degggendorf t1_j6l9eyl wrote
The part I came looking for:
> The things we hear about the most are: vehicles, modified exhaust systems, stereos playing very loud, people using leaf blowers, ATVs, the all-terrain vehicles, the motorcycles without mufflers.
[fireworks throughout the summer were mentioned as well]
I'm surprised that almost the whole list is a problem only because of enforcement. ATVs shouldn't be on public roads, illegal exhaust systems are illegal, and there are ordinances for the likes of audio equipment. Beyond that, gas lawn equipment is surely going extinct soon, especially in the dense city.
Oh and /u/franzifranzi - this must be based on your work, right?
GoGatorsMashedTaters t1_j6mq2sd wrote
Where I live on federal hill, the problem is almost entirely enforcement. The noise stems from cars/bikes with illegal exhaust modifications driving through town or going out to eat. I WFH and hear noise pollution all day. While there are sirens, honks, cat noise in general, removing the 1% who blatantly break the law would fix 90% of the problem.
allhailthehale t1_j6livsj wrote
>I'm surprised that almost the whole list is a problem only because of enforcement.
I think it's important to consider that the source of that quote is a group that is pretty focused on enforcement in their advocacy... I am interested to see the research but I would take that list with a grain of salt. There are ways to reduce urban noise that aren't enforcement- focused, but they don't talk about those much in their materials.
degggendorf t1_j6lk5wz wrote
I'm not sure I follow, you're saying that the Community Noise Lab at Brown’s School of Public Health is untrustworthy because they're in bed with the police or something?
allhailthehale t1_j6lkvaf wrote
I don't believe the person quoted in the article works directly for Brown, he's working with them as a representative of the PVD Noise Project.
I'm not suggesting they're "in bed with the police." I'm saying that there are lots of ways to reduce urban noise-- enforcement is one, but urban planning is arguably more important. The website of the person quoted is focused pretty much entirely on enforcement. So I'm not surprised that the quote from him reflects that.
degggendorf t1_j6ll6l6 wrote
Oh gotcha thanks.
If you would indulge another question, what urban plan is going to eliminate the sound of illegal mufflers? Seems like those will echo anywhere as long as they exist.
allhailthehale t1_j6lm2ns wrote
I'm not an urban planner, but I believe building materials/design acoustics, tree cover, sound barriers all have an impact, as do encouraging non-automotive transport and traffic calming measures.
I'm not saying that eliminating the use of illegal mufflers isn't part of the puzzle. I'm just saying that enforcement is only part of the puzzle, and it's the only part that this group is concerned with. So you shouldn't be surprised that the list they rattled off is "a problem only because of enforcement." That's the lens they're operating from. (Notice that construction noise and sirens aren't on that list even though those are most certainly a noise issue for many many people.)
degggendorf t1_j6lmtj5 wrote
Thank you! I appreciate you taking the time.
the_falconator t1_j6n2z9m wrote
The 2 streets next to mine they put speed bumps in and the noise increased. People braking hard and then accelerating after the bump.
[deleted] t1_j6p7rt9 wrote
Mufflers will disappear with the deprecation of internal combustion cars. The more the state does to facilitate easy EV charging and make gas car ownership difficult, the faster that transition will happen.
An end to permits for new gas stations, and a sunsetting of gas station permits as the owners decommission them would help. So would a significant annual increase in the gas and diesel tax over the next decade.
RI is ideal as a pioneering EV state because of our small size and tilt towards green energy under state law. Reduced surface street noise pollution would be a welcome outcome of such an approach.
degggendorf t1_j6p8kn3 wrote
Absolutely! The natural (as opposed to forced) proliferation of electrified vehicles can't come soon enough! We are improving, but I think we especially need to support cheaper EVs for lower income people. It's a rich-get-richer kind of situation where the wealthy person is saving money on gas after buying an expensive EV, while the less well off person is getting drained at the pump.
I appreciate our commitment to green energy generation as well, and again feel like we can and should be doing even better.
[deleted] t1_j6p9dy1 wrote
These days an EV isn’t any more expensive than a new gas car.
A Chevy Bolt costs about as much a a gas powered Malibu. A Ford Mach E costs the same as an Edge or Explorer. And things will only get more affordable as GM and others launch new vehicles like the pending $30K Equinox EV.
The time to get started is now, IMO. The more obnoxious straight-pipe mods we get off the streets, the quieter they’ll be.
degggendorf t1_j6pa4hp wrote
> These days an EV isn’t any more expensive than a new gas car.
I'm not sure that's true, but also......toooons of people can't afford a new gas car either.
[deleted] t1_j6pa8s6 wrote
Used car prices need to come down, yes. But EVs cost about what a comparable gas car costs, new.
degggendorf t1_j6pbr2o wrote
I don't mean to argue, but that's just not true. Look at the list you gave...
A Bolt is a compact hatch, while a Malibu is a full size sedan but still $1k cheaper.
A Mach-E starts at $46,000 after a price reduction last week. An Explorer starts at $36k, and an Edge starts just under $38k (which is interesting, I would have thought an Explorer would be more expensive).
The hypothetical $30k Equinox is more than the $26k gas Equinox.
[deleted] t1_j6pck0o wrote
You’re comparing base retail prices.
Go look at the cars that are actually for sale. Compare prices at Tasca Ford for an Edge or Explorer with the price for a Mach E.
Same is true with the Malibu. Check out and compare the prices for vehicles on the lots at a Chevy dealer.
You’re also ignoring the $7,500 income tax credit that comes with the EVs. For the average buyer, they’re significantly cheaper after the credit than a comparable ICE vehicle — even if you manage to find the rare strippo base model ICE machines you’re pricing out there.
For example, you won’t find that base $26K Equinox gas anywhere in RI at any dealer lot. You will find a $30K Equinox EV when it launches — and with the tax credit it will be a $23,500 Equinox EV.
degggendorf t1_j6ph9i4 wrote
>You’re also ignoring the $7,500 income tax credit that comes with the EVs.
You mean the one half the manufacturers aren't eligible for? The one that still requires someone to front the money, and have a federal tax liability high enough to claim the credit against? Those are significant stumbling blocks for a lot of folks.
>You will find a $30K Equinox EV when it launches
I don't believe it.
NinjaSant4 t1_j6n53iw wrote
Urban planning won't entirely eliminate things like illegal mufflers, but if all the other noise goes down one outlier is tolerable.
Just because that's the one that annoys you doesn't mean it's the most prevalent or the most damaging one, and "illegal mufflers" can also be someone trying to get their car to the shop after their catalytic converter has been stolen. Or a broken pipe. Fix it tickets gives them 7 days to drive on that legally.
degggendorf t1_j6n657q wrote
> if all the other noise goes down one outlier is tolerable.
Idk, I guess it's a matter of opinion, but I'd much prefer the constant, quiter, hum of highway traffic over an occasional blast of a car going by with open headers.
> Just because that's the one that annoys you doesn't mean it's the most prevalent or the most damaging one
Are you positing that quieter, constant sound is worse than occasional louder ones? Is there science to support that? Or are you just saying that we don't know what's worse, so we shouldn't even attempt to curb the already-illegal noises by enforcing existing rules?
> someone trying to get their car to the shop after their catalytic converter has been stolen
First of all, I'm pretty sure catalytic converter theft is illegal, so that still stems from an enforcement issue.
Second, I think we both know that people zipping up and down residential roads late at night aren't just trying to hobble their broken car to a shop.
NinjaSant4 t1_j6n6z7g wrote
The issue is a "constant low drum" is what causes the health issues. A brief annoyance at someone driving by with a straight pipe doesn't happen all day, every day.
You can see in the study this post talks about that the highest levels of noise pollution line up with the highway, which means the low constant drum is the issue.
You can also look into Japan's 40ish year fight with highway noise and making efficient panels to reduce a major source of sound pollution for any more information.
People are allowed to drive on a fix it ticket for 7 days. Doesn't matter if it's at night or not.
degggendorf t1_j6n8te4 wrote
> The issue is a "constant low drum" is what causes the health issues.
Source? I am not finding anything with that phrase you quoted, nor other places that differentiate between constant and quiet and loud and intermittent noises. There is a lot of focus on sleep disturbance and hearing loss, which seems to indicate occasional and loud noises, but I'm not seeing them broken out specifically. But you clearly have read more than me, can you share where you're getting your conclusion from?
> You can also look into Japan's 40ish year fight with highway noise and making efficient panels to reduce a major source of sound pollution for any more information.
Are you implying that Japan hasn't done anything to curb loud exhausts, and instead focused entirely on normal highway noise while letting people run around without mufflers willy-nilly? That doesn't seem right, but again...maybe you know something I don't.
NinjaSant4 t1_j6ndwzk wrote
If you look into what causes health issues from noise pollution you will find that it is continuous or constant noise - a car driving by with a broken muffler is not continuous or constant.
The highway has a constant flow of cars (some of which might even have broken mufflers!) which means a constant source of sound. Mufflers contribute to the pollution, they are not the main source. The giant highway cutting through the center of the city is.
degggendorf t1_j6nf0ig wrote
> If you look into what causes health issues from noise pollution you will find that it is continuous or constant noise
I did look into it, and that's not what I found. Can you please help me out and share your source so I can learn more?
NinjaSant4 t1_j6ngepd wrote
https://www.cirrusresearch.co.uk/blog/2020/04/4-different-types-noise/
the highway composes 3 out of 4 of those types of sound pollution. And currently with the construction it can cover all 4. Do you really think the occasional muffler is more of a problem than the giant highway? The highway that has construction vehicles driving on it which are significantly louder than a straight pipe?
You don't like loud mufflers, that's fine. The solution is already there, the police give out tickets for straight pipes and other illegal modifications all the time. The highway has no solution in place and is a significant cause of noise pollution. Try fixing the problem that benefits the whole city instead of your street.
degggendorf t1_j6nhog4 wrote
I want to make sure you're not misunderstanding my point or putting words in my mouth...I'm not saying the highway is awesome and we should let to go unchecked.
I'm saying that a bunch of sources of the most annoying sounds can be solved like today, for free. Capping off the highway through the city (which seems like a good idea to me), will take like 20 years and billions of dollars.
It just seems logical to start squashing the quick and easy sound pollution rather than just twiddling our thumbs and hoping that DOT scrapes together the money and support for a PVD Big Dig.
>https://www.cirrusresearch.co.uk/blog/2020/04/4-different-types-noise/
Thanks for the link, but that doesn't support what you said about low constant noise causing the biggest health problems, it's just categorizing types of noise. I'm looking for a comparison of what types of sounds cause what types of complications like you referenced earlier, so I can update my opinion to match reality if necessary.
NinjaSant4 t1_j6nmnb3 wrote
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022460X06000927
Shows that road traffic exceeding 60 decibels cause health concerns. Other research papers (idk which ones, google probably has it) give you break downs of how long it takes for hearing damage based on decibel levels. Highways average at like 75db last I checked.
Straight pipes are loud but at around 100 decibels it would still take something like 5 (maybe 10?) minutes to cause hearing damage. You'll be able to hear it for a while after it moves away if it's putting out that much sound but the sound levels drop as it moves, meaning more time before damage occurs.
Also by capping do you mean just putting up sound barriers around the highway or are we talking a sort of fully enclosed system?
degggendorf t1_j6npilu wrote
> Also by capping do you mean just putting up sound barriers around the highway or are we talking a sort of fully enclosed system?
I think fully enclosed would be amazing, with greenspace, walkways, bikeways, and I suppose a couple car roads on top. Reconnect the sides of the city, while sequestering the traffic on the highway that's just passing through.
> Shows that road traffic exceeding 60 decibels cause health concerns. Other research papers (idk which ones, google probably has it) give you break downs of how long it takes for hearing damage based on decibel levels.
You are talking about two different things. No one is saying that 60dB highway sound is going to cause hearing loss...the problems there are disturbed sleep and stress-associated things like cardiovascular issues. I'm also not saying that the hypothetical loud vehicle is causing hearing damage either (at least, not to the person in their house). What I am positing is that the sleep- and stress-related issues seem like they would be worse with louder, intermittent noises, but you're saying that it's actually the quieter, constant noises that are worse, which is what I am trying to learn more about. This study you linked still does not support your claim about effects of types of noise. I am beginning to think that maybe you just made it up, or stated your opinion as scientific fact because you believe it to be true, but I would like to re-emphasize that I am trying to learn more. I might be wrong, and would love to have some reliable source that allows me to update my opinion.
NinjaSant4 t1_j6ox5cb wrote
Ok, let me explain how you can look at data and make a conclusion - You can look at research showing that low level decibel levels cause health issues, the article I sent you shows how low exactly it can get and still cause problems.
If the sound is constant it will always be causing problems where as a single loud noise is intermittent. The frequency alone means things like illegal mufflers are less polluting than a highway full of many vehicles.
A low constant hum can cause problems and has no protections against through enforcement. Meaning it causes more health problems. A muffler ranges from 100-120 decibels, that takes 5+ minutes to cause damage. I doubt the car is revving their engine in front of your house for that long and if so its probably your neighbor.
Why are you trying to solve a problem that already has a solution? Enforcement is a police issue and cops in Providence are notoriously bad at their job.
As for fully capping the highway that sounds like a fantasy with how RI invests in infrastructure - noise barriers work well and you cut a huge chunk of the noise even without the full enclosure. Something about the way they are shaped keeps the sound from escaping. Significantly cheaper because you don't need them to be as robust too.
degggendorf t1_j6oz230 wrote
> You can look at research showing that low level decibel levels cause health issues, the article I sent you shows how low exactly it can get and still cause problems.
> If the sound is constant it will always be causing problems where as a single loud noise is intermittent. The frequency alone means things like illegal mufflers are less polluting than a highway full of many vehicles.
I don't think that's sound logic (hah, no pun intended). Do you really think your quality of life would be greater if you had a perfectly silent home except I came by and blew an airhorn once an hour, as opposed to a home with a 60dB white noise machine running 24/7?
> A low constant hum can cause problems and has no protections against through enforcement. Meaning it causes more health problems.
Wait what? You think that your body somehow knows which sounds are legal and illegal, and only accepts damage from the legal ones...?
> A muffler ranges from 100-120 decibels, that takes 5+ minutes to cause damage. I doubt the car is revving their engine in front of your house for that long and if so its probably your neighbor.
As I said in the previous comment, physical hearing damage isn't the issue. It's sleep disturbance and stress related maladies we're talking about.
> Why are you trying to solve a problem that already has a solution? Enforcement is a police issue and cops in Providence are notoriously bad at their job.
I'm not sure what your point is. The cops suck, so I should just give up hope of anything related to them ever improving?
> As for fully capping the highway that sounds like a fantasy with how RI invests in infrastructure
Yeah probably, but I can still prefer an ideal solution over a realistic one, can't I?
>you cut a huge chunk of the noise even without the full enclosure
But also lose out on a ton of other non-noise-related benefits.
NinjaSant4 t1_j6p09xb wrote
Your body can't tell the difference between sounds but the ability to stop one via making a complaint with the license plate number and not having any recourse means the low constant hum is going to be more problematic.
Once an hour would be considered consistent. Again, read up on how long damage takes to occur. Noise happens, its the constant or consistent sound that needs to be dealt with.
Is your solution having more police or is there some magic solution to enforcing a law already on the book?
degggendorf t1_j6p3xi9 wrote
> the ability to stop one via making a complaint with the license plate number
Has that worked for you?
> Is your solution having more police or is there some magic solution to enforcing a law already on the book?
Not more police, better managed police. Get them out of their paramilitary training camps and back to doing the work that actually helps the people.
NinjaSant4 t1_j6p6kwx wrote
"back to doing work that helps people" LOL like the police have ever helped anyone.
But lets have them pull over more people because clearly more police interaction is the solution to noise pollution .
degggendorf t1_j6p6zel wrote
Okay I think this conversation has run its course; now it feels like you're just arguing about anything, maybe to distract from your initial claim you've been able to provide zero scientific (let alone, logical) support for, and I'm not really interesting what you're talking about now.
NinjaSant4 t1_j6pe7jc wrote
Lol whatever you say. Keep complaining about those illegal tailpipes, see where that gets you.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j6oxmlg wrote
>The issue is a "constant low drum" is what causes the health issues. A brief annoyance at someone driving by with a straight pipe doesn't happen all day, every day.
Isn't the most severe impact felt with sleep interruption/deprivation from noise though? I feel like that's something people can adapt to better with time.
Hell, some people need white noise machines cranking out like 50-75 decibels just to be able to sleep because that's better than going from 0 to 75 while already asleep.
NinjaSant4 t1_j6p2w6l wrote
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/ehp.113-a34
William Luxford, medical director of the House Ear Clinic of St. Vincent Medical Center in Los Angeles, points out one piece of good news: “It’s true that continuous noise exposure will lead to the continuation of hearing loss, but as soon as the exposure is stopped, the hearing loss stops. So a change in environment can improve a person’s hearing health.”
Continued exposure. An illegally modified tailpipe isn't a continued exposure.
degggendorf t1_j6ozuq2 wrote
Hey /u/communitynoiselab I am glad to see you joining in! It would be great to post your work on /r/providence and /r/RhodeIsland as you publish...clearly it's a topic we all care about!
I have a question here that you may be able to help with.
Is there any research out there that compares the health effects of constant, lower-volume sounds like the rush of a highway vs. intermittent louder sounds like sirens, loud cars and trucks, leaf blowers, etc.? My intuition is that the louder intermittent noise would be worse, but my intuition has surely been wrong in the past so it would be great for an actual researcher to set me straight!
communitynoiselab t1_j6nexly wrote
You are 100% correct. Enforcement is a tool but not necessarily our goal at Community Noise Lab.
allhailthehale t1_j6o18l0 wrote
Glad you could join the discussion! To be clear, I am not critical at all of the work that you all are doing to study the issue-- or address it, if it's done in an equitable and thoughtful way. Looking forward to hearing more about the research.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments