scispace - formally typeset

Journal ArticleDOI

A review of transport noise indicators

21 Aug 2012-Transport Reviews (Taylor & Francis)-Vol. 32, Iss: 5, pp 599-628

Abstract: The different approaches to noise impact assessment adopted by the individual countries and the scientific community have led to the development of a certain number of indicators, mainly focused on specific transport modes. However, in practice, technicians and decision-makers alike may fail to identify the most appropriate indicators, if they have no specific expertise on environmental noise. This paper presents a review of the main transport noise indicators, both the general acoustic ones and those used for specific transport modes. A critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of these indicators is provided, as well as a section discussing the framework in which they work, and suggestions for their best use, aimed at assisting decision-makers to ascertain their role in the evaluation process of the transport systems. To this extent, a classification is proposed, supplemented by the DPSIR (driving forces, pressures, states, impacts, responses) approach, in an effort to assess the cause–effect re...
Topics: Environmental noise (56%), DPSIR (52%)

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

09 August 2022
POLITECNICO DI TORINO
Repository ISTITUZIONALE
A review of transport noise indicators / Pronello, Cristina; Camusso, Cristian. - In: TRANSPORT REVIEWS. - ISSN
0144-1647. - STAMPA. - 32:5(2012), pp. 599-628. [10.1080/01441647.2012.706332]
Original
A review of transport noise indicators
Publisher:
Published
DOI:10.1080/01441647.2012.706332
Terms of use:
openAccess
Publisher copyright
(Article begins on next page)
This article is made available under terms and conditions as specified in the corresponding bibliographic description in
the repository
Availability:
This version is available at: 11583/2500341 since:
Taylor & Francis

Please cited this article as:
Pronello, C., Camusso, C, (2012): A review of transport noise indicators. Transport Reviews: A
Transnational Transdicsiplinary Journal, volume 32, issue 5, pp. 599-628.
A review of transport noise indicators
Cristina Pronello*(a,b)
(a) Politecnico di Torino.
Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning
Viale Mattioli, 39
10125 Torino – ITALY
Phone: +39 011 5645613
Fax: +39 011 5645699
E-mail: cristina.pronello@polito.it
(b) Université Lumiere Lyon2, Laboratoire d’Economie des Transports
14, Avenue Berthelot, 69007 Lyon – FRANCE
Phone: +33 4 72726440
Fax: +33 4 72726448
E-mail:; cristina.pronello@let.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr
Cristian Camusso(c)
(c) Politecnico di Torino.
Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning
Viale Mattioli, 39
10125 Torino – ITALY
Phone: +39 011 5645640
Fax: +39 011 5645699
E-mail: cristian.camusso@polito.it
* Corresponding author: Cristina Pronello
Abstract
The different approaches to noise impact assessment adopted by the individual countries and the scientific
community have led to the development of a certain amount of indicators, mainly focused on specific
transport modes. However, in practice, technicians and decision- makers alike may fail to identify the most
appropriate indicators, if they have not a specific expertise on environmental noise.
The paper presents a review of the main transport noise indicators, both the general acoustic ones and
those used for specific transport modes. A critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of those
indicators is provided, as well as a section discussing the framework in which they work, and suggestions
for their best use, aimed at assisting decision-makers to ascertain their role in the evaluation process of the
transport systems. To this extent a classification is proposed supplemented by the DPSIR approach (Driving
forces, Pressures, States, Impacts, Responses), in an effort to assess the cause-effect relationship between
society and the environment. Decision-makers will also gain insight in prioritising the use of existing
indicators in accordance to their own needs, as well as advice into the joint use of socio-economic variables
to fully support their decisions.
Keywords
Noise indicators, transport, sustainability, SEA

1. Introduction
Noise pollution from transport activities is an endemic problem in modern societies and has become a
critical issue in the assessment of transport system sustainability.
Noise induces social and behavioural effects, notably annoyance and sleep disturbance; from a medical
point of view, the effects of noise on human health are also well known: hearing impairment, speech
intelligibility, physiological dis-functions, mental illness, performance reduction, cardiovascular diseases
(WHO, 1999; WHO, 2011). Many of these effects are assumed to result from the interaction of a number of
auditory and non-auditory variables.
The need to safeguard the quality of life and health of the population calls for more efforts for transport
noise abatement as regards to the increasing demand of mobility. To reconcile these conflicting needs, the
EU 6th Action Programme “Environment 2010: Our Future, Our Choice” has set up the target to reduce the
number of people regularly affected by long-term high levels of noise from an estimated 100 million people
in the year 2000 to around 10% reduction in the year 2010 and in the order of 20% by 2020. The difficulty
to attain those targets is that 80% of people live in the urban areas, where transport infrastructures
represent the most important source of noise. In fact, today 115 million people are exposed to noise levels
Lden higher than 55 dB(A), and, at night time, 80 million people are exposed to Lnight higher than 50 dB(A)
(EEA, 2011). All over the world, a total of 2 billion citizens are subject to road traffic Lden of over 55 dB (De
Vos and Van Beek, 2011).
The social costs of rail and road noise in Europe was recently estimated to €40 billion a year (90% related to
passenger cars and goods vehicles) (EC, 2011a). The noise costs, including health care, represent about
0.4% of total EU GDP (den Boer and Schroten, 2007) and, according to the Commission (EC, 2011a; SEC,
2011a,b), the noise-related external costs of transport would increase to roughly 20 billion by 2050
(+40%).
Thence, lawmakers are paying growing attention to adopt reliable and homogeneous instruments for
monitoring and evaluating transport noise emissions. In some cases, the national norms establish rules to
preserve the sound quality of specific areas (e.g. parks, hospitals, schools, etc.) and to reduce people noise
exposure, recommending the adoption of noise indicators and setting the thresholds to be complied with.
In Europe, the need to define guidelines to set common noise legislation led to the Environmental Noise
Directive 2002/49/EC, also known as the “END”. This Directive urges the monitoring of the main European
cities and the biggest transport infrastructures, assessing the number of exposed people and mapping
sound levels, using specific noise indicators.
The study of transport noise emissions kicked off in the 50’s in the United States to tackle the significant
problem of the aircraft emissions (Kryter, 1959), and continued over the years with the research of good
dose-response relationships (FICON, 1992; Miedema and Vos, 1998; Miedema and Oudshoorn, 2001; Fidell,
2003).
Various noise indicators have been proposed for different objectives, but, in practice, technicians and
decision-makers alike may fail to identify the most appropriate ones if they lack a specific expertise on
environmental noise.
This paper reviews the main transport noise indicators, proposing a classification of those according to their
nature, to the transport mode to which they are related, and to their field of application. After the review
of the general and mode-related noise indicators, a section is devoted to critically analyse their strengths
and weaknesses. Finally, the framework in which those have to work is discussed, suggesting their best use.
The ultimate goal is to assist decision-makers to distinguish the role of the different indicators in the
evaluation process of the transport systems. However, what it is more significant is to highlight what is
missing today and to propose an operational approach to properly evaluate the impacts of the transport
systems on the exposed population.
2. General acoustic indicators
The general acoustic indicators describe noise emissions in terms of the physical characteristics of the
sound pressure. They represent the physical-mathematical basis on which all the other noise indicators
were developed and are the simplest tools for acoustic noise analysis. Their use in the assessment of
transport noise pollution revealed them inadequate or even useless to describe the phenomenon, for
example when assessing long-term noise impacts. In addition, their relationship with people annoyance has

indeed been challenged. These indicators include the Equivalent Level, the Maximum and Minimum Level,
the Statistical Levels, and the Sound Exposure Level. They were defined in the standard ISO 1990/1-2003.
The best known energy noise indicator is the “Equivalent Level” Leq, used to describe sound fluctuation
over time. It represents the average noise level varying its pressure level during a period T of observation,
expressed in dB(A).
The Maximum and Minimum sound Level, Lmax and Lmin, are, respectively, the highest and the lowest
time-weighted sound level measured expressed in dB(A). These indicators depend on typology and location
of the source. They are generally used to describe the source in terms of acoustic power.
The statistical noise levels Lxx represent the pressure level exceeded the “xx”% of the recording time,
measured in dB(A). The statistical levels usually considered are L5, L10, L50, L90, L95. L90 and L95 are
typically used to describe the “background noise”. Some of those levels are used to calculate other
indicators or in traffic noise models. Well established examples are the models: CSTB (CSTB, 1991), Griffith
and Langdon (Schultz, 1972), Burgess (Burges, 1977), and C.R.T.N. (Department of Transport and the Welsh
Office, 1998).
The “sound exposure level SEL” (or LAEor LAXor SENEL”) is used to describe a single noise event in a
particular context (e.g. a passage of a train or of a single vehicle in an empty street). The evaluation of the
indicator on a base time period of one second (t0) allows to compare SEL values coming from different
sources, where t2 – t1 is the interval of the event where the noise level LA(t) > LAmax -10:
( )
==
2
1
2
0
2
0
1
10
t
t
A
AE
dt
p
tp
t
logLSEL
In Italy, this indicator is typically used for railway noise evaluation (D.M., 1998). During an observation time
period (TR) the measure of the SEL of each event allows calculating the corresponding Leq generated by the
source.
In aircraft noise it is common to speak about SENEL for the evaluation of single airplane operations (take-
off and landing). The formulation of SENEL (EPA, 1971) is the same as SEL, but it is generally preferred for
the definition of the integration time (t2-t1) (California Department of Aeronautics, 1971).
3. Road traffic noise indicators
Road traffic is the main responsible for noise in urban areas and is characterized by fluctuations of the
traffic flow during the day, due to the evolution of its kinematic
characteristics, notably speed, acceleration, deceleration. For this reason, road traffic is treated like a
pseudo-casual source, where the energy characteristics of the noise are very important. These noise
indicators are recorded over a long time period to describe the average condition at source, the most
important of those being: the traffic noise index TNI”, the noise pollution level NPL”, the CRTN Indicator
L10,18h”.
The “traffic noise index TNI” was proposed by Griffiths and Langdon in the 1968 (Schultz, 1972). The index
was developed in the UK using statistical noise levels Lxx:
304
909010
+= L)LL(TNI
or
eq
L)LL(TNI +=
9010
4
The indicator takes into account the difference between the noisiest events (L10) and the background noise
(L90); however changes of the base-line sound are weighted with a similar emphasis as those in the noise
peaks (Graf et al., 1980). This is the reason why the indicator is not widely used, since it becomes
representative only when the traffic is flowing, risking to be misinterpreted in a different situation. In fact,
in some cases, when the traffic flow increases, the TNI decreases (Berglund and Lindvall, 1995).
Furthermore, when the difference between the L10 and L90 declines, the attenuation loss over distance
can change significantly (Schultz, 1972).
The “noise pollution level NPL” was developed by Robinson in the late 60´s (Schultz, 1972). The NPL
formulation sums k*σ (constant k = 2.56 and standard deviation) to Leq:
σ+= kLL
eqNP

When the distribution of the instantaneous A-weighted sound level is Gaussian, the noise pollution level
could be expressed in function of some statistical noise levels:
(
)
9010
LLLL
eqNP
+=
and
( )
(
)
60
2
9010
901050
LL
LLLL
NP
++=
Like the TNI, the NPL is made up by two terms: the first one is the “average” noise level, or “energy mean”;
the second represents the fluctuation of that level during the emission time.
Moreover, in the first formulation, the parameter σ is influenced by the background noise: for a lower
background noise, the fluctuation and the variability of the events are higher.
The above indicator has not been widely used because of the difficulty to define the parameter σ correctly.
Some examples of its application are presented in Rice (1975) and Langdon (1976, part I and II).
The “CRTN Indicator L10,18h” is the most common indicator of traffic noise used in the UK and in Ireland,
named LA10,18h. It comes from the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) prediction method, and it was
first introduced in the 70’s (Abbott and Nelson, 2002).
This indicator is the arithmetic average of eighteen LA10,1h values (i.e. the noise level exceeded for 10 % of
the hourly period) from 06:00 to midnight:
=
=
23
6
101810
18
1
t
t,Ah,A
LL
It does not take into account the noise emission in the night period. When traffic flow is low, the variation
of the LA10,1h depends on the individual passing vehicle and not on the global traffic parameters. In some
cases the indicator shows a high correlation with other statistical indexes and with Leq (Langdon and
Griffiths, 1982).
The indicator is used in the UK in the context of National Insulation Regulations; in that case the value of
noise contains a correction factor of +2.5 dB for the reflection from façades (O’Malley et al., 2009). In
accordance with the END, it is possible to transform the CRTN indicator into Lden (Abbott and Nelson,
2002).
4. Railway noise indicators
There are few examples of “noise indicators” specific for rail transport in the state-of-the-art literature. This
may be due to the fact that, historically, railway infrastructure has been perceived as less intrusive than
roads and airports, representing a lower risk and a lower impact on the population.
From an acoustic point of view, railway noise is easier to study: the sound events are better defined and
identifiable, the kinematic characteristics of the traffic being less variable than those of road traffic. Of
course, the individual emissions from each moving train are energetically higher than those from road
vehicles; this issue is acknowledged, in some national legislation, where noise limits are set higher than
those adopted for road traffic.
The best known indicators are the “transit exposure level TEL” and the railway rating levels Lr”. The TEL is
used to describe the noise emitted by railway traffic taking into account the “train pass-by” duration (Tp)
expressed in seconds (train length divided by the train speed). Its formulation is given by the EN ISO
3095:2005 (EN ISO, 2005):
( )
=
T
A
p
dt
p
tp
T
logTEL
0
2
0
2
1
10

Citations
More filters

01 Jan 2002-
Abstract: Mit der Veroeffentlichung im Amtsblatt der Europaeischen Gemeinschaften ist die "Richtlinie des Europaeischen Parlaments und des Rates ueber die Bewertung und die Bekaempfung von Umgebungslaerm" in Kraft getreten. Die Europaeische Gemeinschaft hat damit erstmalig eine rechtliche Regelung hinsichtlich der Geraeuschimmissionen in der Umwelt erlassen. Die Richtlinie soll ein gemeinsames Konzept festlegen, um schaedliche Auswirkungen, einschliesslich Belaestigung, durch Umgebungslaerm zu verhindern, ihnen vorzubeugen oder sie zu mindern. Sie soll weiterhin eine Grundlage fuer die Einfuehrung von Gemeinschaftsmassnahmen zur Laermminderung bei den wichtigsten Laermquellen darstellen. Die Anforderungen der Richtlinie werden vorgestellt und erklaert, und es werden erste Ansaetze fuer ein Umsetzungskonzept dargestellt. (A) ABSTRACT IN ENGLISH: The "Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise" has been published in the Official Journal of the European Communities and thus entered into force. The aim of this Directive shall be to define a common approach intended to avoid, prevent or reduce the harmful effects, including annoyance, due to exposure to environmental noise. It shall also aim at providing a basis for developing Community measures to reduce noise emitted by the major sources. The requirements of the Directive are presented and discussed and first ideas concerning the transposition in national legislation are given. (A)

113 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Abstract: The Network Design Problem (NDP) is a strategical decision-making problem in planning, designing, and managing road networks with the aim to make efficient use of limited resources for optimizing the road network performance. Sustainability development is a major concern of various social-economic systems throughout the world. As a critical component of sustainable development, transportation systems should be designed to make positive contributions to the economic, environmental, and social sustainability of the served regions and communities. This requirement significantly uplifts the challenges on the modeling and the analysis of NDP. In this paper, we provide a review on the sustainable road NDP. Specifically, an overview on the three dimensions of sustainable development (i.e., economic, environmental, and social) is first provided, focusing on their representative performance measures relevant to road NDP. Then, we review the existing studies with the classification system of economy and environmentoriented sustainable NDP, economy and equity-oriented sustainable NDP, and three-dimensional sustainable NDP. Future research directions are suggested for advancing the methodological advancement and practical applications of sustainable transportation NDP.

35 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Cristian Camusso1, Cristina Pronello1Institutions (1)
Abstract: The paper intends to analyse the different attitudes of residents in urban areas in regard to annoyance induced by traffic noise, account taken of the effects of the street configuration and of the presence of specific public transport modes in the definition of the dose-response curves. People’s annoyance was investigated through a campaign of noise and traffic measurements and an epidemiological survey, administered to a sample of 830 residents in the buildings close to the measurement points. An ordinal regression model taking into account environmental and urban characteristics was used to identify a dose-response relationship. The cumulative probabilities allowed to define two cut points on the dose-response curves (60 and 75 dB(A)), grouping people in three classes and making the representation of the dose-response relationships different from those traditionally defined that use only the percentage of highly annoyed people. The results show different people’s attitudes towards the annoyance in the urban sites while the dose-response relationship shows that the correlation between annoyance and noise is low. For the same value of day equivalent level, 10% more people are annoyed in L sections (broad streets) than in U sections (narrow streets). Furthermore, all the dose-response curves show a higher sensitivity of people living in L sections; this difference can be measured as a shift of about 4 dB(A). Noise levels are, arguably, a useful indicator, but they are not reliable enough to define the discomfort of the residents, while the site characteristics could shed light on annoyance variability.

28 citations


Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 2019-
Abstract: In this chapter, we recommend that the development of equity indicators should account for three components: (i) the benefits and burdens of interest, (ii) the population groups over which they are distributed; and (iii) a clear conception of what a “morally proper distribution” of benefit or burden should be. We present a simple framework of how to move from a general conceptualization of a benefit or burden to a more precise definition of suitable individual variables that can be subjected to an equity analysis. The assessment of equity also hinges on the identification of different population groups, along multiple dimensions that can represent advantage or disadvantage: income, gender, age, ethnicity, ability, and residential location. We end the chapter with an overview of the linchpin of an equity indicator: an explicit normative standard specifying what is desirable and what is not. Taken together, these three components are the ingredients of the equity indicators presented in the remaining chapters of this book.

17 citations


Proceedings Article
Zhenliang Ma1, Luis Ferreira1, Mahmoud Mesbah1Institutions (1)
01 Jan 2013-
Abstract: Reliability of transit service has been recognized as a significant determinant of quality of service. Numerous indicators have been proposed by individual operational organizations and the research community dependent on specific objectives and resource constraints. Buffer time based indicators are highly desirable since they enable evaluation of the reliability impacts on passengers from an operational approach. However, buffer time indicators can underestimate passengers perceived reliability performance and hide the sources of observed changes in reliability if the buffer time is based on the total travel time distribution. Large samples of disaggregated data, benefiting from Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) system, provide great potential to measure reliability at very high levels of resolution. The paper proposes a buffer time concept based reliability measurement framework using AVL data, which can disaggregate service performance to a high level of detail. The framework working procedure is illustrated in the case of AVL data from Brisbane. Three example indicators for applications of reliability assessment (operators), journey planning (passenger) and value of time (agencies) are developed to fulfil different stakeholders’ requirements.

12 citations


References
More filters

05 Dec 2014-
Abstract: 1.2 The EESC agrees that the 2050 vision goal of a greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction of 60 % in the transport sector, although very challenging, is in line with the EU's overall climate policy aims and that it strikes a reasonable balance between the need for quick reductions of greenhouse gases and the time needed to optimise energy efficiency in a single European Transport Area and develop new and sustainable fuels and propulsion systems in order to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

1,707 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Jillian Anable1Institutions (1)
01 Jan 2005-Transport Policy
Abstract: Using an expanded version of a psychological theory of attitude-behaviour relations, namely the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), scores on factor analysed multi-dimensional attitude statements were used to segment a population of day trip travellers into potential ‘mode switchers’ using cluster analysis. Six distinct psychographic groups were extracted, each with varying degrees of mode switching potential. Each group represents a unique combination of preferences, worldviews and attitudes, indicating that different groups need to be serviced in different ways to optimise the chance of influencing mode choice behaviour. Socio-demographic factors had little bearing on the travel profiles of the segments, suggesting that attitudes largely cut across personal characteristics. The evidence clearly shows that the same behaviour can take place for different reasons and that the same attitudes can lead to different behaviours. The paper asserts that commonly used a priori classifications used to segment populations based on demographic variables or simple behavioural measures may oversimplify the structure of the market. Cluster analysis is rarely used in studies of travel behaviour but this study demonstrates its utility in providing a way of extracting naturally occurring, relatively homogenous and meaningful groups to be used in designing targeted hard and ‘soft’ transport policies.

832 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Better estimates of the confidence intervals due to the improved model of the relationship between annoyance and noise exposure are provided, which is easier to use for practical calculations than the model itself.
Abstract: We present a model of the distribution of noise annoyance with the mean varying as a function of the noise exposure. Day-night level (DNL) and day-evening-night level (DENL) were used as noise descriptors. Because the entire annoyace distribution has been modeled, any annoyance measure that summarizes this distribution can be calculated from the model. We fitted the model to data from noise annoyance studies for aircraft, road traffic, and railways separately. Polynomial approximations of relationships implied by the model for the combinations of the following exposure and annoyance measures are presented: DNL or DENL, and percentage "highly annoyed" (cutoff at 72 on a scale of 0-100), percentage "annoyed" (cutoff at 50 on a scale of 0-100), or percentage (at least) "a little annoyed" (cutoff at 28 on a scale of 0-100). These approximations are very good, and they are easier to use for practical calculations than the model itself, because the model involves a normal distribution. Our results are based on the same data set that was used earlier to establish relationships between DNL and percentage highly annoyed. In this paper we provide better estimates of the confidence intervals due to the improved model of the relationship between annoyance and noise exposure. Moreover, relationships using descriptors other than DNL and percentage highly annoyed, which are presented here, have not been established earlier on the basis of a large dataset.

710 citations


Book
01 Jan 2011-
TL;DR: Policy-makers and their advisers are provided with technical support in their quantitative risk assessment of environmental noise and can use the procedure for estimating burdens presented here to prioritize and plan environmental and public health policies.
Abstract: The health impacts of environmental noise are a growing concern. At least one million healthy life years are lost every year from traffic-related noise in the western part of Europe. This publication summarises the evidence on the relationship between environmental noise and health effects, including cardiovascular disease, cognitive impairment, sleep disturbance, tinnitus, and annoyance. For each one, the environmental burden of disease methodology, based on exposure-response relationship, exposure distribution, background prevalence of disease and disability weights of the outcome, is applied to calculate the burden of disease in terms of disability-adjusted life-years. Data are still lacking for the rest of the WHO European Region. This publication provides policy-makers and their advisers with technical support in their quantitative risk assessment of environmental noise. International, national and local authorities can use the procedure for estimating burdens presented here to prioritize and plan environmental and public health policies.

693 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Abstract: This article presents synthesis curves for the relationship between DNL and percentage highly annoyed for three transportation noise sources. The results are based on all 21 datasets examined by Schultz [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 64, 377-405 (1978)] and Fidell et al. [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 89, 221-233 (1991)] for which acceptable DNL and percentage highly annoyed measure could be derived, augmented with 34 datasets. Separate, nonidentical curves were found for aircraft, road traffic, and railway noise. A difference between sources was found using data for all studies combined and for only those studies in which respondents evaluated two sources. The latter outcome strengthens the conclusion that the differences between sources cannot be explained by differences in study methodology.

559 citations