Railway noise and vibration annoyance in residential areas

This paper summarizes the results from the 1975 British railway noise study. Noise from railways does cause annoyance and interfere with activities. People in Great Britain appear to find high levels of railway noise to be somewhat less annoying than high levels from other sources. L_eq is as closely related to annoyance as any other index examined. Since annoyance increases steadily with noise level there is no particular “acceptable” railway noise level. Overhead electrified routes appear to be less annoying than diesel routes at the same noise levels. Through train noise, maintenance noise and vibration are the most widely noticed problems associated with railways in residential areas.     

Annoyance due to railway noise before and after the opening of the Kyushu Shinkansen Line

The development of the Shinkansen railway network in Japan has continued since 1964; however, associated noise and vibration have seriously affected communities located beside the lines. The Kyushu Shinkansen Line (KSL) was opened in 2011 and a second temporary conventional railway line (STL) was operated in 2012. The purpose of this study was to compare community responses to railway noise and vibration before and after the opening of these two lines. Socio-acoustic surveys were performed in Kumamoto from 2009 to 2012, where the conventional and Shinkansen lines are adjacent. The noise and vibration exposures were increased slightly after the opening of the KSL but decreased slightly after the opening of the STL. When multiple logistic regression analysis was applied using highly annoyed/annoyed as the dependent variable and using day–evening–night sound level (L_den) and a dummy variable of before or after the opening of the KSL as independent variables, high annoyance was not changed significantly but moderate annoyance decreased significantly following the opening. There was no significant difference in either high or moderate annoyance between the periods before and after the opening of the STL.     

Annoyance response to mixed transportation noise in Hong Kong

To better understand mixed transportation noise-annoyance response, a study was undertaken in Hong Kong to (1) unravel factors affecting annoyance response to mixed transportation noise; (2) contrast noise-annoyance relationships between road traffic and railway noise dominant situations; and (3) explain the differences, if any, between the two using structural equation modelling from the data collected in a social survey. Results of this study show that annoyance is largely determined by noise disturbance and perceived noisiness. Personal noise sensitivity, attitudes towards different means of transport and perceived quality of the living environment are secondary contributing factors. When road traffic noise dominates, annoyance is primarily determined by noise disturbance caused by the peaks of railway noise events; when railway noise dominates, peaks of train events can induce annoyance response directly without causing disturbance. Policy implications of such results on how to minimize noise-annoyance response are discussed in the paper.     

Comparison of dose-response relationships between railway and road traffic noises: the moderating effect of distance

It has been found in European studies that railway noise causes less annoyance than road traffic noise. However, recent Japanese studies have shown that there is no systematic difference in dose-response relationships between railway and road traffic noises. In general Japanese houses are situated closer to railways or roads than European houses. The purpose of the study was to investigate whether the distance from noise source to houses influences community responses to railway and road traffic noises. A re-analysis was made of data from social surveys on community responses to railway and road traffic noises, which have been obtained from 1994 to 2001 in Kyushu, a warmer area of Japan and Hokkaido, a colder area. The results showed that the annoyance in areas close to railways was greater than that in distant areas, while there was no difference in dose-response relationships for road traffic noise between both areas. Considering the situation of houses in Europe and Japan, it is expected that the annoyance caused by railway noise is more severe in Japan than in Europe. The distance from noise source to houses may be one of the causes of the difference in community responses between Europe and Japan.     

The relationship between railway noise and community annoyance in Korea

A study of community annoyance caused by exposures to railway noise was carried out in 18 areas along railway lines to accumulate social survey data and assess the relationship between railway noise levels and annoyance responses in Korea. Railway noise levels were measured with portable sound-level meters. Social surveys were administered to people living within 50 m of noise measurement sites. A questionnaire contained demographic factors, degree of noise annoyance, interference with daily activities, and health-related symptoms. The question relating to noise annoyance was answered on an 11-point numerical scale. The randomly selected respondents, who were aged between 18 to 70 years of age, completed the questionnaire independently. In total, 726 respondents participated in social surveys. Taking into consideration the urban structure and layout of the residential areas of Korea, Japan, and Europe, one can assume that the annoyance responses caused by the railway noise in this study will be similar to those found in Japan, which are considerably more severe than those found in European countries. This study showed that one of the most important factors contributing to the difference in the annoyance responses between Korea and Europe is the distance between railways and houses.     

Some developments in community response research since the second international workshop on railway and tracked transit system noise in 1978

As far as human responses to railway noise are concerned, knowledge has increased considerably since the Second International Workshop on Railway and Tracked Transit System Noise was held in Lyon, France, in October 1978. Only some developments are mentioned in this article. Concerning land use planning some evidence became available that in maintaining or recovering a certain amount of well-being the concept of noise zoning deserves most attention, and that applying heavier sound insulation measures is not sufficient in solving the problem of noise annoyance. About the influence of background noise on annoyance, data from railway noise surveys are not conclusive. Whether or not habituation to noise occurs seems to be dependent on the way it has been made operational. Neither the often used self-reported habituation nor length of residence appears to have a clear relation with annoyance. Noise from shunting yards appears to be very annoying, compared with noise from through trains, road traffic and aircraft. The characteristics of the noise causing this relatively high degree of annoyance are still subject to study. “Normal” through trains cause less annoyance than road traffic and aircraft, the noise levels being equal. Some specific disturbances, however, like for instance being disturbed while watching television or having a conversation, occur at lower noise levels with railway noise than with road traffic noise.     

Human reaction to vibrations from blasting activity – Norwegian exposure–effect relationships

Rock blasting may cause disturbances, fear, and annoyance in residential and community areas affected by such activities. These community reactions can be quite strong, even when the blasting activities and the resulting vibrations are unlikely to cause physical damage to building foundations or buildings. A socio-vibrational survey was undertaken to assess residential reactions to blasting activities. Vibration velocities were obtained for 520 respondent dwellings located in seven study areas, and compared to the residents’ assessments of environment quality. Even at low vibration values, many people report annoyance. Exposure–effect relationships with acceptable statistical error bands were obtained. The level of annoyance from long-term blasting activities (quarry blasting) was not higher than from finite periods of more intense blasting activities (road and rail tunnels). Providing information in advance of the blasting activities, can reduce community reactions. Self-reported sensitivity to vibrations was associated with significantly increased annoyance. Sensitivity to vibrations was uncorrelated with exposure to vibrations. Sensitivity to noise and sensitivity to vibration were moderately correlated.     

Vibration in dwellings from road and rail traffic — Part III: towards a common methodology for socio-vibrational surveys

While a range of international standards defining noise, vibration and other physical environmental measures have been established, common methodologies for measuring people's reactions to these same environmental effects are still in their infancy. This reduces the comparability of prevalence statistics and exposure-effect relationships developed by different researchers. The public authorities are served incompatible or seemingly conflicting information from different surveys when deciding on appropriate guidelines and limits. Drawing on experiences with the 1998 Norwegian Socio-vibrational Survey and a Swedish socio-acoustic survey supplemented with vibration measures, a new Nordtest Method: NT ACOU 106 Acoustics—Assessment of annoyance by vibrations in dwellings from road and rail traffic has been defined. The method describes sampling requirements, and proposes a mandatory verbal 5-point categorical annoyance scale and an optional 11-point numerical annoyance scale, both with lower anchoring point “Do not notice”. A survey data output format is specified to allow researchers to pool data from different surveys.     

利用自相关函数和双耳自相关函数分析对交通噪声特征参量的提取~

对实地双通道测量获得的道路交通噪声和铁路噪声信号样本进行了自相关函数和双耳自相关函数(Interaural CrossCorrelation Function)的分析。进而通过对噪声样本时间因子和空间因子的相关性分析、主成分分析和主观评价实验,得到了3个铁路噪声源特征参量物理因子和4个道路交通噪声源特征参量物理因子。发现与传统的声压级测量相比,表征声音信号时间特性和空间特性的这7个物理量可以更全面、准确地表征交通噪声的特性。在对道路噪声进行测量或分析时,掌握与声源视觉宽度和音调感相对应的物理因子以及双耳时延和初始能量,就可获悉与人的主观评价相一致的道路交通噪声特征信息;对铁路噪声而言,掌握与声源视觉宽度相对应的物理因子以及双耳时延和声音的重复性特征,就可以得到与入主观评价相一致的铁路噪声特征信息。综合道路噪声特征参量和铁路噪声特征参量可以发现,双耳时延和与声源视觉宽度相对应的物理因子是与人的主观反应最为一致的主成分指标,说明噪声中决定人的评价的最主要的因素是代表空间特征的信号因子。     

Annoyance reactions due to railway noise

Social survey studies to assess the presence of general annoyance were made in different areas exposed to railway noise. The results show that an increase in the number of passing trains increases annoyance up to a certain level, after which a levelling off takes place. Hence, there is no real annoyance in areas exposed to a maximum of 50 train passages/24 hours until the noise level reaches above 85 dB(A). If, on the other hand, train passages are 60 or more, annoyance increases according to the dB(A) level.     

The response to railway noise in residential areas in Great Britain

The effects of railway noise on residents have been measured with a combined social survey (1453 respondents) and noise measurement survey (over 2000 noise measurements) at 403 locations in 75 study areas in Great Britain. In the analysis of the data methods have been used which take into account many typical noise survey problems including noise measurement errors, unique locality effects and the weakness of the noise annoyance relationship. Railway noise bothers 2% of the nation's population. Approximately 170 000 people live where railway noise levels are above 65 dB(A) 24 hour L_eq. Annoyance increases steadily with noise level; thus there is no particular “acceptable” noise level. Railway noise is less annoying than aircraft or road traffic noise of equivalent noise level, at least above 50 to 65L_eq. Noise is rated as the most serious environmental nuisance caused by railways. Maintenance noise is rated as a bigger problem than passing train noise. Vibration is the most important non-noise problem. Reactions to vibrations are related to distance from route, train speed and number of trains. The railway survey's highly stratified, probability sample design with many study areas makes it possible to evaluate the effects of area characteristics on reactions. The 24 h L_eq dB(A) noise index is more closely related to annoyance than are other accepted noise indices examined. There is no support for ambient noise level or night-time corrections. Thirteen railway operation characteristics were examined. One, the type of traction, has a strong effect on reactions after controlling for L_eq (overhead electrified routes are the equivalent of about 10 dB less annoying at high noise levels). Three indicators of railway ancillary noises and non-noise environmental nuisances affect annoyance but most operational characteristics have no effect. The effects of over 35 demographic, attitudinal and neighbourhood characteristics on annoyance are examined. Though most objective characteristics of neighbourhoods and respondents are not correlated with annoyance, three do decrease annoyance (older dwellings, older respondents, and life-time residence). The attitudes which affect annoyance with railway noise are not general ones about railways as transportation sources, but rather ones which are specific to the neighbourhood setting or to railways as environmental intrusions in the neighbourhood. Such attitudes often have less effect on annoyance at low noise levels. In such cases it is the reactions of the more annoyed types of people which are most closely related to noise level.     

The differing annoyance levels of rail and road traffic noise

The results of a study on the relative annoyance by rail or road traffic noise in urban and rural areas are reported. Fourteen areas with rail and road traffic noise with differing levels of loudness (L_eq) were investigated. The annoyance was assessed by means of a questionnaire. The analysis of the relationship between annoyance and L_eq—performed separately for rail and road traffic noise—shows that the same amount of annoyance is reached for railway traffic noise at L_eq levels 4–5 dB(A) higher than for road traffic noise (railway/traffic noise “bonus”). The estimation for the difference values vary for the different variables of annoyance. Furthermore, the difference levels tend to be higher in urban than in rural areas.     

Annoyance and self-reported sleep disturbances due to structurally radiated noise from railway tunnels

In Norway, the requirement for structure borne noise from tunnels is L_pAFmax = 32 dB inside dwellings. According to the Norwegian Standard 8175 it is expected that up to 20% of the exposed population are disturbed by the noise at this level. However, the scientific basis for this noise limit is poor. The aim of this study was to determine the degree of annoyance and self-reported sleep disturbances as a function of L_pAFmax. In the present study, 521 dwellings exposed to structural sound from railway rock-tunnels were identified. A questionnaire was sent to one randomly selected person above 18 years of age from each dwelling. The results showed that both noise induced annoyance and reported sleep disturbances were significantly related to L_pAFmax. Other factors that increased the annoyance were high pass-by frequency of freight trains per day, and degree of sound insulation of the windows. At L_pAFmax = 32 dB, 20% were slightly or more than slightly annoyed, and 4% were moderately or more than moderately annoyed. According to the pre-existing assumption that up to 20% of the exposed population are disturbed by the noise at this level, the present results give support to the Norwegian noise limit L_pAFmax = 32 dB inside dwellings of structure borne noise from railway tunnels.     

Comparing the relationships between noise level and annoyance in different surveys: A railway noise vs. aircraft and road traffic comparison

Annoyance expressed in a railway noise survey is compared with that in two road traffic and three aircraft surveys in order to determine whether responses to various environmental noises are similar or are source-specific. Railway noise is less annoying than other noises at any given high noise level. Railway noise annoyance increases less rapidly with increasing noise level. At high noise levels this gap in reactions averages about 10 dB but ranges from 4 dB to more than 20 dB. Comparisons between the findings in the different surveys can be made only after considering differences in noise index calculation procedures, human response measurement procedures and annoyance moderating conditions. The methodology for comparing surveys is examined. It is found that methodological uncertainties lead to imprecise comparisons and that different annoyance scales give different estimates of intersurvey differences.     

Urban railway traffic noise: Looking for the minimum cost for the whole community

Nowadays, railway traffic noise is acknowledged to negatively impact the wellbeing of the whole community, particularly in urban environments. Unfortunately, the traditional approach to support decision making in noise reduction intervention seems to start only from the compliance to the regulations in place, rather than from the identification of an optimal trade-off between the cost of the annoyance of the community and the cost of the intervention. An advanced approach is proposed, which starts from any annoyance due to traffic noise, and which aims at identifying an optimal trade-off by means of evaluation of the minimum cost for the whole community. A case study in a railway noise-affected urban cluster of Milan, Italy, has been performed, which is representative of any urban environment affected by traffic noise. The sensitivity analysis on the parameters of the approach (the size of the buildings; the level of railway traffic; the cost per square meter of the acoustic barriers) shows that the results are robust and reliable, and in the specific case a noise reduction of 15–25 dB is optimal for the community.     

Annoyance caused by the sounds of a magnetic levitation train

In a laboratory study, the annoyance caused by the passby sounds from a magnetic levitation (maglev) train was investigated. The listeners were presented with various sound fragments. The task of the listeners was to respond after each presentation to the question: "How annoying would you find the sound in the preceding period if you were exposed to it at home on a regular basis?" The independent variables were (a) the driving speed of the maglev train (varying from 100 to 400 km/h), (b) the outdoor A-weighted sound exposure level (ASEL) of the passbys (varying from 65 to 90 dB), and (c) the simulated outdoor-to-indoor reduction in sound level (windows open or windows closed). As references to the passby sounds from the maglev train (type Transrapid 08), sounds from road traffic (passenger cars and trucks) and more conventional railway (intercity trains) were included for rating also. Four important results were obtained. Provided that the outdoor ASELs were the same, (1) the annoyance was independent of the driving speed of the maglev train, (2) the annoyance caused by the maglev train was considerably higher than that caused by the intercity train, (3) the annoyance caused by the maglev train was hardly different from that caused by road traffic, and (4) the results (1)-(3) held true both for open or closed windows. On the basis of the present results, it might be expected that the sounds are equally annoying if the ASELs of the maglev-train passbys are at least 5 dB lower than those of the intercity train passbys. Consequently, the results of the present experiment do not support application of a railway bonus to the maglev-train sounds.     

Annoyance due to single and combined sound exposure from railway and road traffic

Environmental noise is a growing and well recognized health problem. However, in many cases people are exposed not to a single noise source-for example, road, railway, or aircraft noise-but to a combination of noise exposures and there is only limited knowledge of the effects on health of exposure to combined noise sources. A socio-acoustic survey among 1953 persons aged 18-75 years was conducted in residential areas exposed to railway and road traffic noise with sound levels ranging from L(Aeq,24h) 45-72 dB in a municipality east of Gothenburg, Sweden. The objectives were to assess various adverse health effects, including annoyance, and to elucidate the impact of exposure to single and combined noise sources. In areas exposed to both railway and road traffic, the proportion annoyed by the total traffic sound environment (total annoyance) was significantly higher than in areas with one dominant noise source (rail or road traffic) with the same total sound exposure (L(Aeq,24h,tot)). This interaction effect was significant from 59 dB and increased gradually with higher sound levels. Effects of the total sound exposure should be considered in risk assessments and in noise mitigation activities.     

Acoustical, sensory, and psychological research data and procedures for their use in predicting effects of environmental noises

A demonstration field-research study reveals that aircraft noise measured at two one-story houses is approximately 9 dB less attenuated from measured outdoor levels than is street traffic noise, and, found in other studies, approximately 14 dB less than railway noise. Comparable differences are found between these noises from the application of basic acoustical formulas for quantifying attenuations that occur on site of one- and two-story houses. Reasonably consistent with those findings are results from attitude surveys showing that daily exposure levels of aircraft must be approximately 8 dB less than levels of street traffic noise, and approximately 13 dB less than levels of railway noise to be perceived as an equal cause of annoyance and related adverse effects. However, USA government guidelines recommend that equal exposure levels of noise measured outdoors from vehicles of transportation should be considered as being equally annoying. Changes in present USA noise-measurement procedures and noise-control guidelines are proposed that provide more accurate predictions of annoyance, related adverse effects, and criteria for setting "tolerable" limits of noise exposure in residential areas. Key acoustical and psycho-acoustical principles and data pertaining to predicting correlations between dosages of environmental noises and its effects on people and land noise zoning in residential communities are examined.     

Role of community tolerance level (CTL) in predicting the prevalence of the annoyance of road and rail noise

Fidell et al. [(2011), J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130(2), 791-806] have shown (1) that the rate of growth of annoyance with noise exposure reported in attitudinal surveys of the annoyance of aircraft noise closely resembles the exponential rate of change of loudness with sound level, and (2) that the proportion of a community highly annoyed and the variability in annoyance prevalence rates in communities are well accounted for by a simple model with a single free parameter: a community tolerance level (abbreviated CTL, and represented symbolically in mathematical expressions as L(ct)), expressed in units of DNL. The current study applies the same modeling approach to predicting the prevalence of annoyance of road traffic and rail noise. The prevalence of noise-induced annoyance of all forms of transportation noise is well accounted for by a simple, loudness-like exponential function with community-specific offsets. The model fits all of the road traffic findings well, but the prevalence of annoyance due to rail noise is more accurately predicted separately for interviewing sites with and without high levels of vibration and/or rattle.