology for a Quieter America,” and to the US-GSA guidance “Sound Matters”, and co-founded the Laboratory for Advanced Research in Acoustics (LARA) at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He recently retired from the board of directors of the American Tinnitus Association. A graduate of the University of California/Berkeley with graduate degrees from Cornell University, he is a frequent organizer of and speaker at professional conferences in the U.S., Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

Four in 10 UK adults unknowingly endanger their hearing on a daily basis

Photo credit: Gary J. Wood licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

by Daniel Fink, MD, Chair, The Quiet Coalition

This report states that 40% of adults in the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales) unknowingly endanger their hearing on a daily basis.

This finding fits neatly with Dr. Gregory A. Flamme’s report that 70% of U.S. adults get total noise doses exceeding safe limits and Dr. Richard Neitzel’s similar finding in a Swedish population.

This isn’t rocket science–noise exposure for the ear is like sun exposure for the skin. If you don’t want deep wrinkles, age spots, and skin cancers when you get older, wear a hat, long sleeves, sunscreen, and avoid the sun.

If you don’t want hearing aids when you get older, avoid noise exposure.

Dr. Daniel Fink is a leading noise activist based in the Los Angeles area. He serves on the board of the American Tinnitus Association, is the interim chair of Quiet Communities’s Health Advisory Council, and is the founding chair of The Quiet Coalition, an organization of science, health, and legal professionals concerned about the impacts of noise on health, environment, learning, productivity, and quality of life in America.

Why a Toronto study on commuter noise is relevant to New York City

Photo credit: Dennis Jarvis licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

by Arline Bronzaft, Ph.D., Board of Directors, GrowNYC, and Co-founder, The Quiet Coalition

In their recently published article “Noise exposure while commuting in Toronto – a study of personal and public transportation in Toronto,” Dr. Yao and his associates concluded that the sound levels associated with mass transit were intense enough to potentially cause some hearing loss. The authors found that while average noise levels in subway cars and on the subway stations were high, peak noise levels in the subway system exceeded 100 dBA. They also reported noise levels for buses and street cars with subways and bus average noise levels exceeding the average noise level for street cars. Recognizing that the mass transit system in Toronto is likely to expand, the authors suggested that “…engineering noise-control efforts should continue to focus on materials and equipment that confer a quieter environment.”

As a New Yorker and regular subway rider, I have long been aware of the impacts of New York City subway and elevated train noise on the health and well-being of its employees and riders as well as those who live, work, and attend school near the elevated train tracks. Yet, it was my research, done over forty years ago, on the adverse effects of elevated train noise on the reading ability of children attending classes near the elevated train tracks that led to my greater involvement in advocating for a “quieter” transit system. It was this advocacy that resulted in the Transit Authority installing rubber resilient pads on the tracks adjacent to the classrooms to lessen the train noise in these classes. The Board of Education also installed acoustical ceilings in these same classrooms.

The follow-up study of reading scores in these classrooms after the abatements were in place found that the children in classrooms adjacent to the track were now reading at the same level as those on the quiet side of the building. To me, these studies yielded another important finding–transit noise can be reduced.

It is within the context of my many years of writing about transit noise and its adverse impacts on mental and physical health that I will address the findings of the above Toronto study. For the purposes of this review, I will not be addressing bus noise which I have also examined in the past.

My research on subway noise impeding classroom learning received a great deal of attention and it led to my being given the opportunity to examine Transit Authority records on noise complaints and actions. I learned that back to 1878 when the Third Avenue El was opened, the noise from passing trains disturbed students attending Cooper Union College and the school had to relocate a dozen classrooms to the other side of the school building. The Transit Authority compensated the college for the move by paying them $540.00.

In the years that followed this first complaint, there were other complaints to which the Transit Authority responded by abating the noise on the tracks. In fact, as early as 1924, the then Transit Commission acknowledged the potential harm of noise on its employees and attempted to set up noise abatement programs for its existing lines as well as its future ones. In looking at how the New York Transit Authority responded to noise complaints, I found that complaints led to attempts to reduce noise but within a short time transit noises returned only to have the Authority respond again with noise abatements. My paper “Rail noise: The relationship to subway maintenance and operation,” published in Urban Resources in 1986, presents a historical overview of how subway noise has been addressed by those in charge of the New York City transit system.¹

Of particular note is the year 1982, when the State of New York decided to pass a Rapid Rail Transit Noise Code requiring the Transit Authority to develop a comprehensive plan to address its noise problems and to report annually to the State Legislature about its efforts to abate noise. The impetus for this bill came from community activists who lived near a rail curve in Coney Island that led to loud screeches as trains navigated the curve. The citizen group, The Big Screechers, led by Carmine Santa Maria, lobbied their legislators to pass the Rail Transit Noise Code.

My 1986 paper discussed how the Transit Authority at this time coordinated its noise abatement project with ongoing capital purchases and maintenance demonstrating its awareness that decreased transit noise is a sign of a poorly functioning system. Just as an automobile owner would bring in a noisy car to the repair shop recognizing that attending to the noise would very likely prevent more serious trouble ahead, the Transit Authority acknowledged that noise is very likely a clue to potential breakdowns.

With the primary sources of subway train noise involving the wheel, the rail, and the subway car’s propulsion system, noise abatement measures included wheel truing, rail welding, rubber resilient pads, track lubrication, and acoustic barriers—all of which also contribute to the proper operation of the system. These noise abatement measures lessen noise but also facilitate the integrity of the transit system while providing a smoother and quieter ride for the passengers as well as a quieter system for its employees. The Transit Authority also purchased quieter traction motors for their subway cars, demonstrating an awareness that quiet can be built into the original design.

The 1982 Rail Transit Noise Code was indeed effective in getting the Transit Authority to reduce its noise but, unfortunately, someone interpreted the law as having a “12 year life span” and, by 1995, the Transit Authority no longer had to report annually to the State on its efforts to lessen transit noise. With the Transit Authority no longer having to report annually on efforts to reduce noise, one might expect the subway system to grow louder in the following years. Indeed, a 2009 study examining sound levels of the New York City subway system, like the one carried out in Toronto, similarly concluded that the subway system’s loud sound levels have the potential to cause noise-induced hearing loss among its riders.

A paper I wrote in 2010 entitled “Abating New York City transit noise: A matter of will not way,” again highlighted the fact that subway noise abatement techniques exist and that addressing the noise issue would not only benefit the operation of the system, potentially leading to fewer breakdowns, but a quieter system would be beneficial to the health and welfare of New Yorkers. A few years after this paper was published, I was pleased to learn that the State assembly and State Senate delivered to the Governor an updated Rail Transit Noise bill in December 2014. Sadly, this bill was vetoed by Governor Cuomo on December 17, 2014 [pdf link]. Had this bill been passed, encouraging the Transit Authority to address its subway noise problems, I believe the subway system today would be quieter, better maintained, and running more efficiently. Without having measured the sound levels of the subway system these past three years, my ear seems to indicate that the subways are now noisier and the many media stories speak volumes to the lack of proper subway maintenance and the deteriorating service.

Let me turn back to the Toronto noise study and comment on its relevance to the New York transit noise issue. According to a research memorandum from Toronto in 1983, that the New York City Transit Authority shared with me,¹ Toronto indicated that the city spent a considerable amount of money in the testing and application of noise control procedures. The memorandum stated that rail sections were continuously welded, acoustical material was used throughout the system, floating slabs were installed on tracks near noise-sensitive buildings, and wheel ring-dampers were being tested on their subway cars. The Toronto subway system, considerably younger than New York’s system, having opened in 1954, appeared to be led by people who were well aware of the importance of transit noise abatement.

In light of the media headlines following the release of Dr. Yao’s article noting excessive transit noise in the Toronto subway system is putting commuters’ health at risk, I would expect that the head of the Toronto Transit Commission, Andrew Byford, is now preparing a response to the publication. Why should his response be relevant to New Yorkers? Because Andrew Byford will soon be the President of the New York City Transit Authority and his response to the noise report might clue us in as to whether he will address what my “ear” seems to indicate. Namely, that our system is growing louder. It would also let New York transit riders know if he, like several former Transit Authority leaders, understands the relationship among noise levels, transit maintenance, and subway performance, and would also tell us as to whether he fully understands that a quieter subway would positively impact the mental and physical health of New Yorkers.

Dr. Arline Bronzaft is a researcher, writer, and consultant on the adverse effects of noise on mental and physical health. She is co-author of “Why Noise Matters,” author of “Listen to the Raindrops” (children’s book illustrated by Steven Parton), and has written extensively about noise in books, encyclopedias, academic journals, and the popular press. In addition, she is a Professor Emerita of the City University of New York and Board member of GrowNYC.

¹Bronzaft, A. L. (1986). Rail noise: The relationship to subway maintenance and operation. Urban Resources, 4, 37-42.

Yes. The answer is yes.

The battleground.

And the question is: Are noise-filled carriages bad for your health? Hannah Jane Parkinson, The Guardian, is righteously appalled about a bone-headed idea floated by UK railway company South Western Railways which is considering getting rid of quiet carriages.  For some of us–raises hand as high as one can–quiet cars on Amtrak and state-run transit are the one of the few saving graces of an increasingly overused, underfunded public transit system here in the U.S. So reading that   South Western Railways may kill quiet carriages not due to lack of interest but because “[t]he rise of mobile phones, loud music players and a general lack of etiquette mean that quiet zones are now virtually unenforceable,” is an absolute outrage.

Parkinson writes that some people think that quietness is overrated [Ed: monsters!] and says that “[p]sychotherapist and writer Philippa Perry suggests that we are becoming frightened of quietness, possibly as a result of technology.” But Parkinson sides with those of us who just want a moment that isn’t filled with layers of unavoidable sound, even suggesting prison sentences for the sound-loving louts who would rob the rest of us of just a few seconds of peace:

Seven years. That’s the minimum prison sentence that should apply to people on public transport who listen to music through their phone speakers (also known as “sodcasting”) – with two years for banal phone conversations that never end.

We agree, and would suggest similar sentencing guidelines for people wearing headphones who sing along, badly, to whatever they are listening to and those who set their phone volume to 11 and engage the tapping sound on their phone keyboards.

In the end, though, we can’t and shouldn’t avoid all sound, but the artificial sounds imposed on us by marketing miscreants and social louts can be controlled. Instead of getting rid of quiet cars on trains, why not make them all quiet except for one loud car for the uncaring and boorish? Tired of trying to eat a meal in peace only to have some miscreant spend his or her entire meal shouting into their smart phone? Interpose yourself into the conversation by offering unsolicited advice or agreeing with the unseen person on the other end. And refuse to give a dime of encouragement to the amateur “entertainers” who leap onto your subway car just as the doors close, armed with a boom box or bongos–yes, really–with the intent of destroying your sanity for the next three minutes.

People have begun to accept that noise is normal and that wanting quiet is some quirky affectation. But noise isn’t normal and should not be the default. We need to push back against the bad behavior of the noise makers and reclaim our public spaces.  So demand more quiet cars. Ask someone to stop shouting into their phone.  And know you are not alone.

Think before you honk

Photo credit: Erik Drost licensed under CC BY 2.0

Silence the Horns has written a thoughtful piece on horn-honking in New York City. No doubt other cities are similarly plagued by this relentless and pointless noise, but in New York City it is an endless, soul-crushing litany and no one in power is doing anything to stop it. Silence the Horns posits that horn honking is a form of aggression, bullying at its loudest, and we agree.  They write:

It is troubling that in a city like New York, groups of commuters can throw tantrums in their cars, bullying three-year-olds with their horns, and not one legislator steps up and says, “Enough is enough.” It is also troubling that so many are forced to listen to hours of horn honking tantrums outside their homes on residential streets while others in the same city are blessed with relative quiet day and night, often due to chance. Would we accept this tantrum throwing behavior standing in line at the supermarket, or the bank? No way. Why is it acceptable to bully others while sitting in a vehicle?

The answer, of course, is that it isn’t acceptable for a relative handful of bullies to disturb everyone else’s peace and quiet, and the time has long been ripe for a governmental response. But given the level of governmental dysfunction in this era, is it reasonable to expect change?

We believe change is inevitable, as study after study shows that noise exposure adversely affects health and wellbeing. So what can you do? Silence the Horns notes that “[e]veryone is somebody’s constituent,” and suggests you start locally and work your way on up.  If enough of us remain engaged, change will come. 

Click here to read the entire piece.  It’s well worth your time.

 

Groundbreaking research proves restaurants are too noisy

by Daniel Fink, MD, Chair, The Quiet Coalition

New York based researcher Greg Scott presented a groundbreaking study Tuesday, December 5th, at the 174th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America in New Orleans, Louisiana. Mr. Scott reported actual decibel measurements, obtained using the free IOS SoundPrint app he developed, on almost 2,000 restaurants and bars in New York City. The average sound level was 78 A-weighted decibels (dBA) in restaurants, and 81 dBA in bars.

Even people with normal hearing can’t understand speech if the ambient noise is above 75 dBA, which is also the auditory injury threshold (the noise level at which hearing damage begins). People with moderate hearing loss–25-40 dB decrement in hearing–need ambient noise lower than 60 dBA to be able to understand speech.

The SoundPrint app is easy to use and can help find quieter restaurants and the rare quiet bar. But it is clear to me–as I stated in my own talk, which preceded Greg’s–that high ambient noise in restaurants and retail stores is a disability rights issue for people with hearing loss, tinnitus, and hyperacusis. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guarantees people with disabilities the full and equal enjoyment of places of public accommodation, which are basically any facility open to the public. If one can’t hear in a noisy place, one’s ADA rights are being violated. It is likely that legal action will be required to make these places quieter.

Dr. Daniel Fink is a leading noise activist based in the Los Angeles area. He serves on the board of the American Tinnitus Association, is the interim chair of Quiet Communities’s Health Advisory Council, and is the founding chair of The Quiet Coalition, an organization of science, health, and legal professionals concerned about the impacts of noise on health, environment, learning, productivity, and quality of life in America.

Transit noise can damage your hearing

Photo credit: G.M. Briggs

by Daniel Fink, MD, Chair, The Quiet Coalition

This article out of Toronto reports that transit noise can make you deaf. The author of the article, and the underlying study on which it’s based, are right. And not just in Toronto, but in other cities with noisy public transit systems, especially New York City.

But there is one statement in the article with which I disagree:

Lin said the concern is with peak exposures, which in some of the testing, measures way above the 85-decibel limit for safe prolonged exposure with some occurrences checking in as high as 115 decibels.

Simply put, 85 decibels is not a safe limit for prolonged noise exposure. At that exposure level, after 40 years of occupational exposure–8 hours a day, 240 days a year, for 40 years–at least 8% of workers will have excess hearing loss.

As I wrote in the January 2017 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, 85 decibels is not a safe noise level for the public. And the concept of excess hearing loss assumes that hearing loss with age is normal, when it isn’t. Without noise damage, good hearing should be preserved well into old age. The only evidence-based safe noise exposure level is a time-weighted average of 70 decibels for 24 hours. The NIOSH Science Blog on February 8, 2016, also addressed this topic.

Auditory damage starts at noise exposure levels as low as 75 A-weighted decibels. This is called the auditory injury threshold. I don’t know about Canadians, but most U.S. citizens get deafening total daily noise doses, as reported by Flamme and colleagues. This is the reason the Centers for Disease Control reported in February 2017 that 24% of U.S. adults age 20-69 have noise-induced hearing loss.

I am convinced that there is already an epidemic of noise-induced hearing loss that is only going to get worse when today’s young people reach middle age. The occupational noise exposure studies on which the 85 decibel occupational noise exposure standard used a 40 year occupational exposure. When toddlers as young as 3 years old use headphones marketed as safe for hearing using the 85 decibel occupational standard as a safe noise exposure level, they are likely to be severely hard of hearing when only in their 40s, if not earlier.

Hearing is an important sense, and hearing aids don’t work as well at helping users understand speech as many think. And the consequences of suffering hearing loss are severe and life changing. As Helen Keller said, “[b]lindness separates people from things, [but] deafness separates people from people.”

Transit riders and everyone else should protect their hearing now.

Dr. Daniel Fink is a leading noise activist based in the Los Angeles area. He serves on the board of the American Tinnitus Association, is the interim chair of Quiet Communities’s Health Advisory Council, and is the founding chair of The Quiet Coalition, an organization of science, health, and legal professionals concerned about the impacts of noise on health, environment, learning, productivity, and quality of life in America.

Google defeated by Brooklyn

Photo credit: dumbonyc licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

But the Pixel buds weren’t a total failure, as the duo found the translator worked better in quiet rooms. Which is great if you are traveling to a mythical land of quiet and the local language is preloaded in the accompanying app, but not so much for the real world.
Maybe instead of relying on some hardware and an app to do the heavy lifting, one could struggle with a phrase book and charm/offend the locals like people have been doing forever? Personally, we think there shouldn’t be a “tech solution” for everything. That said, hey Google, how about working on bringing some quiet to city streets? It’s in your self-interest, after all.

Finally, some good noise news

 

Photo credit: Kevin.B licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

NY hospitals testing ‘ambient’ ambulance sirens. Why? Because of the noise complaints, of course. The ear-crushing squeals of New York City ambulance sirens ricochet off of hard building surfaces, making otherwise pleasant residential streets into hellish echo chambers.

So what do these new sirens sound like? If you’ve ever traveled to Europe, you probably heard the loud but surprisingly tolerable two-toned sirens favored there. If not–or you need a reminder–this is what you can expect to hear [NOTE: If you are sound sensitive, lower the volume before listening]:

And here’s the hellish traditional siren the newer two-tone ambulances may make obsolete (if we’re lucky):

Here’s hoping hospitals and fire departments nationwide quickly move past the testing stage into the replacement stage.