Differences Between Railway and Road Traffic Noise

Moehler, Ulrich; Liepert, Manfred; Schuemer, Rudolf; Griefahn, Barbara

doi:10.1006/jsvi.1999.2569

Cited by 22 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Today most cost estimates are based on noise from road traffic in living environments [14,15]. The characteristics of road traffic noise are quite different from those of rail traffic noise, and several studies have showed that individuals perceive noise from road traffic as more annoying than from rail traffic [29,30]. This means that it is reasonable to expect that preferences for noise abatement differ between rail and road traffic.…”

Section: The Monetary Estimate Of Noise Abatementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Noise charges in railway infrastructure: A pricing schedule based on the marginal cost principle

Andersson

Ögren²

2007

Transport Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to mitigate the negative effects of transportation and to achieve a competitive transport sector, infrastructure charges in the European Union should be based on short-run marginal costs. This paper shows that railway-noise charges can be estimated using already obtained knowledge of monetary and acoustical noise evaluation. Most European countries have standardized calculation methods for total noise level, which can be used to estimate the marginal acoustical effect. Based on a Swedish case study (with a relatively high number of exposed individuals), railway-noise charges are estimated at 0.026, 0.099 and 0.89 e/km for commuter, high-speed and freight trains, respectively.

show abstract

Section: The Monetary Estimate Of Noise Abatementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Railway noise is believed to be less disturbing (in terms of general annoyance) than road traffic noise of the equivalent level [29,22,30]. In Sweden railway noise is considered to be 5 dB less disturbing than the measured equivalent level when comparing to noise limits [31].…”

Section: Estimation Of Railway-noise Charges For Lerummentioning

confidence: 99%

Noise charges in railway infrastructure: A pricing schedule based on the marginal cost principle

Andersson

Ögren²

2007

Transport Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Railway noise has been found to be less annoying in many European studies [7,10,11,14,15]. Proposed explanations for such differential annoyance response include differences in acoustic properties between the two sources, such as frequency characteristics and loudness [16] and regularity and predictability of noise event intervals [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…A number of studies have been undertaken to contrast road traffic and railway noises through either social surveys [7][8][9][10][11] or simulated laboratory experiments [2,3,12,13]. Railway noise has been found to be less annoying in many European studies [7,10,11,14,15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Annoyance response to mixed transportation noise in Hong Kong

Lam

Chan

et al. 2009

Applied Acoustics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Indeed, Schomer et al (2012) suggest the need to develop separate predictions for annoyance due to railway noise for railway sources that produce perceptible vibrations and for those that do not. They demonstrate that, even though railway noise is generally believed to be less annoying than road traffic noise (Miedema and Vos, 1998;Moehler, 1988;Moehler et al, 2000), when perceptible vibration is present, railway noise can actually cause more annoyance than road traffic noise.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exposure-response relationships for annoyance due to freight and passenger railway vibration exposure in residential environments

Sharp

Woodcock

Sica

et al. 2014

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this work, exposure-response relationships for annoyance due to freight and passenger railway vibration exposure in residential environments are developed, so as to better understand the differences in human response to these two sources of environmental vibration. Data for this research come from a field study comprising interviews with respondents and measurements of their vibration exposure (N ¼ 752). A logistic regression model is able to accurately classify 96% of these measured railway vibration signals as freight or passenger based on two signal properties that quantify the duration and low frequency content of each signal. Exposure-response relationships are then determined using ordinal probit modeling with fixed thresholds. The results indicate that people are able to distinguish between freight and passenger railway vibration, and that the annoyance response due to freight railway vibration is significantly higher than that due to passenger railway vibration, even for equal levels of exposure. In terms of a community tolerance level, the population studied is 15 dB (re 10 À6 m s À2 ) more tolerant to passenger railway vibration than freight railway vibration. These results have implications for the expansion of freight traffic on rail, or for policies to promote passenger railway.

show abstract

Differences Between Railway and Road Traffic Noise

Cited by 22 publications

References 3 publications

Noise charges in railway infrastructure: A pricing schedule based on the marginal cost principle

Noise charges in railway infrastructure: A pricing schedule based on the marginal cost principle

Annoyance response to mixed transportation noise in Hong Kong

Exposure-response relationships for annoyance due to freight and passenger railway vibration exposure in residential environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About