This thesis took the policy-analysis framework of Marchau and Walker (2005) as a starting point for assessment and valuation of road and railroad noise impacts and its consequences for noise policy. Four research questions were answered. To what extent can international data on noise, often produced by using different national calculation methods, be compared? And what will it mean for (inter)national noise policy? The literature review shows first that noise calculations in different countries may differ up to 15 dB(A), depending on the situation. This is due to (i) different national calculation methods, (ii) different implementation of those methods in software packages and (iii) different interpretations of the acoustical situation by the experts.. Secondly, the review showed that different noise indices are in use in the different Member States, usually for no other than historical reasons. Many of the differences are essentially cosmetic, but some are potentially significant in complex situations. The harmonisation of noise indices as initiated by the European Commission is another necessary step in being able to compare noise exposure in different European countries. Thirdly, even if noise calculation methods and noise indices are eventually harmonised throughout Europe, noise standards remain a matter of subsidiarity. All of this makes it hard to assess to what extent citizens in different European Member States are protected against noise. What is the price of noise in various European countries? Are differences in price (partly) due to artefacts, like differences in the noise impacts considered or the monetisation methods used? Is there a gap between the theoretical valuation approaches and the practical application of those approaches? This study shows firstly that guidelines for monetisation of traffic noise exist predominantly in the central and north-western part of Europe. Monetisation of road traffic noise is more common than monetisation of railroad noise. Secondly, the study shows that not all noise effects are dealt with. Thirdly, prices differ. The different prices being attached to noise in various countries are mainly due to different unit values applied to the same impacts. Fourthly, the experience in the Netherlands shows that in spite of there being guidelines on monetisation, noise is often not monetised at all. So the application of these guidelines to noise falls short. There is a gap between theory and practice, at least in the Netherlands. When applying monetising methods, what are the costs and benefits of (possible) noise abatement measures in the Netherlands? What does the ex ante evaluation show to Dutch policy and what are methodological weaknesses? A cost-benefit analysis of a number of (possible) noise abatement measures in the Netherlands has been carried out. These measure were all so-called source measures for road and railroad traffic (silent tyres, pavements, trains and railroad tracks). Benefits are calculated according to consumer's preferences for dwellings, and values applied were derived from two different methodologies (hedonic pricing and contingent valuation). Costs were estimated between 1.4 and 2.0 billion euros (Net present value 2002) and benefits at between 4.4 and 11.6 billion euros, depending on methods and assumptions chosen. Costs are therefore clearly surpassed by benefits. Yet, further research on the most effective mix of measures is recommended, as some hot spots remain, even after implementation of the source measures. A major obstacle for implementing the noise abatement measures is the problem that in the current context costs will be carried by groups in society (e.g. railroad companies) different from those who will eventually be the beneficiaries (e.g. people living along railroad tracks). The solution for this will be far more a political challenge than a scientific one. Noise policy is often based on acoustic and economic considerations only. Yet, from the literature it is known that non-acoustical factors like noise sensitivity may play an important role in causing annoyance. Is sensitivity to road traffic noise a major factor in the process of moving and settling down. Does it lead to self-selection? And if so, what does it mean for noise policy?. The noise-sensitive people think more often about moving elsewhere. Our research suggests that noise sensitivity is not a major factor in the process of moving and settling down, at least not where road traffic is the major noise source. Other factors related to the dwelling or the neighbourhood probably play a more important role. The question therefore remaining is why people who are noise-sensitive deliberately move into high exposure areas. One explanation might be that people are not aware of being noise-sensitive.This is supported by the weak individual correlation between the 1-item and the 10-item test. More information on residential noise levels and one's own noise sensitivity might thus prevent future disappointment. However, due to the limited sample size, external validity is limited.