Appendix I: Comparison of airborne noise levels for rail operations - national and international
Criteria are generally set for new or planned developments but may also be applied to existing operations (as in Switzerland) as well as to guide when action is required to reduce noise levels (e.g. the alarm/priority criteria used in Queensland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, UK, Switzerland and Canada). The criteria for existing operations are typically set at 5 decibels above those for new or planned developments. Where alarm/priority criteria are set, these are 5–10 decibels above the criteria for existing operations; where criteria have not been set for existing situations, the alarm/priority criteria are 5–10 decibels above those set for new or planned developments.
Alarm/priority criteria shown in the table below are typically the legislated noise levels that require ameliorative action by government agencies, such as noise barriers or building treatments.
The levels used overseas are mostly legislated levels, whereas NSW noise trigger levels are non-mandatory targets that can be used to initiate an assessment of noise impacts and consideration of feasible and reasonable mitigation measures.
Comparison of airborne noise criteria worldwide
Country | Existing | New rail line | Alarm/priority |
|
Australia | ||||
New South Wales (Proposed trigger) | 65 LAeqday) | 60 LAeq(day) | na | Pollution reduction programs required where goals are not met |
Victoria | 60 LAeq(24h) | 55 LAeq(24h) | na | No specified criteria. Criteria stated here were formulated specifically for the proposed Melbourne Airport rail link. No plans to make these the general criteria for rail. |
South Australia | 60 LAeq(24h) | 55 LAeq(24h) | na | Use current NSW criteria as interim criteria |
Tasmania | 60 LAeq(24 h) | 55 LAeq(24h) | na | Use current NSW criteria |
Queensland | na | 65 LAeq(24h) | 70 LAeq(24h) | Code of Practice developed by industry to demonstrate compliance with general environmental duty under Environment Protection Act 1994. The Code supports additional access charges for services exceeding noise criteria. |
European countries1 (façade limits) | ||||
Austria | na | 65–70 LAeq(day) | na | Includes 5-dB bonus |
Denmark | na | 63 LAeq(24h) | 68 LAeq(24h) – insulation trigger | Includes 5-dB bonus. At |
Finland | na | 58 LAeq(day) | na |
|
France | na | 63 (60) LAeq(day) | na | 0- or 3-dB bonus; bracketed values are for TGV lines |
Germany | Planning values for new dwellings: | 67 LAeq(day) | na | Includes 5-dB bonus |
The Netherlands | na | 63 LAeq(day) | 68 LAeq (at this level State is responsible for correcting noise problem) | Includes 5-dB bonus |
Norway | na | 55–60 LAeq(24h) | Pay out at LAeq(24h) > 65 or LAmax > 90 |
|
Sweden | na | 58 LAeq(24h) | na |
|
Switzerland | 65 LAeq(day) | 60 LAeq(day) | 75 LAeq(day) | Levels presented for residential area category only. For very sensitive subtract 5 dB, for commercial and industrial add 5 and 10 dB, respectively. Railway bonus 5 to 15 dB depending on number of trains: the higher the number the lower the bonus. The levels quoted include a 5-dB bonus. |
United Kingdom | na | na | 68 LAeq(day) | Includes 2- to 3-dB bonus; criteria used to determine insulation requirements |
North America | ||||
Canada2 | na | 35 LAeq(night) (bedroom) | na |
|
United States3 | na | 52–65 LAeq(1h) (serenity) | na | Depends on existing noise levels. Criteria stated vary, as corresponding existing noise levels vary from 43–63 dB(A). Criteria represent onset of impact and also are cumulative levels (i.e. existing plus new). |
Asia | ||||
Hong Kong4 | na | 60 LAeq(30 min) (day and evening) | na | Values given for residential areas not affected by other noise sources. For increasingly affected areas add 5 and 10 dB to the LAeq criteria. |
Japan5 | na | 70 LApeak (residential) | na | For the Shinkansen Superexpress railway. Measured as the energy mean of the highest 10 out of 20 successive train measurements between 6 am and midnight (with meter set to slow response). |
1 UK DOT 1991; Lambert and Vallet 1994; Gottlob 1995; Ljunggren 1996; Oertli and Wassmer 1996; Hubner 1997
2 Ministry of the Environment and Energy 1997
3 FTA 2006
4 Environment Protection Department Hong Kong
5 Ministry of the Environment 1993