It isn't the city's job to de-risk every private transaction. Why is it unreasonable for you to pay for your own study, but reasonable to expect me to pay for it. Numerous alternatives also exist, such as asking the neighbors, checking next-door, or moving out.
Sound pollution is a matter of public concern which is already regulated by the state.
An appropriate study takes weeks or months, since it would still be bad news to find out after the fact that one week out of the month or every other month has serious noise problems. -- which is an unreasonable amount of delay to stick on the private transaction (in particular, as a buyer you'll be sniped by someone less cautious).
Moreover, the data needed is essentially the same for all properties in an immediate area. This is a natural shared cost, and redoing it once off for each would be extraordinary wasteful.
Finally-- this entire thread sub-thread is about reducing state intervention by buyers being empowered to not purchase places where they're going to have problems with the noise. They can't do that without the information, they can't gather the information themselves on a reasonable time scale. The buyer can't demand the seller provide it (because by the time they meet the seller it's too late to start collecting it).
I don't see this as too much different from things like flood maps (which require rather expensive flyover lidar and historical watershed information, etc. to construct) that cities already provide.
> Lastly, many such maps already exist:
Yes, I'm aware. Which is also why I didn't think it was unreasonable to suggest. (though the DOT maps are understandably focused just on highway noise).
Digging deeper, I think my reaction was to the idea that this is a real need and necessary civic expenditure.
While sound pollution is a concern to some, and regulated in some cases. IF this were on the ballot in my city, I would vote no, as I don't think it is a productive use of civic funds.
It seems that it is a zero sum initiative that would provide a marginal benefit to a very small minority of citizens.
In this case it would benefit people who are: sensitive to noise,have the luxury to choose between options, know and use the service, and afraid or disinclined to talk to locals.
It would also disadvantage people who are willing to put in more due diligence or have fewer options.
I see this a very different than flood maps, which ensure safety and help mitigate massive costs of rebuilding communities.
That said, perhaps there is a commercial market for such information. How much would you pay for such a map before buying a house?
I would have probably paid a considerable amount (and not just for buying but as part of my search).
Part of the problem though is with the exception of people who are weirdly sensitive[1] or keep unusual hours, most people just don't know that sound would be an issue for them until they're in a situation where sound is an issue for them.
The end result of this is a significant amount of cost on the public arising out of disputes, including distorting pressure on zoning.
Munis do astronomical amounts of data collection already, e.g. to maintain culverts, curbs, and storm drains they have street-view like data collection performed. They already do targeted sound studies (e.g. for roadways and public facilities). Some urban areas have gunshot detection and localization networks.
It might well be possible to make a case that a sound study could lower costs to the public by lowering code enforcement costs and reducing zoning conflicts (esp. if the marginal cost of adding it on top of other data collection programs was minimal).
[1] I wouldn't say that I am particularly sensitive, but being in a quiet location was part of my justification for the purchase that I was trading off against other considerations-- so I would have been unhappy if it didn't turn out to be what I expected. ... I'm happy with the result, and having lived here a few years I think I significantly underestimated how nice it would be.
IF most people don't know they are sensitive before they buy, how would the information help inform their decision? Also, im not sure how this information would help avoid any of the disputes you mention? If the noise is still there, and people are still unhappy about it, the dispute will exist.
The main purpose of collecting the data on noise is to find was to identify where and how to reduce it. For example aircraft operators who violate regulations get fined, and highways are targeted for specific modifications to make them more quiet.
This is not a zero sum initiative.
Given that the data is already being collected, making it available to the public requires relatively little additional effort. The primary value in doing so is to document what measures have been taken, how effective they are, and to motivate public policy decisions about what further measures to take.
The same information is useful for private transactions. This is how most people will use the data, but is not the main public policy reason for having collected it.
Lastly, many such maps already exist: https://maps.bts.dot.gov/arcgis/apps/webappviewer/index.html...