Journal of Sound and Vibration (1996) 193(1), 2128

ANNOYANCE FROM HIGH SPEED TRAIN NOISE:

A SOCIAL SURVEY
J. L, P. C I. V
INRETS-LEN, Case 24, 69675 Bron Cedex, France

(Received in final form 20 November 1995)

A social survey was carried out in 1993 to assess the impact of noise experienced by
residents living in the vicinity of the new TGV Atlantique line, along which noise protection
(e.g., barriers, earth berms, . . ) was provided to comply with the noise guideline (daytime
(8 a.m.8 p.m.) Leq Q 65 dB(A)). Two hundred and sixty residents were interviewed by a
questionnaire; full 24 hour noise measurements were taken at each site in addition to 1 hour
measurements. Analysis of noise annoyance levels and noise exposure levels suggests that
the noise guideline should also cover evening and morning periods. Whilst LAeq seems to
be a relevant noise annoyance descriptor for the daytime period, the number of noise events
or the length of time over 70 dB(A) seems to be more appropriate for the evening. In any
case, these findings will have to be considered in the context of practical requirements
(indices have to be easy to predict, acceptable to the public, etc.).
7 1996 Academic Press Limited

1. INTRODUCTION
In France, the law governing environmental impact studies (EIS) for new transport
infrastructures makes the protection of those homes most exposed to noise obligatory.
In the field of rail transportation the first application of this law in 19891990 concerned
the new TGV Atlantique line, which runs from Paris to the west and south-west of
France.
The aim of the social survey carried out in 1993 [1] was to assess the impact of noise
experienced by residents living in the vicinity of this new TGV Atlantique line, along which
noise protection (barriers, earth berms) was provided to ensure compliance with the noise
guideline (daytime (8 a.m.8 p.m.) Leq Q 65 dB(A)). The study was designed to address
the following questions: Does this guideline limit noise to an acceptable or satisfactory
level? Is Leq a good descriptor for high speed train noise annoyance? Should the guideline
be modified or improved?

2. METHODS
Two hundred and sixty interviews with people living close to the TGV Atlantique line
were carried out in 25 rural area sites 34 years after the opening of the new line.
Depending on the site, traffic varied between 65 and 140 trains per 24 hour period
(mainly between 6.30 a.m. and 10.30 p.m.) travelling at a maximum speed of 300 kph.
Three major topics were discussed in the interviews: attitudes to the new railway line
and fears concerning the opening of the line; perception of the noise generated by the
TGV, overall annoyance, activities disturbed (TV, conversation, sleep, . . .), behavioural
patterns (closing windows, soundproofing facades, the need for medication, decisions to
21
0022460X/96/210021 + 08 $18.00/0 7 1996 Academic Press Limited
 22

T 1
Results from measuring noise levels over a 24 hour period (135 TGV per day, distance from the track 30 m, noise barrier)
Number of TGV noise events Percentage of total time
Leq from ZXXXXXXCXXXXXXV ZXXXXXXCXXXXXXV
Time of day Total Leq TGV Leq other sources q70 dB(A) q80 dB(A) q70 dB(A) q80 dB(A)
6 a.m.8 a.m. 550 546 444 14 0 083 0
8 a.m.8 p.m. 573 569 467 96 15 12 004
. .

8 p.m.10 p.m. 558 555 440 13 1 091 0014

10 p.m.6 a.m. 465 455 396 4 0 007 0
24 hours 553 549 448 127 16 077 002
 23
T 2
Exposure of the residents interviewed (%) (LAeq at the facade)
LAeq
ZXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXCXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXV
Period E40 4045 4550 5055 5560 6065 6570
6 a.m.8 a.m. 185 298 216 201 81 15 04
8 a.m.8 p.m. 104 197 305 290 81 19 04
8 p.m.10 p.m. 135 220 266 259 89 27 04
10 p.m.6 a.m. 348 344 220 73 15
24 hours 150 302 266 224 43 15

move, etc.) and the acceptance of the noise 34 years after the opening of the new line;
noise protection measureslevel of satisfaction, opinions on effectiveness, appearance and
visual intrusion.
At each survey site a 24 hour noise measurement and additional 1 hour measurements
were taken at the most exposed facades of dwellings (see the example of the results in
Table 1). Based on these long and short duration measurements and extrapolations
implemented by comparison and calculation, it was possible to assess the noise exposure
of the total population interviewed during five periods (6 a.m.8 a.m., 8 a.m.8 p.m.,
8 p.m.10 p.m., 10 p.m.6 a.m. and 24 hours) in terms of TGV LAeq and LAeq before and
after the opening of the new line (and the changes in the Leq ), the number of TGV noise
events exceeding 70 and 80 dB(A), and the percentage of time noise levels exceed 70 and
80 dB(A), Lmax .

3. RESULTS OF THE SURVEY

3.1.
In the absence of a prevailing wind, and taking into account the current volume of
traffic, daytime TGV traffic noise levels measured were all below the 65 dB(A) limit
(see Table 2). Thus, the noise guideline seems to have been applied satisfactorily in the
areas surrounding the new railway line. This result is due primarily to the choice of the
route for the railway line (crossing low density population areas) and, secondly, to
the implementation of noise protection measures (noise barrier, track in cutting and earth
berm) in the vicinity of the most exposed dwellings. Noise exposure levels early in the
morning (6 a.m.8 a.m.) and in the evening (8 p.m.10 p.m.) are very similar to daytime
noise exposure levels (8 a.m.8 p.m.). This can be explained by the constant average

Figure 1. Changes in the noise exposure (DLAeq ) after the opening of the new TGV line. q, 8 a.m.8 p.m.;
Q, 8 p.m.10 p.m.; q
, 6 a.m.8 a.m.
24 . .
T 3
Exposure of the residents interviewed (%) (number of hourly noise events q70 dB(A))
NNE
ZXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXCXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXV
Period 0 01 12 23 34 45 56 67 78 89
6 a.m.8 a.m. 494 162 81 97 58 39 23 31 15
8 a.m.8 p.m. 448 154 89 50 100 54 23 12 35 35
8 p.m.10 p.m. 494 139 93 65 35 77 39 23 27 08
10 p.m.6 a.m. 610 390
24 hours 448 201 108 104 58 31 50

hourly volume of traffic during these three periods. Night-time noise exposure levels
(10 p.m.6 a.m.) are low: less than 45 dB(A) for 70% of people interviewed. However, a
prevailing west wind (speed e5 m/s) during more than 20% of the time contributes to the
deterioration of this situation. Significant variations in excess of 10 dB(A) (and even
15 dB(A)) in noise exposure were recorded after the new line opened, particularly early
in the morning (224% of the residents) and in the evening (294%) (see Figure 1).
Variations of Leq in the range of 35 dB(A) are considered as slight, without significant
effects on people, and 610 dB(A) is moderate; however, variations of more than 10 and
mainly 15 dB(A) are substantial to severe [2]. Noise exposure of the residents has also been
assessed from the number of TGV noise events exceeding 70 dB(A) (see Table 3).

3.2.
Noise from the TGV is most often described by residents as a whistling (33%) or a
thundering (28%) and is sometimes compared to aircraft noise (15%). The surprise
effect concerns very few people (27%). In Figure 2 is shown the overall impression of
the TGV noise using semantic differential (adjectival scales) according to the evening noise
exposure (LAeq ). TGV noise is perceived as intermittent, not surprising, brief, progressive,
muffled, strong but impulsive, loud and metallic, particularly for people most exposed to
noise (and living close to the track).

Figure 2. An impression of TGV noise vs. evening LAeq . LAeq values: w, Q40; W, 4045; q 4550; Q,
5055; r, e55.
 25

Figure 3. The percentage of residents highly annoyed. Q, 24 h (summer); q, 6 a.m.8 a.m.; W,

8 p.m.10 p.m.

3.3.
The volume of traffic (39%), the vibration (344%) and the intensity of the noise (267%)
are the three main factors that are considered most annoying. These factors are all the
more annoying when residents are exposed to high noise levels. About 62% of the residents
are neither highly nor quite annoyed whatever the period (morning, day, evening or night).
Conversely, 12% are highly or quite annoyed during each of these four periods.
Noise is a daily annoyance particularly in the morning (85% highly annoyed) and in
the evening (93% highly annoyed). Annoyance peaks at weekends and during the summer
(174% highly annoyed compared to 5% during winter) (see Figure 3).
Residents whose bedrooms or dining rooms are directly exposed to TGV noise are more
annoyed than those with such rooms situated on the less exposed facades.

3.4.
The major disturbances noted are when listening to the TV or radio (34%), phoning
(30%) and conversing indoors (26%) when windows are open (see Figure 4). However,
46% of the residents are never disturbed, whatever the activity considered, despite the
windows being open.

3.5.
Alternative behavioural responses to noise exposure have been identified in the survey:
closing windows (35% of the residents), changing the use of the rooms (4%), insulating
the most exposed facades (11%), or intending to move (6.6%). Figure 5 shows that noise

Figure 4. The percentage of residents disturbed by TGV noise during certain activities (o = window open;
c = window closed). Q, Conversation (c); q, conversation (o); W, TV/radio (c); w, TV/radio (o);
R, telephone (c); r, telephone (o).
26 . .

Figure 5. Patterns of behaviours (at least one of the alternative behavioural responses: change in the use of
rooms, insulation, intention to move).

exposure levels (particularly for LAeq e 55 dB) have a significant effect on these types of
behavioural responses.

3.6.
Now that the line has been operating for 34 years, a large part of the population
(83%) is becoming used to the noise (75% of the sample within 1 year); however, this
phenomenon is observed mostly in people exposed to noise levels that are considerably
below the permissible noise level of 65 dB(A). Those who have not yet become used
to the noise are mostly those exposed to daytime noise levels exceeding 55 dB(A) (see
Figure 6).

3.7.
Correlations between annoyance indicators (global, activities disturbed and
behavioural) and noise exposure indices are quite low (r = 036 at best). However, the
statistical analysis highlights some interesting results as follows.
The correlation between annoyance indicators and noise indices for each period
(morningdayeveningnight) is higher than for the 24 hour period.
If LAeq is the most effective index for minimizing the likelihood of underestimating noise
annoyance, it rarely provides the highest correlations with annoyance indicators, except
for the daytime period.
In the early morning and in the evening, the number of noise events (or their
total duration) exceeding 70 dB(A) seems to be a more relevant noise index than LAeq ,
although this applies primarily to activity disturbance.

Figure 6. The rate and average time taken to become used to noise. Q, Not yet habituated to noise;
q, habituated to noise.
 27

Figure 7. Noise annoyance versus satisfaction with noise protection measures. Q, Highly annoyed; *, quite
annoyed; ;, a little annoyed; q, not at all annoyed.

The relationship between levels of annoyance and noise levels seems to depend on
parameters other than noise itself. These include opinions about the TGV as a new
transport mode (which 30% of the sample state to be very positive, and 16% very
negative), the attitude of residents to the new railway line itself (66% were unfavourably
disposed) and the satisfaction of the residents with noise protection measures.

3.8.
About two thirds of the residents protected are satisfied with noise protection measures.
Reasons for dissatisfaction concern mainly the degree of the protection provided (low level
of effectiveness), its appearance and its maintenance. Consequently, people dissatisfied
with the protection are also more annoyed (see Figure 7).

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The enforcement of a noise exposure limit of 65 dB(A) (daytime Leq ) and consequent
protection measures along the new TGV line have generally limited noise to
acceptable levels for most of the residents. However, the community response to such noise
suggests that noise exposure limits should also cover evening and morning periods for
a greater effectiveness. This might be accomplished either by extending the day period
from the present 8 a.m.8 p.m., to, for example, 6 a.m.10 p.m. and by lowering the limit
to LAeq Q 60 dB as a planning limit for new high speed railway lines, or by introducing
a specific noise index for these two periods: LAeq (possibly coupled with a Lmax limit), or
the number (or duration) of noise events exceeding 70 dB(A).
Whatever the chosen option, these proposals will have to meet certain practical
requirements: indices have to be easy to predict, well understood and acceptable to the
public. Noise protection measures enabling compliance with noise exposure limits
should also improve their appearance; the visual intrusion effect should be reduced. Two
main problems must be considered urgently: the need for a night-time noise index and
the need to assess multi-exposure situations (mixed rail traffic or highway/high speed rail
traffic).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the French
Ministry of the Environment (Noise Office).
28 . .
REFERENCES
1. J. L, P. C, I. V, C. A D. B 1995 INRETS Report no.
196, prepared for the Ministry of the Environment. Impact du bruit sur les riverains du TGV
Atlantique.
2. P. R. W, R. A. H K. M. C 1991 Proceedings of Inter-Noise 91, Sydney,
Australia, 24 December 1991. The assessment of noise from new railways.