TNO 96.07
Wassenaarseweg cop The TNO-report P0 2301
Phone Fax
All and/or consent No or TNO,” the parties In © Conditions between
case
any 1996
rights
Box
part
+31
rights Netherlands
CE
+31
published or other
Prevention
are 1
this 2215
of
of 71
TNO
the
reserved.
the
Leiden
and
this
TNO.
for 71
subject
report 5
means
contracting
relevant
18 obligations
Research
publication
5
by
18
19 56
was
to
without
print,
18
20
either
agreement
and drafted
18
parties.
Instructions
of photoprint,
may
the
the
the
Health
on be
previous
contracting
Standard
concluded
instructions, reproduced
given
microfilm
written
to
A in to
authors:
external A.R. J. R P.H. date:
oktober
G
Lambert
prediction
high the
de
Eisses de
netherlands
Vos
Jon
1996
consultants:
speed
(INRETS)
(NS)
of
train
annoyance
noise
due
scient& Netherlands
research
Orgarszation
TNO
for
applied
PG TNO
FOREWORD CONTENTS
SUMMARY
SAMENVATHNG
1. 2.
3.
96.071
rapport
INTRODUCTION
THE A 2.1 1.2 1.1 2.2 1.3
2.3
AVAILABLE
3.1
PREDICTION
NOISE
Background Aim
Organization
High
Sound 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 Expectation
aspects
Review
3.1 3.1.1
.2
GENERATED
of
DATA speed
characteristics
the
of
OF
of
Average Frequency Number
Onset Vibrations
Appraisal Results
exposure
study
a
lines
THE
of
of
ON of
report
the
nuisance,
velocity the
in
ANNOYANCE
FUTURE
of
of
noise
study
BY
study
on the
of
spectrum
the
passages
of
the
the
HIGH
Netherlands
levels
the
survey
based
survey
TGV-Atlantique
SITIJATION
HSL
and
SPEED
and
on
DUE
pass-by
the
peak
TRAINS:
examination
TO
levels
IN
times
HIGH
THE
during
SPEED
NETHERLANDS
of
a
train
TRAIN
pass-by
NOISE
page
iv
11 12
13
14
14
14
16 2 2
1
4 3 1
3 4
6
9 TNO rapport
PG 96.07]
page
3.2 Comparison with conventional trains 18
3.2.1 Some remarks in advance on the comparibility of data 18 3.2.2 Comparison of annoyance and related concepts 20
3.3 Preliminary conclusions with respect to nuisance 23
4. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION 24
4.1 Conclusions 24 4.2 Discussion 25
REFERENCES 27 PG TNO
SUMMARY The
The
pass-by, of
The nuisance
onset
exists, Only
conducted survey survey quality
organized
Actually small
the absent participated
the attitudes
The reported
Both clearly
effects.
96.071
trains how
question
rapport
visual
issue
noise
following
“suddenness”
one
number
velocity,
approaches
which
was before
of
guarantee
different
does
the
value
in towards
approximately
was compare,
social
situation.
well. the
aspects
unattended,
carried
earlier
peak to
in
was
annoyance
of
the
approached
noise
of
aspects
be
and
anti-HSL
Adequate
survey
respondents
results.
HST’ these
conducted -
HSL
level,
answered
a of
studies of
out
from exposure
vibrations.
The
data.
minimization
the
the
s of
in
the
changes
was
on
might
one-third the
noise
From
annoyance
due the
France area.
exposure
on
activities.
The
from
statistical
number the
opened,
in
in
numbers
exposed
expressed
perspective
conventional
to
this
appears
be
situations
Many questionnaire
the effects
A
still
two
the
and
either
close
of
desk
perspective
of
have
and
appear
but
due noise
perspectives:
Three
analyses
has
to
residents
the
of
of locational
to
in
study higher
high
also
examination organization
which
to passages of
been been
be
noise Lerm
respondents
trains.
caused
to
to
HSL
exposure
not
experienced has
noise
be being
is
were
thoroughly
four
considered:
or
of anticipated
bear
caused
important formulated
rather
More
a
noise
effects.
lower
the
by exposure
and
levels.
logical
equal? years conducted.
some
high
of and
of
perspective
are
pass-by behavioral
by
strong.
is
than
these
the
rather
set
from
Though resemblance
considerably
and
after
these speed the
not
format;
the
as
there
that
measurements
up.
follows:
HSL thus
They
aspects
average
only
time,
the
A
radical
the
changes
trains
Twenty of
of
seems
adaptations
limitation
the questions
will
perspective
conventional
(=
co-vary opening exposure
exposed
the
to
does
line changes
noise
noise
higher (HST’s)
not
to
reluctantly:
five
frequency
the
be
enhance
warrant for
with not
were Dutch
of
of
are
level to
sites
measurements
and
no
than
of
high
in
and
the
noise
the
indicate
trains.
observed
the
reason
effects the
land
formulated
included
during
situation.
the
spectrum,
annoyance.
a survey
conventional
speed
line 35%
evaluation
perspective
satisfactory
which
use
annoyance
to
that -
negative
actively
as
a
trains)
lead
and
in
is
expect
train
were
This
well.
was
and
the the
the
the
in of
to TNO rapport
PG 96.07]
FOREWORD
The TNO-report ‘Geluideffecten Hogesnelheidstrein’ (Noise effects of the high speed train) was published in 1993. The report reviewed the state-of-knowledge at that time. The main conclusion read: no more annoyance is to be expected from lines with high speed trains than from lines with conventional trains, noise exposure (in Le) being equal.
After publication of this report, in the spur of research on high speed trains, new data became available, both on the acoustical characteristics of high speed train noise, and on residents’ reactions to the noise. Therefore the Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment requested TNO to update the report.
The present report provides the update. The conclusion of the earlier report cannot be maintained unequivocally. There is still a fair probability that no more annoyance is to be expected from lines with high speed trains than from lines with conventional trains, noise exposure (in Le) being equal. But the results of a single social noise survey, though too isolated to be granted a generalizable validity, cast some doubts upon this conclusion.
The report reflects the combined efforts of two TNO-institutes. The authors thank Jacques Lambert and Paul de Vos for their valuable contributions to the project. They provided the data, essential for making the update, and optimized the final report by commenting a draft version.
We thank Isabelle Vernet (JNRETS) for re-analyzing the original data of the French TGV-study in order to provide us with a data set suited to calculate dose-response relations according to our requirements. PG TNO
perspective that HST’s lesser
response differences however,
doing it about making and
seems
96.071
HST’s
rapport
the
degrees the
so
seem
and
one
more plausible
very
curve
role
of
are
and
communication
to
about
of the
of
high
than
nog
cause
conventional
for
annoyance
the
effects,
that
over
the
we big.
conventional
time
much
have
TGV), other
the
In
however,
difference
process,
fact are
more
whole
ever
trains
variables,
about
considered.
the
found
annoyance
trains.
range
substantial
differ
no
(about
rating
the
definite
such
in
of
Especially
role
in
of
other When 15
noise
than their
as
differences
years
“highly
of
conclusions
attitudinal
studies.
levels,
the the
conventional
potential
lie
the
percentages
climate
annoyed
between
and
Due
percentages
become
can
ones,
to
are
to
and
cause
be
in
trains,
the
hardly
several
apparent:
are
‘highly
based
wintertime”
about
surveys
noise
driving
“moderately
differences
related
uncertainties,
on
the
annoyed”
at
this on annoyance.
role
a this
coincides to
conventional
given
latter
this
being
of
effect,
annoyed”
are
the
approach.
level. for noise
compared,
From
larger
with
decision
instance
and
level, Thus,
trains
are,
the
the
are
iii as TNO rapport
PG 96.071 iv
SAMEN VATTING
De vraagstelling voor deze bureaustudie is als volgt geformuleerd: hoe verhoudt zich de geluidhinder door hogesnelheidstreinen (HST’s) met de geluidhinder door conventionele treinen, bij een gelijke geluidbelasting in 1,,?Lç
De vraagstelling werd vanuit twee gezichtspunten benaderd: vanuit het gezichtspunt van de expositie en vanuit dat van de effecten.
De volgende aspecten van de expositie zijn in beschouwing genomen: bet equivalente geluidniveau tijdens een treinpassage, het bijbehorende piekniveau, het aantal passages en de tijd dat een passage hoorbaar is, bet frequentiespectrum, de stijgtijd en (het vermoedelijke belang van) trillingen. Een nauwkeurige analyse van deze aspecten geeft geen aanleiding te vermoeden dat HST’s meer of juist minder hinder zullen veroorzalcen dan conventionele treinen.
Er is slechts éen enquête over effecten van geluid van de HSL (= lijn voor hogesnelheidstreinen) gehouden in mm of meer met de Nederlandse situatie overeenkomende omstandigheden. Dit - goed opgezette - onderzoek vond in Frankrijk plaats. Ret optreden van eventuele locatie-effecten is minimaal doordat het onderzoek op 25 verschillende plaatsen is uitgevoerd. Hoewel de geluidmetingen onbemand zijn uitgevoerd, is een voldoende kwaliteit van de geluidgegevens gewaarborgd door het grote aantal metingen en de wijze waarop deze zijn georganiseerd. De vragenlijst heeft een logische opbouw; de vragen zijn goed gesteld en geordend. Er zijn adequate statistische analyses uitgevoerd. Het geringe aantal ondervraagden met een hoge geluidbelasting vormt een minder sterk punt van het onderzoek. Ongeveer eenderde van de ondervraagden is blootgesteld aan geluid dat er niet was voordat de HSL in gebruik werd genomen, en heeft bovendien ingrijpende veranderingen op ander gebied, zoals ruilverkaveling en de andere aanblilc van bet landschap meegemaakt. Veel bewoners hebben deze veranderingen met tegenzin zien komen: 35% van de ondervraagden heeft actief deelgenomen aan activiteiten tegen de komst van de HSL. Drie tot vier jaar nadat de lijn in gebruik is genomen blijken de negatieve gevoelens over deze veranderingen nog altijd tamelijk sterk aanwezig. Ze hangen samen met de waardering voor de geluidsituatie. De geluidhinder door de HSL is aanzienlijk meer dan de hinder die in eerdere onderzoeken over conventionele treinen is gevonden. Er zijn ook meer gedragsverandenngen waargenomen. Ret vermeende plotselinge karakter van het HST-geluid blijkt niet van belang en zal niet of nauwelijks tot meer hinder aanleiding geven. PG TNO
Beide tot
van gezichtspunt zijn percentages schijnen
conventionele “erg Het hele wel dan zoals en geen
96.071
sterk
communicatieproces,
rapport
de sterker lijkt
range HST’s groter
gehinderd
definitieve
bijvoorbeeld benaderingen
enquêtes
verschillende
HST’s
dan
van
dan
naarmate
van
‘erg
meer
ook
treinen.
geluidbelastingen
in
aanzienhijk wij
conclusies
de over
gehinderd”
aannemelijk
de
de
hinder
effecten -
tot
vanuit
de
rol
een uitkomsten.
In
winter”
nu
kunnen
conventionele
het
van
toe
geringere
worden te
meer
komen
het
worden
bijzonder
het
in
laten verwachten
dat
op
gezichtspunt
op
andere
hinder
tijdsverschil
Vanuit
andere getrokken.
basis
er
een
zich
vergeleken
mate
echter
de
treinen),
zeer
te studies
van
bet
percentages zelfs
variabelen,
veroorzaken
van dan
grote
hoog
de
van
gezichtspunt
(de
beschrijven
hebben
of
benadering
zijn hinder
van
expositie
HSL
niveau verschillen
de
de
rol zoals conventionele
‘een
gevonden. enquête
in dan
verschillen
van
en
van
beetje
en ogenschouw
vanuit
met de
conventionele
houden
naar het
vanuit
expositie
attitudes,
vond
de
klimaat,
gehinderd’
het Vanwege
voren:
niet
respons
daar
treinen.
dat
ongeveer
gezichtspunt
zo schijnt
wordt dit
van
nauwelijks bij
of
treinen.
groot.
diverse
effect
curve
liggen
gelijke
de
de
Gezien
15
genomen. er
rol
effecten
De jaar
geen
veroorzaken
van
die De
van echter
onzekerheden,
geluidniveaus
verband
scores
vanuit
verschillen
de later
geldt
het
reden -
effecten over
Als
leiden
beslis
plaats
mee. voor voor
om
het
de
de
en
PG TNO
1.
km/h defined In 1.1 Two A: B:
Rotterdam, decide The AdA:
discussed the new In due The The -
The Ad existing
On speed knowledge
Brussels
the
96.071 view
Belgian
B:
from the from This
in
rapport
the
Thalys
Hague
decision line
decision
lines
or
up
autumn
near
on to so-called
more
noise
of route
line
with INTRODUCTION
Background
Amsterdam
to Amsterdam,
in
(HSL’s)
be -
the while
the -
is
on border
200
future
Parliament.
Amsterdam)
procedure Rotterdam will a
on
procedure
also a
via characteristics
1997.
high
connection specific
preferred
speed
km/h.
HSL-S(outh).
(adjusted)
south
be
Arnhem
are
suited
and
high
speed
opened
via
via up
in
of
Antwerp.
concerning
of
aspects -
Once
concerning speed
Breukelen preparation:
for
the
to
will
Dordrecht
track.
Schiphol
train
Rotterdam
with
and
existing
300
in
the
study
of
already the
This
the
trains
Utrecht
if
the
of
new km/h. HST’s
Two
Once
its
Parliament
year
the
the
and lines and
line
French -
the
maximum
track.
the
(HST’s)
Roosendaal
run
alternatives
HSL-E From
the
to
noise,
2015.
Utrecht
some Rotterdam
will
HSL-S
[1].
track
Amsterdam,
on
Government
TGV-network
be
May
has
the
knowledge
is
such
will
will
speed
opened
to
just
is
ratified
existing -
1996
Arnhem
to
are
nearly
Brussels be probably
as
started.
is
Brussels
where
noise
in introduced
being on, has
250
the
is
the
TGV-like
track
completed.
and
the
made
km/h
available - The
decision,
run
level,
year
the
Paris, considered
(and Thalys
Cologne,
Amsterdam
plan
parallel
German
its
or
2005;
in
frequency
further
rolling
with
more decision,
the
is
the
[2,3]. Soon (or
to
the
to
a
Netherlands.
TGV-PBA
definite for
ICE
on
extend
speed to
stock
highway -
the so-called
For
new
Schiphol
the
the London spectrum
2.2
Government
this
up
will decision
corroboration
and
tracks,
track
will
= to
El
investigation
HSL-E(ast).
upgrade
run
and
TGV A -
run
9
140
and
north
Leiden
and
towards
train
will on
Paris),
with
km/h.
Paris
onset
will 200
this
the
be
of
is
is 1
a - TNO rapport
PG 96.071 2
velocity, and on vibrations as well, is essential to decide whether HST noise may be evaluated with the same legal norms as set for conventional trains.
In January 1993 TNO-PG published a report on this issue [4]. After that time new information became available, both on the traffic intensities, the acoustical properties of the HST’s, and on the annoyance caused by the trains on the TGV-Atlantique line in France. Therefore the Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment requested TNO to update the report mentioned.
1.2 Aim of the study
The question to be answered in this study is formulated as follows: how does annoyance due to the noise caused by HST’s and conventional trains compare,
exposure expressed in Letmbeing equal?
1.3 Organization of the study
The earlier TNO report [4] serves as a basis for this update. Relevant new knowledge is gained from [5, 6 and 7], and from personal communications with P.H. de Vos of the Netherlands Railways (NS), and J. Lambert of the Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Sécurité (INRETS). P.H. de Vos procured the data on the numbers and types of trains planned to ride on the HSL-S and HSL-E lines. I. Lambert provided TNO with the noise and annoyance data from his recent TGV survey [5], in order to enable us to calculate dose-response relations. Together with M. van den Berg of the Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment they were the experts who helped optimize the report by their comments.
The report is structured as follows. In chapter 2 the relevant specific noise characteristics are analyzed. For each characteristic the theoretical impact on perception and annoyance is indicated.
In chapter 3 the results of a recent survey on the impact of the HSL in France are presented, as far as relevant in the scope of this study. In chapter 4 the conclusions and a discussion are presented. PG
TNO 2.
2.1
In
Amsterdam and
schematically
Table
Two
modelled 300 with
passenger metres noise the
For
The
HSL-South
HSL-East
the
9607]
main
1
rapport
km/h,
the
maximum
Brussels,
eight
types
production
Netherlands
in
(total
HSL-E
(total
THE
A
High
difference
Frequency
on
coaches)
the
passenger
and
in
PREDICTION
of
in
and
both
the
in
both
case
NOISE
speed
trains speed
via
a
Intercity
directions)
Table
of
directions)
is French
Cologne
new
High
two
yet less
between
of
Schiphol,
coaches
on lines
Speed
will
train
1.
lines
available. two GENERATED
than
the
TGV-Atlantique
trains
Trains
via
be in
(ICE
OF
trains
are HSL-E
the the
between
the
used
in
Utrecht
Rotterdam
(‘shuttles’)
THE
planned
the
Thalys
length
7a.m.
2.2)
Netherlands
coupled
Netherlands
in
on 11,5
11
-7
is FUTURE
them,
the
BY
of
p.m.
and and
being the
for
(TGV-A).
a
Netherlands
(prediction
together). and
HIGH
with
number
the single high
HSL-.S(outh),
resulting
Arnhem.
developed,
7p.m.-
TGV-A.
SITUATION
(probably)
of
a
speed
for
SPEED
trains TGV-A.
7,5
11
maximum
the 11
It
This
in
p.m.
per year The
will
will
trains:
a
For
hour
consisting
2015).
total
the
TRAINS: is
be
With consist
predicted
Breda,
the
11
about
200 speed the
IN
p.m.
‘Thalys’,
length
shuttles
respect
2 0
THE
HSLSouth -
km/h.
7a.m.
of
of
40
and
of
traffic
one
of
motor
NETHERLANDS
metres
200
no
to
running
about
the
total
power
noise
information
km/h.
driven
frequency
number
between in
HSL-East
200 24
(the
192
168
production
hours
car
at
of
metres
The
carriages
length
trains
speeds
at
Amsterdam
relevant
either
is
Thalys
between
(or
of
shown
this
up
only.
400
two end
to
3
to
is
is TNO rapport
PG 96.071 4
2.2 Sound characteristics of the HSL
2.2.1 Average noise levels and peak levels during a train pass-by
In the second half of this year (1996) the Thalys will be running in the Netherlands on existing track, until a new high speed line is constructed. Without radical modifications to the track, the Thalys will not exceed 140 km/h on the existing track. After analysis of available data Thompson and Ten Wolde [3] arrived at the conclusion that the acoustic aspects of high speed trains in those cases are more favourable than those of Intercity trains of the Dutch Railways (NS). From research on the noise production of current and new rolling stock in the Netherlands [6], it appears that the noise levels during a pass-by of the French TGV-Atlantique at 300 km/h are about the same as those of the older NS rolling stock (“Mat64”) travelling at 140 km/h, but will be higher than those of new NS Intercity trains without block brakes (e.g. “IRM’) at 140 km/h.
In the case of high speed trains we can distinguish noise generated by the rail-wheel contact (rolling noise), by the electric power cars (‘engine noise”) and by turbulent air flow along the train surface and at discontinuities (aerodynamic noise). At 300 km/h rolling noise (or in fact the combined noise caused by the sources close to the track, dominated by rolling noise) contributes about 60% to the total noise production. However, the importance of the noise sources in terms of the contribution to the sound pressure level along the track will depend on the situation. Figure 1 shows that the contribution of aerodynamic noise generated along the upper part of the train is less than 20% in a normal situation without a barrier and may increase to 75% when a barrier 2 metres high is placed next to the railway line [7]. This can be explained by the fact that rolling noise is generated at a height close to the track and will be effectively reduced by the barrier, whereas the barrier has no influence on the transmission of noise generated at a height of 4 or 5 m above the rail. TNO rapport
PG 96.071 S
Figure 1 Contributionof the noisesources of the TGV-Atlantiqueat 300km/hto the totalsourcestrengthand to the totalsound pressurelevelat 25 m fromthe trackforsituationswithandwithouta barrier.Source:[7). noise sources TGV-Atlantique
C
.0, C C C) ci, C) C C’, >C) cci C)
0 sourcestrength noise level at 25 m no screen screen 1 m screen 2 m
HEIGTHOF THE SOURCE: O,75m 2,5m E 4,Om/5,Om The pass-by of a TGV-A is characterized by what the French call ‘les oreilles du chat’ (cat’s ears): the motor cars at the front and rear produce an extra peak, as shown in Figure 2. Probably these “cat’s ears” are mainly caused by the additional block brakes of the motor cars, which have a negative effect on the perfect round shape of the wheels - and therefore on the rolling noise. Engine noise may also contribute to the cat’s ears. As the motor cars of modern generations of TGV’s will be equipped with disc brakes (and with block brakes for emergency situations), it is likely that the cat’s ears will be reduced in the near future.
The ICE 2.2 on the HSL-E (disc-braked only) will consist of motor driven carriages only and therefore will cause less variation in the noise level during a pass-by.
In conclusion, the noise levels during a pass-by of the current French TGV-Atlantique at 300 km/h are about the same as those of the older NS rolling stock travelling at 140 km/h, but will be higher than those of new NS Intercity trains without block brakes at 140 km/h. Due to foreseeable technical developments the noise levels generated by future HST’s will be comparable with those of the modern NS Intercity trains. Hence from the analysis of the pass-by noise levels as such, no more annoyance is to be expected of the modern HST’s which will be running in the Netherlands. TNO rapport
PG 96.071 6
Figure2 Noiselevelversus timeas a TGVAtlantiquepasses. Speed 300km/li,distance25 m. Source:INRETS.
Leq(5Oms) 25 rètres Lun 23/O9/991 dBA
2.2.2 Numbers of passages and pass-by times
According to table 1 there will be 192 train passages on the HSL-S and 168 on the HSL-E every 24 hours. To place this in a reference frame: in an earlier study on annoyance due to noise from conventional trains in the Netherlands [10], carried out in nine locations, passage frequencies varied from 90 to 332 trains/24h, with an average of 191.
At a speed of 300 km/h, the pass-by of a train 200 metres long will take about 3,5 seconds at a distance of 50 metres from the track. In the case of two trains coupled together, the pass-by time is about 6 seconds. The pass-by time is defined here as the time between Lml0 dB(A) points (see figure 3). The noise level during this time is approximately 86 dB(A) at a distance of 50 m.
reaches
increases,
the
track.
[9] made
single
of provided
the
The
Figure
PG
TNO
300
in
relationship
sound
pass-by
96.071
outside
This
which
3
and
rapport
km/h
the
by
a
of
double
background
distance
Pass-by
lower
the
the
time
1(A)
---H----
defined
at
a
train
a
between
French
sound
time,
location
noise
can
trains.
is
defined
becomes
in
not
also
level.
source
level
researcher
this
(A
as
distance
representative
with
be
the
double
way
will
time
defmed
audible
of
low
between
400
be
amounts
Lambert
and
TGV-A
background
associated
m
differently,
and
the
pass-by
for
length
Lm1O
when
to
has
[8]
all
an
dB(A)
situations
the
is
with
noise a
time
it
t
average
i.e.
length
represented
points.
is
pass-by
a
as
no
(<40
is
longer
the
of
as
longer
in
of
474
time
practice. dB(A))
time
shown
21
pass-by
by
m.)
audible.
and of
that
an
a
at
in
Lambert’s
array
According
32
TGV-A
elapses
time,
a
figure
distance
seconds,
According
of
until
uncorrelated
between
travelling
4.
measurements
to
of
the
As
respectively,
a
25
to
simple
pass-by
the
the
m
information
at
from
distance
dipoles,
moment
a
model
speed
level
were
the
for 7 PG
TNO
Figure
Assuming
time). of (Thalys) time).
of between Cl) Exposure
is [10] a) the traffic
within
the 96.071 less
the
4
rapport field
101
has
HSL At
The
time,
of
the in
approximately and
background Pass-by
research
shown
a
a to comparison
192 range
sound
distance
at
nuisance
the noise
75
a
time
passages
distance
at
HSL
that noise
offered
of as into
with
200
of
a
level
the
than
at
function
will
to
train
100
km/h 3
predictable
of
50
of by
of
HSL
road
and
40
exposure
be
m
50
of
dB(A).
m conventional noise
double
(“Shuttle’),
the
9
these
silent.
traffic. will
m
from
%
distance
from
[10,12,13],
of
noise be
trains
percentages
to
the
In
the
In
to
continuous
considerable
the
comparison:
the
nearest
time.
trains and
the
occurrences
distance
every
track
track,
102
case
which
assuming
calculated
in
are
will
24 track,
noise the
of
about
(>
hours,
resulted
be
Dutch
the
Netherlands.
(set
[9]
60 train
a
audible
[11].
for
[m]
background
HSL,
6.5
timetable)
dB(A))
a
of
field
TGV-Atlantique
noise
in
This
%
which
the
for
the
and
research
for
principle
was
more
about
total
and
3
117
level
35
%,
(length
considerable
favourable considerable
time
75
minutes
at into
respectively.
of
was 400
minutes
a
40
of
railway
speed
m,
also
dB(A),
speed quiet
(=
position
(> (
established
2.5
of
quiet
300
noise
For
periods
5
60
300
the
km/h)
%
%
the
periods dB(A))
of
of sound
of
levels
km/h
and
rest
the
the lies rail
8
a
in TNO rapport
PG 96.071 9
In conclusion, neither the numbers of passages, nor the total time period during which HST’s will exceed a noise level of 60 dB(A), makes it plausible that either more or less nuisance might be expected by the planned HSL’s in the Netherlands.
2.2.3 Frequency spectrum
The frequency spectrum of the passage of the TGV-A is characterized by relatively high levels of both low frequency sound and sound in the higher medium range (with concentrations below 125 Hz and around 2500 Hz). This is shown in Figure 5. However, sound in the lower medium range is also abundant, so in terms of perception, the noise comprises wide-band sound with a relatively high level of low and medium-high frequencies. As far as this aspect is concerned, there seems to be no significant difference between High Speed Trains and traditional intercity trains. Figure 6 shows the average frequency spectrum of a number of German Intercity trains travelling at speeds of 158 km/h [14]. There are definite concentrations apparent below 100 Hz and around 1000 to 2000 Hz. If the rails are properly maintained, the concentration between 1000 and 2000 Hz is minimal. The findings above lead to the following conclusions: at the moment, these differences from the traditional train spectrum are not expected to have a negative effect on annoyance. If the band width is the main criterion in the evaluation of the sound, the nuisance value will not change. Even if the low frequencies play a major role in the perception, no difference is expected. If the high frequency components play a major role in the perception, however, the nuisance value may increase. We believe the chance of this occurring to be minimal, because the range from 1000 to 2500 Hz is within the scope of the speech spectrum. On the other hand, it is unlikely that the different spectrum of the TGV-A will cause less nuisance than traditional Intercities. TNO rapport
PG 96.071 JO
Figure 5 Frequencyspectrumof the TGV-Atlantique,at a distanceof25 metres.Source:[15]
dB ijo
ioo
90
80
70 Commercjal f without set 300 kph 1.with barrier Ti.rs frèqu.ncøs •)‘ Hz I 31,5 125 250 300 1000 2000 4000 •ôoo
Figure6 Averagefrequencyspectrumofa numberof lntercitytrains,on welland poorlymaintainedrails.Source:[14]
90 dB :r:: ———-41 70
g050 : dB 70 1R:z:L IC-Zug Gleis 2 — :: -::; j. — — 5025 100 1000 Hz 5000 Frequenz PG TNO
2.2.4
Studies Onset b. a. c. Impulse continuous Low-flying from
Passages build-up dBIs.
Where the TGV-A so
Table
Although approach people apply than
will announced
96.071
not
exception onset onset onset
rapport
2
close
decrease.
This velocities
to
exact) at
would
of
exposed
at
of
that sounds Onset
of a
velocity>> velocity velocity
Indicative
does
pulse-like
by.
these
various causes
sound.
distance the military
in
all
onset
of of
the
plenty
noise.
velocity kinds
In show can
onset
incidental
to
approximately
have
figures,
< approx.
TGV
considerable Examples
addition,
speeds
velocities:
HSL be
of aircraft
velocities
10
sounds
of
that
of 1000
25 categorized
onset dBls.
time, fit
vehicles
noise
which
metres the 50
(as
(in situations
dB/s;
in
produce
120km/h 220km/h 300km/h 160km/h
noise
dB/s)
have are
dB/s;
as
velocities onset shown
this
will
nuisance,
50
on
can
the
have
from fall
shown the
emanating categorization?
in
dBIs,
live velocities
onset
be sound such
steepest
in
three
into
the
been
seen
[2])
further
above
both
that
even as
the
velocities
rails.
section
classes
of
have honking
in
determined
from
third
for
hammering,
8-10 the
11-12
10-13
15.16 as
Figure at
of
than
As 1000
the
the a produced
Inspection
higher [23]: onset
category.
the
that
result
curve,
that
25 horns
HSL
dBIs,
7.
rails
distance
at
metres velocity
are
roughly,
speeds.
various
of
shooting
are
or
the
often
which will
They the of
screeching
more speeds.
following
from
the
increases
noise
is
ensure These
in
may
hardly
generally and noise
is
Measured
akin
the
the
level
far
not
pile-driving,
indicative order
tires.
that
rails),
indicative
to
ever
level
(and,
25
more
be
the
itself
metres
related a
of
startle
the versus
generally
train’s very
class
magnitude
from
disturbing
and
onset
onset
(at
all
the
to
people, accurate,
of
time
the
approach face-value,
rails.
nuisance.
measured
<
velocities velocities speaking,
sudden
10
of
of
than
with
dB/s
11 the
50
the
is
different
impossible.
compared
literature
These
the
chippings.
rails
forces
in
At
avoid
2.2.5
nuisance
On
Figure PG
TNO
order
dBR
Leq(5Oms)
high
possibility
the
96.071 (60
7
rapport
factors
damage
that
speeds,
basis
to
soil
kg/rn
caused
Vibrations
on with
Noise
cause
reduce
exposure
conditions will
evel
to
of
instead
25
of
that
the
by lateral
versus
the
the
help
nuisance
rntres
these
track
a
of
sudden rolling
time
aspects
arguments
of
vibration
to
displacement.
render
same alignment
as
54 reduce
a
Lun caused
TGV-Atlantique
kg/rn),
build-up
stock.
of
forces.
a
23/09/1991
nuisance
the
the
stated
forecast
will
by
A
heavier
possibility
TGV,
of
On A
train
heavier
vibrations
have
above,
noise. heavier
passes.
the
caused
of
vibrations
(concrete)
to
other
the superstructure
Speed
of
be there
superstructure
by
of
Dutch
vibrations.
perfect hand,
300
the
the
are are
krnTh,
sleepers
rolling
situation
HSL
the
not no
distance
to
ensure
On
rolling
will
presented
grounds
in
and can
25
stock the
m.
provide
the
based
be a
Source:
safety,
stock
basis
thicker
currently
Dutch
for
achieved
as on
INTRETS.
of
will
more
worrying
a
passenger
the
these
problem
ballast
situation
have
in
by
resistance
French
service.
data,
using
to
bed
about
comfort
factor.
be
cannot
however,
situation
of
heavier
lighter,
In
to
added
stone
The
and
the
the
be 12 TNO rapport
PG 96.071 13
2.3 Expectation of nuisance, based on the examination of aspects of exposure
In this chapter, the question whether a high speed railway line will cause more or less nuisance than a conventional railway line, under the condition that the equivalent noise levels (average noise level within a period of several hours) in this comparison are equal, was approached from the ‘exposure’ point of view. The following aspects have been considered: * the average noise level during a train pass-by and peak level; * the numbers of passages and pass-by time; * the frequency spectrum; * the onset velocity; * vibrations.
For a High Speed Train, the average noise level during a train pass-by will be about the same as those for the older Intercity rolling stock of the Dutch Railways, which is still in use. The peak level during the pass-by may be slightly higher for a current High Speed Train than for a modem conventional train. Peak levels of future High Speed Trains will be lower than of the current ones. The relative frequency of passages in combination with the short pass-by times makes the HSL audible during a total time which lies in the range of the times during which conventional trains are audible. Nor this, nor the data on onset velocities do lead to the conclusion that the nuisance will be either higher or lower. As for the vibration aspect, it is impossible to make a projection, which is why it has not been taken into consideration. PG
3. 3.1 TNO
al. The
The dwellings were The these 3.1.1 earth Aim noise of the to The Organization The the sample virtually levels. incisions population home
protect
the
[5]. 96.071
vicinity
speed
available
aim
report rapport
survey speed
of
not
walls
data of
study,
before
About
The
the
consisted
conventional
of
AVAILABLE Review
Appraisal
all
taken
in
between
these
is
of
of
on
and of survey
the
was three
of
the
residents presented. and
of
data
the
approximately one-third
the the Lambert
the
survey
incisions residents. into
the
conducted
landscape.
of
for
TGV Japanese
of
variables
on construction Japan
new
of
survey
a
account
259
comparing
railway
annoyance
the
report
(freely
had
et was
In DATA benefitted
TGV-Atlantique
and
in
This
respondents survey
al.
particular
and
surveys
to in age
the
fairly
Eighty-five
because
Europe
95%
on
lines.
summarized) contains
September
be
guideline
sampling
ON terrain)
and
of
the
the
due
interviewed
stable
from
of
the
on
Key
ANNOYANCE annoyance sex
TGV.Atlantique
the will
to
it
all
from
the
many
were
line
HSL
is
[5, noise
data
percent reads:
data
in
line,
lead
1993, passages
assumed
Shinkansen
was
page
all
25
started.
applied
noise
from
interesting
are
abatement to
alongside
to
LAeq(O82Oh) sites:
due
to
sites
at
of
101. incomparable
used
find
assess
the least
stem
to
is
that
the
DUE
the
in
The
in
noise
between report
line
enough
which
order
rural three
respondents
exclusively the
data.
average which
the
measures
sample TO
mentioned
<
of differences
noise
are:
to
areas
years are
For
65
HIGH
results.
the
respondents
noise
280
comply
speed
dB(A),
relevant
differed
our
impact
HSL
such
alongside
after
from
and
already
abatement
SPEED
in
purpose
is
in
with
with as
an
310 the
the
approximately on
for
noise
shields,
slightly
article
exposed
line the lived
survey the
the
km/h. assessing
the
TRAIN
only
measures
residents attenuation
annoyance guideline
was
TGV-only
of
in
earth
from
by
a
In
to
Igarashi
their
opened.
NOISE
selection
Lambert
the
some high
300
dikes
the
living
(shields,
adopted
quality
present
due
of
km/h,
track.
noise
rural
sites
[17]
The
and
the
14
of
to
in et Noise PG TNO
Forty
NFS-3 measurements homogeneous
recordings:
Each * D Assessment * * * General * * * HST vous? The annoyed). Conclusion (not minimization purpose exposed number questionnaire statistical
‘une
96.071
rapport
annoyed),
survey
index noise?)
long
measurements
1110
(Generally
manière
and
annoyance
as
to
LA LAeq to the number ALAeq the average
analyses
formulated term
was
high
be
[18].
of
organization has
accumulated total
A HSL;
of
of
with were
has
identical annoyance
(total
“peu
genérale, determined four
locational
the
noise
measurements
been of All
SEL.
LAeq
speaking
were
a
is
respect HSL
conducted
environmental
LAeq gênés”
point
measurements
logical assessed,
after
in
levels.
thoroughly
to
conducted.
events
after 1.2
of
time
sur
the
effects.
scale
for for the
to
(a
the
(Aim
format;
In
LAeq
24
the at
in
noise
little
every
separately
opening
a
exceeding (24
measurements
conclusion: is
several
24
24
heures,
opening
before
Though
set
of
noise,
used
were
hours
A
annoyed),
hours
hour exposure.
single
the
questions
up.
limitation
of
for
spots
recorded.
the study).
for without
queue
a
each)
the
the
period,
of
the Twenty
respondent.
level
the
the
opening
summer
the
line;
events
noise in
warrant
“assez
Additionally
annoyance
survey
were
note
were
of
line
of the
the
how
Several
five
the
70
measurements
exceed
sites.
noise of
minus
and
gênés”
de
conducted,
formulated a
respectively
is would
survey
the
sites
satisfactory
gene
winter,
of
The acoustical
rating, caused
line;
LAeq
70
40
good
(quite
included
you
due
is
measurements
and
complementary before
with
the
one
with
quality
by
and
were
rate
au
80
annoyed),
80
quality
indexes
small
the
per
Q26:
dB(A);
bruit
dB(A),
in
the
the
organized
the
conducted
HST’s.
and
part
the
opening
number
categories
annoyance
of
du
are
comply
“très
can respectively;
survey
the
of
T.
short
derived This
G.
a
well.
be
noise
unattended,
gênés”
of of
V. site
used
to
guarantee is
“pas
the
respondents term
due
donneriez
the
data. supposed Adequate
which
from
line);
(highly
for
gênés”
to
(1
norm
The
the
our the
the
15
h)
is
a TNO rapport
PG 96.071 16
3.1.2 Results of the survey
The noise guideline appears to have been applied satisfactorily. Only a few houses are exposed to daytime (08-20h) HST noise with an LAeq > 65 dB(A). under prevailing weather conditions. However, noise exposure early in the morning (06-08h) and in the evening (20-22h) are veiy similar to daytime noise exposure level, and these periods commonly are regarded as more sensitive periods. Night time noise levels are much lower. Wind velocity and direction considerably affect the noise levels, Variations in noise level (= differences between HST noise level and ambient noise level) exceeded 10, and often 15 dB(A), especially in early morning and in the evening. 88 Respondents are exposed to 140 trains/24h, 59 respondents to 75 trains/24h and 112 respondents to 65 trains/24h.
HST noise is most often described by respondents as a whistling (33%) or a thundering (28%) and sometimes compared to aircraft noise (15%). Only few respondents indicate to be ever surprised by HST noise (3%). Furthermore, HST noise with Oh)22LAeq( < 40 dB(A) is described as brief, expected and low, while HST noise with LA(20-22h)2 > 55 dB(A) is mainly described as impulsive, metallic, high-pitched and clear. These findings reflect the relatively high levels of both low frequency sound and sound in the higher medium range, described in 2.2.3. It is not known from previous studies how the noise caused by other types of trains is characterized verbally.
The number of trains (= number of noise events, 39%), vibration (34%) and the loudness of the noise (27%) are reported as the most annoying aspects of the HST. Noise is a daily annoyance particularly in the evening (9% highly annoyed) and early morning (8% highly annoyed); during the weekends (no single percentage mentioned in the report) and in the summer (17% highly annoyed). It must be kept in mind that the number of noise events envisaged for the HSL-S (192) and for the HSL-E (168) exceed the numbers of noise events in the French survey (maximum 140).
Residents whose bedrooms or living rooms are directly exposed to HST noise are more annoyed than those with such rooms situated at the less exposed side of the house.
The following behavioral adaptations due to the changed noise situation have been identified: closing windows (35%), insulating the most exposed facades (11%) and changing the use of rooms (4%) (insulating the facades was done after the opening of the line; no recompensation for the PG
TNO costs because
respondents After Forty exposed Linear landscape, disturbance, statistical * * * * *
96.071
rapport
was
the
percent
relationships
of
to
the though underestimating (early
particular during duration) annoyance the the However, very such
35%
analyses
opening
received).
and
the
LAeq(2O22h)
got
behavioral
satisfaction correlations relationship
of
noise. negative), of
as
also
morning
used
early
the
the
the LACq
highlights
of
when exceeding
no
approximately
indicators,
between
respondents
Furthermore
to
people
the
opinion
causality
morning
the is
changes) -
the
related
of
between
line
between day
55
noise
the
line
the
some
attitude who
dB(A).
noise
70 -
about
(3
except
evening
can
residents and
(75% to
most
were
annoyance,
to
dB(A)
forty
show
are
7
interesting
annoyance activity
annoyance
exposure
be
4
percent the
in towards
for
annoyed, within
actively
years
inferred.
percent
effective -
the
modest
HST
seems
the
night)
with
disturbances;
evening,
of
ago,
day
one
and
issues
the
it
and as
indicators
involved
the
regret
report the
are to
correlation
rarely
period; a new
year).
effect
descriptor
depending
noise
noise
be
new
higher
[19]:
respondents
the
the
railway
a
being
Those
in
variables
provides
transport
more abatement
level devaluation
and
number
movements than
coefficients
on
bothered
in
noise
line
reporting
co-varies
relevant
for
the
expressed
minimizing
(perception,
mode
of the
the
itself
measures
part
indexes
of
noise
against
by
24
highest
the
noise
no
(30%
(66% with (r
of
hour
the
the
dwellings. habituation
=
events
the
for
the (two-third
modification
attitudinal index
annoyance,
0.36
the
very
disfavourable), period;
intention
correlations
line)
separate
new
(or
likelihood
at positive,
than
83%
line.
are
best).
their
satisfied).
to
variables
LAeq,
activity
periods
mainly
of
of
move
with
total
16%
The
and
the
the
17
of
in PG
3.2 TNO
The 3.2.1 Netherlands. originate trains. Netherlands annoyance The considered, * *
urban rural *
96.071
areas
areas
following
rapport
results
Comparison time urban About Some The being. the of to in general reported general, systematically.
climate which Table
from
surveys,
which
noise
rural data of
around
mean
3
railway Before
of
variables
remarks three
French
versus
15
the
the
and in
from noise
than
and in
could
Average
(minimum
time
years
on
1980,
the
surveys.
the
TGV
large
related
data
making
rural
with
conventional TGV-study
in
to
annoyance
in levels were
societal
expected archive Thus,
possibly TGV =
lie
urban
and advance
5; in
train
scale
survey
situations. conventional
65 L, 62
maximum
between
aspects
examined
the
being
survey
and
the the from
changes
on
areas.
surveys
data
noise
observed
lead
influence
caused =
on
was
will
comparison
annoyance
trains 95)
an
equal,
such
(conducted
archive
the the
to
briefly:
See inventory
annoyance
conducted, be
in
might
differences
trains
on
comparability
surveys
by (studied as
annoyance
compared
particular.
table
of
train
living
conventional stem
expected
have due
in
the
a
in
of
to
3.
rural
noise on
in
number
from
time
noise
outside
rural
are
annoyance
caused
in
annoyance
This
boths
conventional
with
caused
33 annoyance 31
caused This
of
and
situated
conducted both
difference
areas)
leads
data
trains.
types
data
or changes
of
in
by
hypothesis
urban by
conventional
with
urban
situational
caused
would
to
from
conventional
slightly of
The
between
trains
remains the
in
open
areas).
and
in
areas
England,
the
be
trains,
data response
by
hypothesis
rural
windows.
and
has more
less
different
TNO-archive
TGV
variables in
uncertain makes
in
urban
areas.
the
trains than
never
the
southern patters Germany
and
and
TGV-survey.
observed that archive
it
annoyance
The
in
sources
A
will
rural conventional
clear
have
been for
comparison
to
annoyance
regions
for
areas.
be
annoyance
the than
noise
and
mainly
that
to
in
tested
36 30
lower
noise
time
due
the
the
the
18
be
In
in
in
in PG TNO
*
*
*
Taking * annoyance
96.071
rapport
these
regions exposure them regions personal data
new In time found
conventional feed survey, Recently passenger freight there
data In from residents advantages
residents generally society, longer. of towards
Too ways
able
due
general
general,
a
versus
about of relating
aspects to to
little
any is
an
new
of
[25].
to
trains in might,
3
which
In
make have no
exposure
the
decision
or
at
a
TGV to
living
expectation station. of speaking
which
only
rural habituation
information
these
reason secondary
existing railway
and
conventional
the
Therefore 4
between TGV
to
trains.
conventional into
windows
cause
a
years.
generally
was
lines
noise,
conventional
comparison disadvantages
areas facade
along
the
aspects,
Disadvantages
making.
could
account
line
to
held more
(=steady
line. the
English,
versus
For
expect
the
home analysis
one
in
their and,
of a
or
is
the
same
lead speaking,
3
aircraft
steady trains
severe
a
These view
which doors
available
to
it
a trains
or
personal substantial lines consequently,
with
tracks
differences
and
trains
state) to
the must
Dutch
difference
4
amount for
of
of
will
more
years
open
for
state
of
aspects noise
precludes with opposite the
because
data
residents. work,
the
be
be than
situations. due
railways
about
the
and
have
situation exposure
higher
annoyance.
landscape
or
situation mix
concluded after
of
from
a portion
to
residents
between
the
German
habituation
to
etc.,
will
in
annoyance,
to
more
expectation, this
the distances
(passengers
any
sit
the
TGV the
because
more
such
annoyance
in
probably
way
also
aspect.
to
outside.
of
is
opening
advantages TNO-archive
firm
will
the
the
surveys
living that
train
as a
has
noise expected
decisions
leading
population
between time
Netherlands.
acting
deteriorate
results the
noise comparison
two
for
while and
noise The
alongside
annoyance. lead
of milder
levels
were
of
the
aspects
freight)
like
levels
the
(public
TGV
of in
2 to
the
of
are
to
openings
indicated
residents
to
the carried
the
is
line.
changes barriers
climate
very
people
between a
influence
3
reached
on survey
likely
TGV
being
TGV
lead
traffic. years
situations
more
transport
This
much
this
out.
that in
more
in tracks between
to in
after
survey equal
in
at does
negative
issue.
in
aspect
the
mid-France, the
of
With
expecting more
by
most
passenger
land
France,
facilities)
often
of
an
other
not
the
than
barriers
[28].
TGV
and
A
the
the
parts
exposure
has
southern does
use,
building
include
attitude
allows
higher
for
aspects
of
Thus, same
TGV
been
to
more
of
and
and
not
the
19
are for the
are
far
be
a TNO rapport
PG 96.071 20
is uncertain. Thus making a comparison between TGV and conventional trains has its restrictions. The results must be interpreted prudently.
3.2.2 Comparison of annoyance and related concepts
Dose response relations For HST’s two measures of annoyance were assessed: one for the summer and one for the winter. Both measures are compared with the dose response relations for conventional trains. Dose response curves for conventional trains stem from the surveys [10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22] in the TNO archive for noise annoyance surveys. In these surveys annoyance was measured without reference to a specific season. Theoretically, the more precise formulation of the questions in the French survey will lead to a slight overestimation of the reported annoyance compared with the annoyance due to the noise caused by conventional trains.
The comparisons are made for 4h),LA(2 Le and Ldfl, against the annoyance measures A72 (percentage highly annoyed), A50 (percentage annoyed) and A28 (percentage at least a little bit annoyed). Defmitions of the measures are presented in [23] and [24].
In figure 8 the French TGV-results are presented as data points (not as curves because of the limitations described in 3.2.1); for conventional trains dose response curves, based on a large database (n = 4097) are drawn. As the figure shows, at a given noise level HST’s cause more noise annoyance than conventional trains do. The percentages ‘highly annoyed” do not differ that much. In fact the data points representing the winter situation near the TGV do not differ from the response function valid for conventional trains. In contrast, especially the percentages “moderately annoyed” are extremely high for the TGV data, compared with the response functions for conventional trains. In fact, this reaction appears to be on a very high and constant level, and is hardly related to the noise level. As far as we know, annoyance scores that high, at relatively low noise levels, are unique. Other variables, such as attitudinal ones, will probably cause this effect. As expected, the judgments based on the summer situation show a larger number of people who are annoyed than the judgments based on the winter situation. In 3.2.1 we concluded that there were some specific reasons to interpreted the results prudently. The uniqueness of these results makes it even more necessary’ to do so. PG TNO
Behavioral More the exposed
In Vibrations
TGV-study report significant
Habituation exposure As not found between different In is The Attitudes
the the The residents
In variables Efficacy Large oppressive measures:
the
not
96.07]
Dutch
Dutch
a stated
rapport
opinion
yet
attitude
high relationship
behavioral Dutch
scope
a vibrations
[25].
proportions
facades
straight
habituated
(a
way
time
of
with surveys
were percentages survey before,
adaptations
specific
unaesthetic
lack [5]
(19%).
In about
noise of
survey
towards
than
of
noise
34
the
subjective
used
(11%
forward of)
adaptations
as
3
between on
in on
percent
abatement the
in source
TGV-survey to
of habituation on co-varies
a
reduction conventional which general
railway
the the
4
HST drawback against
of
(89,5%), the
nuisance
years.
task
unfavourable
French
new experience
report of
annoyance
respondents
are as
due
measures habituation nuisance
and
noise
1%),
with
a
For
due
railway
comparable
and
unpleasant new
still
of due to
study.
to
cannot
trains:
aircraft
to
having
be
living being [26]
annoyance
train
transport
vibrations, by 17%
the
and
in annoyed attitudes
line
Therefore
express
the the
be in
closing
a
noise
noise
near noise
noise annoyed, reports the
(60,5%), Dutch to
a
executed
itself
concept noise
the
substantial
mode intention
cannot
abatement
due a
seem
were unfavourable
caused a
level
windows
(conventional) ones
comparison
survey
habituation
(66% to
caused
to
ineffective (30%
and
of
be
quite in
observed
is be
vibrations.
used
to mainly
habituation
the
not
disfavourable),
moderated
on inferred. portion also
measures
by
move
very
(35%
remarkable
limited
in
conventional
habituated
conventional
time
feelings with
with
the
by
in
positive, (29,2%),
(7% railway
against
of
the
French heavy
of
habituation
scope has
(two-third
by
noise
a
against
2
French
population in
towards
attitudinal
been even to
and
dirty
16% line. 17%),
goods
relation
of
trains
survey.
3
level.
trains
years this
the
1%).
made after
very
In TGV-survey
(27%),
satisfied).
in
insulating
the trains,
[10].
study.
satisfaction the
A
the to [10]
is
variables
at
this
negative),
operational
noise
train
causal
likely
most
recent French
and Sixty
no are
time.
noise.
attitudinal the abatement
the
has
after
than
percent
relation
such French
survey
Being
of
most
most
been
in
21
the in an
as
a PG
TNO Figure IOU 100 40
40 so 96.071 2oa,a, 20 60 60 80 40 80 20/ 60 8
rapport 40 4 40 0 + 0 + 0 45 46 * o 0 + +*00 0 +0 ///////////// LAeq LAeq 50 LAe 50 0 *‘ 24h 245 246 55 55 the + Percentage + 60 60 + overall represent 65 exposure highly the TGV-data annoyed level. The 0 t C S to 0 0 (first for solid the 100 100 row>, 40 80 20 20 60 40 so 60 summer; 4( 40 40 lines ) annoyed
( 45 45 45
zJ’ the 00 ++ 50 50 50 (second Letm LeIm o Leton 0 0 55 55 56
) 0*, represent 0 represent row> 0 0 60 60 60 and 6 65 the 65 the at TGV-data dose least response moderately for the t t 0 a) ‘a CO 0 relations CO 0 8 0 a, winter. annoyed 100 100 40 80 20 60 40 60 80 20 80 60 40 20 40 for . 0 (third . 05665 conventional + 0 45 0 + row) 0 0 0 * * 50 *+ Ldn as Ldn + 0 + 0 .0 0 trains, a 55 CO function 0 60 the
22 • of 65 PG TNO
3.3
In than
level
* ‘effects’ * * * *
In * * the
interpreted description The characterizations The
ones: compared, as
with are, ever insulating seems
Non-habituation, will survey noise to
this
96.071
advance
infer
lesser
rapport
comparison.
a
however,
TGV-Atlantique factor
cause
within
the
found
impulsive,
conventional
abatement
chapter,
plausible
on
Preliminary
causal behavioral general some point habituation; attitudes; vibrations; efficacy
response
degrees the
conventional
prudently. more
differences
of
of some
in
a
of highlights
on most the
“surprise’
period
relationships.
other the
metallic, annoyance;
annoyance that
view. measures
which Due of
aspects
a
negative
HST
curve
railway
of
adaptations;
question
very
noise
exposed
conclusions
other
causes
studies.
of
to
are
annoyance
The
noise
reveal
trains.
from
high
for
appears several
were
high
the abatement
not
co-vary
line,
attitudes variables
following
than
whether
facades, more
conventional
with
and
observed Due the
pitched.
big.
associations
considered With
under
conventional
hours)
to
results with
constant
are
annoyance
with LAeq(2O22h)
to In
measures.
be
respect towards
are
having a
aspects
fact,
TGV
the
considered. respect
high
not uncertainties
the
in
of
driving
trains. condition
which
level,
with the
this
the
annoyance.
important
to noise
the
speed
have
the
trains.
than
to
vibrations
rating French
comparison >
more
intention
this
could Especially
and
source, nuisance
55
more been
conventional
railway
When
that
effect,
the
are
of dB(A)
annoying
and
survey;
be
In
considered:
the
behavioral
“highly
hardly
there
results
to
and
a
important
the
thus
line
the
cross equivalent
are
and
move)
contains
dissatisfaction
percentages
is
percentages
will
trains types will
related
equal,
annoyed
are
of
no
sectional
were
adaptations
the
for cause
doing not
reason
some
of
do,
noise
was
to
interpreting
comparisons
noises
enhance observed
in
differences
the
more
survey
so
unfavourable
“highly
to
“moderately approached
wintertime”
levels
with
noise
more
suppose
(closing
such
or
annoyance.
it
than
(average the
less
level.
annoyed”
the is than
as
being
have
not
efficacy
that
in
results
impulsive from
nuisance
windows, annoyed” coincides
semantic
we
a Thus,
allowed
HST’ noise
to
larger
Dutch
have
The
the
23
are
be
of
of
it
s PG TNO
4.
The 4.1
The The pass-by France onset and Only value number minimization purpose questionnaire situations exposed statistical participated the Actually absent reported
still
96.071
visual the
question rapport
answer following
appear
one
velocity,
of
before
and perspective
and
and as
HST’ CONCLUSIONS
to exposure how Conclusions
noise
approximately
analyses
social
which
aspects
formulated
high
in
has organization to
to peak
to
of
does
s
the
has
vibrations. anti-HSL
annoyance aspects
this
might be
be
locational
survey
noise
been
bear
HSL
expressed
level,
of
answered annoyance
were a
of rather
question
logical the
be
effects.
in
levels. some thoroughly
of
was
on
conducted. activities.
one-third
the
either
1.2 of
area.
A
exposure
is
strong.
effects.
AND
the
opened,
the
close
in
in
considerably resemblance
numbers (Aim
was
format;
In
due
effects
Letm
Many
this higher
measurements
conclusion:
DISCUSSION
consideration approached
They
Though
set to Three
of
of
being
study
A have
but
the
the
residents
the
questions
of of or
up.
limitation
also
co-vary
to
lower noise noise
study). passages
equal?
been is
to
respondents higher
Twenty
the
four
formulated
the
the
experienced
from
noise
warrant
caused caused
anticipated than considered:
of
survey
years
were
of
Dutch
than
with
these
and
five
the
two
that
measurements
the
later
by
by
are formulated a the
as
pass-by
is survey
situation.
sites aspects
perspectives:
of
satisfactory
rather
HST’s
the
follows:
of
annoyance
these
not
evaluation
negative conventional
the
good
HSL
included
is
only
average
time,
does
radical
changes and
the
This
quality
and
were
exists,
attitudes
quality
exposed
not conventional
reported
small
the
the
of
in
changes
survey
organized
noise
conducted trains.
indicate
reluctantly:
the
frequency
which
perspective
and
the
number
of
towards
to
noise
level
in
can
survey
the
was
in
was
noise
earlier
that
trains
well.
be
land noise
unattended,
of
during
carried
situation.
spectrum,
35%
conducted
these
the
used
of
guarantee
respondents
which
use
studies
data. compare,
Adequate
exposure
nuisance
actively
for
aspects a
out
and
train
The
was
The
our
the
the
24
on
in
in
in
a PG TNO
conventional
appears
clearly Both
perspective that HST’s
differences lesser response however, the seems the so decision approach 4.2 The
themselves
*
*
96.071
more
role
rapport
one
HST’
results
approaches
degrees
plausible
seem
different
to
of
making
than about
Discussion
Does
to community 3.2.2. Personal feelings
state are Is
from
curve
s
on
be
the
are
on
and of
4
railway
of
to trains.
not
a
included
we
years
of
principle
us:
the the time the
not the
very the cause
In
that
conventional results. for - and
annoyance important
have
still
from perspective French communication
effects,
this
big. TGV),
French
after More
difference
noise
other conventional
high
reaction.
communication
much
exist.
ever
about
in
particular From
the
In
opening
TGV
behavioral
variables, and
evaluated relation
and
uncertainty
however, fact,
TGV-survey
are
perspective
found
more
On
trains
French
How the
of
(About
constant
thus
considered.
survey
the
the
exposure.
of
perspective
annoyance trains.
with case with
in
long
will
differ
such
other rating a identically
process,
large
other
adaptations
surveys
15
line
really
about
the
Lambert of level, the
not
will offer
years
Especially as
hand,
in
exposure
a
TGV
of differences
When studies.
building
enhance
attitudinal
steady
investigate
than
it their this
the
of
and
“highly on
surprising
lie
take
in
the
is
exposure
learned
are
latter
the
role
conventional
conventional
different
between
are potential
being
For
state
and
for
attitude
annoyance.
the
of
percentages observed
annoyed
of hardly
ones, become
approach
several
these
a
the from
situation
that
formulated results.
percentages
the ‘steady
there
the
countries?
to
might
are
line
a emotions
related
the climate
surveys
cause
reasons, as
in
apparent: trains,
trains.
closer
seems
driving
should
Some
“highly
state’ was
can
perspective
wintertime” well.
be
and
noise to
“moderately be
driven
In differences and
consideration
accompanied
Therefore to
on
to
situation?
intriguing
such
be
The this
will the
assumed,
the annoyed”
at
be
subside?
conventional
about weighted
annoyance.
a
effect,
noise
be no
factor
as
data
by
of
coincides
given
published
uncertainty
reason
noise effects
In theoretically
the
being
questions archive
level. as
annoyed”
Many
are
and
of
most
of
by
less
noise
described
role
annoyance.
compared,
“surpris&’
trains
the From
to
are -
vehement larger
with
Thus,
than
negative
cases,
lead
soon.
no
expect
of
doing steady level,
about
force
are,
and
data
the
the
25
the
the
the
to
as
it in
3 PG
TNO
*
* With * road have * might HST’s, Apart TGV-Atlantique (HSL-S:
96.071
rapport
traffic
regard
such
be
from
which
possibility differ because between conventional sources.
Have responsible approximately opinion Does The The systematic and respondents. Are of
valuable
192
specific
ambient
and these
to
negative
the
TGV
building
trains/24h;
can
from
climate
the
reactions
in
even
strong
Personal
of such
available
to considerations be
Japanese
cannot
the
survey
and characteristics
noise
reactions
for
the ask
compared.
trains
Might
attitudes?
more
French
have
of differences
negative
strong 15
the
Japanese
authors
HSL-E:
has
communication to
be
the
was
years
substantial
is
Shinkansen
than
French
such
this
excluded
in seldom
envisaged noise
survey change
HSL
conducted
It
attitudes
other
it
after
aircraft have
the
a colleagues might
that
168
were,
should
big
meant
data
changed
been (65,
in
relative
countries.
differences.
trains/24h)
a
the that
contributed
it
in
be reactions influence?
relative
caused
[17].
with to 75 is
in
on
demonstrated
be autumn.
surveys
reactions
so,
a
known
whether very
or
our
noted
significant
nuisance
small
over Lambert Could but
140
by
This
high
knowledge, over
quiet
will
on
to
This
that
the on
trains/24h).
that
towards
differences time?
they
does
high
the the
degree
time
be
way conventional
this areas
learned
[27].
due
aspect
the
change
other
high
have
more
not
speed
has
of
HSL
The
planned
(conventional)
to
with
of
not
decision
seem
data hand
annoyance,
never
that
remains
intensive
nuisance
in TGV-noise
causes
in
trains
TGV
demonstrated
a
on a climate
trains.
a the
low a
been
traffic
more
very
significant
making?
conventional
(also
more
uncertain,
survey noise
background
than
has
demonstrated.
imperfect
To
plausible
train
thorough
on
can
versus
the
noise
to
exposition
the our
the
We
for
noise
was
hardly
moderating
be European
though
traffic
nuisance
knowledge
Dutch
cannot
trains
expected?
other
noise
explanation
comparison
noise
habituation,
conducted
in
be
France
and
of
on
in
HSL’s
tell. noise
level.
ones) from
held
than
role
the
the
26
the
on
It a PG
TNO
REFERENCES
2
1 4 3
5
7 6
8
9
96.07]
rapport
WALKER Proceedings
PUTS
Lyon: THOMPSON measurements NIPG-TNO, alongside lONG high bruit TGV LAMBERT noise JANSSEN “Hogesnelheidstreinen”, Calculation de between EISSES Technisch en noise LAMBERT 1990. Reken- exploratoire Method Atlantic.
(Prescription
Standaard
berekende
speed
sur
Atlantic).
Rapport
levels
INRETS,
emission
BHCM,
RG.
I).
en
AR.
results
Stage
les
the
Physische
trains).
G.
Ministerie 1G.
Methods
Inter-Noise’
Geluideffecten Meetvoorschrift 1,
1. 1993.
derived
auprès riverains
for
Rekenmethoden
Vergelijking
DJ,
geluidniveaus
900055-2.
De western
at
CHAMPELOVIER
DOOL
INRETS 1: Impact
of
A
1992.
of
measuring
an the WOLDE
geluidemissieformules
Delft: Publ.nr.
noise
European
new
des
I exploratory Dienst
from
van
Rapport
second
du
and
PHH
du line).
90.
de
report
measurements
TPD-TNO,
riverains.
and TGV
VROM,
II
source tussen bruit
93.001,
T Goteborg, hogesnelheidstrein.
TU-Deift,
and
TGV-Atlantique,
uit
van -
Railverkeerslawaai,
Maastricht:
I ten.
high-speed
generation
a LEN existent
no.
en
Atlantique.
met
proposal
calculating
sur social
den.
meetresultaten
strenght
Geluidemissie
II P,
Leiden, 1987.
196,
(Noise
9209.
1991.
les
SYNTAKAN -
VERNET Acoustical
1994. Geluidniveaumetingen
een
survey
on
railway February
riverains
van
based
French
Cauberg-Huygen
railway
the
Rapportnr.
as voorstel 1993. impact
(Noise
railway
Rapport
nieuw
measured
TGV
langs among
(Noise
on
I,
rolling
hogesnelheidstreinen
Society
van
1995.
bijiage
high
du
impact
network: ANNEQUIN measurements).
on
gemeten
op
Atlantic
noise,
en
nr. de
Mauclaire
those
TPD-HAG-RPT-91-0028.
TGV-Atlantique.
people
effects
basis
speed
bestaand
TPD-HAG-RPT-940157A.
with
stock
westelijke
of
II:
on
annex
living
Sweden,
raadgevende
bronsterkten.
by
van
the
aan
Standaard-Rekenmethode
people
SYNTAKAN).
trains, high
living
going
Mauclaire,
voor
C,
metingen.
spoorwegmaterieel
noise
II:
de
along
NS
BAEZ
speed
route.
Standard 1990:361-365.
2e
living
alongside
the
de
(Noise
with -
Phase
the
implications,
TO,
generatie
TGV-Atlantique
Ingenieurs
TGV
(A
train).
and
(Noise
D.
(Formulas
line).
alongside
the
1995.
emission
Delft:
comparison
Calculation
Impact 1:
calculated
the
Atlantic,
Standard
Leiden:
enquête
Franse
levels
TNO
TGV
voor
By,
the
in:
for 27
du
of
I. PG
TNO
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 20
19
96.071
rapport
PEETERS de Ministerie FINKE RL-HR-04-01. über
interdisciplinary
HAUCK des noise). FIELDS
Great Larmbekampfung GIESLER 10501301. provisional Acoustique SNCF Tracked high (The VERNET baar
results NFS IGARASHI
and LAMBERT
Railway a Nederland. JUNG PG,
social
woonomgeving.
Schienenverkehrs.
measurement
bij:
1994. -
eine
speed
Britain.
acoustical
Z
31110.
and
RG
H-U,
Division
Transit
INRETS, JM,
and
Larmbekampfung
G.
survey.
AL,
van M,
Publ.nr.
annoyance
studies).
de, interdiziplinäre des
HJ,
(Annoyance
J,
railways.
I. Lastigkeitsunterschied
Tracked
GUSKI
WALKER
Southampton:
LAURENS
Caractérisation
CHAMPELOVIER JONG Volkshuisvesting,
OPMEER
TGV.
Comparison
System
environment
NOLLE
survey).
des
1
of
In:
109 990;27:157-65.
94.056.
(Annoyance
Paris:
environmental
R,
Transit
RG
Valeurs
scale.
Essais
preliminary
Lezing (A Avenue
Noise, ROHRMANN
by
3G.
CHJM,
IF, de,
SNCF,
difference
1991
A.
Berlin:
University, Untersuchung.
environmental I
of Reactions
System
et
KAPER
BRUYERE Acoust
en
de
of
bij
Salvador
Noordwijkerhout
;3
mesurage Gerauschemissionen
community
due
Ruimtelijke
base
8:162-6. MIEDEMA Mai
TGV’s.
(Noise Linge,
P,
de
noise).
proceedings
zwischen
Umweltbundesamt,
VERNET Noise,
in
Soc to
1988.
JP,
et
Fourth
B.
1980.
to
Allende,
the
railway
emissions lois
des
Jpn
JC. Section
TUKKER February
Betroffenheit
railway
Basic
pollutants
(Noise
Voss,
annoyance
response
ISVR
den Ordening
d’évolution
bruits
HME.
(E)
Assessment
International
I.
of
69672
1985,
noise
Annoyance
values
1992;5.
Norway,
Gerauschen
noise:
Acoustique
of
Technical
the
1985. impact
de
Hinder
IC.
in von
trains).
to
1’
niet
en
in Bron
due
einer
fifth
environnement.
the
Hinder
and 1980.
pour
a
transportation
of
Milieubeheer, living
21-24
Schienenfahrzeugen.
survey
gepubliceerd.
door
Workshop
on
to
Netherlands).
from
Cedex.
community
Report
Stadt
international
propagation
des
les
(MEP3). road
door
a
Forschungsbericht
milieuverontreiniging
June
areas)
etudes
high
Strassenverkehrs
near
city:
durch
No.
traffic
spoorweggeluid
1995:1.2.1-1.2.8.
speed on
(Characterization
railway
noise:
Leidschendam:
previsionnelles.
102. reactions
Environnement
1984. report
Tekst
Lärm:
Leiden:
laws
workshop
Railway
and
train
Rapport Japanese
verkrijg
lines
Bericht
railway
for
on
Z
noise:
along
TNO
und
80-
and
28
für the
an
in
in
on
in PG TNO
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
96.071
rapport
JONG
geurbelastingen and MIEDEMA
nr (Annoyance
MIEDEMA Haag:
proceedings JONG series MIYAHARA In: Research,
Zoetermeer.( DONGEN Report 1995: FIELDS environmental
October JONG traffic
15-17,
GA-HR-08-04.
local Noise
Disturbance
61-8.
Ministry
RG RG
noise?
nr
1990:303-308. RG
air JM.
D50.
1988:155. as
de,
JEF
de,
de, due HME.
HME, pollution
15th
Habituation a
A
J
K.
MIEDEMA
noise.
en
public
Sound
MIEDEMA of quantitative MIEDEMA
to
van,
An
International
no
lokale
Response
tramway Housing,
BERG
investigation
1. in
In:
BERG
Vibr health
the
to
luchtverontreinigng
Proceedings
R
HME.
Netherlands). 1996;193(1):35-38.
summary
the
and HME.
Physical
HME,
functions
problem;
van R
Congress
new
road
van
Comparing
of
den.
Is
HENDRIKS
railway
of secular
traffic
freight den. Planning
Noise-Con
vol. for
Hinder non-acoustical
on
Leiden:
environmental
De
1.
Acoustics, noise).
line
change in
traffic
results
Stockholm,
and
gewenning
door Nederland.
at
TNO-PG,
H,
90,
Zoetermeer). Den
noise the
of
of
BOOM geluid
The
variables’
Trondheim,
community
social
Environment,
Haag:
noise
more Swedish
University
(Noise- aan 1996.
van
A,
response
Ministerie
in
annoying
de
Delft:
effects
PubI.nr.
tram-
VOS
residential
response Council
Norway,
and
nieuwe
1993.
of
IMG-TNO,
to
on
odour en
H.
VROM,
96.011.
Texas,
than
aircraft
reactions
wegverkeer.
for
Geluid-
spoorlijn
surveys,
26-30 Publication
areas.
exposure
passenger
Building
Austin,
noise. 1985.
1980.
June
Den
to
29
en
in:
to