{"title":"Assessing Noise from Light Rail Vehicles Idling at Termini in NSW, Australia","authors":"Aaron Miller, Briony Croft, Jordan McMahon","doi":"10.1007/s40857-024-00328-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Light rail vehicles will often idle with their air conditioners running at terminus locations that may be located near sensitive receivers due to network constraints. This creates a pseudo-stationary noise source with similar level and characteristics to industrial air conditioners that can result in disturbance and complaints from nearby sensitive receivers. However, in practice in the state of New South Wales (NSW), Australia, this pseudo-stationary noise source is commonly assessed against airborne noise criteria for transportation noise. This is due to the Conditions of Approval on the Sydney Inner West Light Rail Extension project explicitly delineating noise produced by light rail vehicles from other sources. This interpretation has been applied on all subsequent light rail projects in NSW, which have assessed this noise source at termini against the Rail Infrastructure Noise Guideline (RING) requirements. The Noise Policy for Industry (NPfI) has been applied to other noise sources on these projects, specifically fixed equipment at stops and all noise sources at stabling facilities (including light rail vehicle air conditioning noise and traffic movements within the boundary of the facility). This paper examines the policy overlap between the RING and the NPfI that makes both documents potentially applicable to noise from light rail air conditioners when idling at termini, depending on interpretation and specific project conditions of approval. It also presents a hypothetical assessment of typical light rail activities near termini against both the RING and NPfI, to demonstrate the potential differences in project outcomes between the applications of the two documents. An example of a compromise that acknowledges the pseudo-stationary nature of the noise source as well as the benefits that public infrastructure provides relative to industrial facilities is also suggested, in lieu of a separate threshold or policy for this very specific circumstance.</p>","PeriodicalId":50909,"journal":{"name":"Acoustics Australia","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acoustics Australia","FirstCategoryId":"101","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40857-024-00328-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ACOUSTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Light rail vehicles will often idle with their air conditioners running at terminus locations that may be located near sensitive receivers due to network constraints. This creates a pseudo-stationary noise source with similar level and characteristics to industrial air conditioners that can result in disturbance and complaints from nearby sensitive receivers. However, in practice in the state of New South Wales (NSW), Australia, this pseudo-stationary noise source is commonly assessed against airborne noise criteria for transportation noise. This is due to the Conditions of Approval on the Sydney Inner West Light Rail Extension project explicitly delineating noise produced by light rail vehicles from other sources. This interpretation has been applied on all subsequent light rail projects in NSW, which have assessed this noise source at termini against the Rail Infrastructure Noise Guideline (RING) requirements. The Noise Policy for Industry (NPfI) has been applied to other noise sources on these projects, specifically fixed equipment at stops and all noise sources at stabling facilities (including light rail vehicle air conditioning noise and traffic movements within the boundary of the facility). This paper examines the policy overlap between the RING and the NPfI that makes both documents potentially applicable to noise from light rail air conditioners when idling at termini, depending on interpretation and specific project conditions of approval. It also presents a hypothetical assessment of typical light rail activities near termini against both the RING and NPfI, to demonstrate the potential differences in project outcomes between the applications of the two documents. An example of a compromise that acknowledges the pseudo-stationary nature of the noise source as well as the benefits that public infrastructure provides relative to industrial facilities is also suggested, in lieu of a separate threshold or policy for this very specific circumstance.
由于网络限制,轻轨车辆经常会在终点站运行空调,而这些终点站可能位于敏感受体附近。这就形成了一个伪静态噪声源,其水平和特性与工业空调类似,可能会对附近的敏感接收器造成干扰和投诉。然而,在澳大利亚新南威尔士州(NSW)的实际操作中,这种伪静态噪声源通常按照空气传播噪声标准来评估运输噪声。这是因为悉尼内西区轻轨延长线项目的审批条件明确规定了轻轨车辆产生的噪声与其他噪声源的区别。新南威尔士州随后的所有轻轨项目都采用了这一解释,并根据《铁路基础设施噪声指南》(RING)的要求对终点站的这一噪声源进行了评估。工业噪声政策 (NPfI) 适用于这些项目的其他噪声源,特别是车站的固定设备和停放设施的所有噪声源(包括轻轨车辆空调噪声和设施边界内的交通流动)。本文研究了 RING 和 NPfI 之间的政策重叠,这使得这两份文件都有可能适用于轻轨空调在终点站空转时产生的噪声,具体取决于解释和具体项目的审批条件。本报告还根据 RING 和 NPfI,对终点站附近的典型轻轨活动进行了假设性评估,以说明这两份文件的应用在项目结果上可能存在的差异。本报告还提出了一个折中方案的例子,即承认噪声源的伪静态性质以及公共基础设施相对于工业设施所提供的益处,而不是针对这种非常特殊的情况制定单独的阈值或政策。
期刊介绍:
Acoustics Australia, the journal of the Australian Acoustical Society, has been publishing high quality research and technical papers in all areas of acoustics since commencement in 1972. The target audience for the journal includes both researchers and practitioners. It aims to publish papers and technical notes that are relevant to current acoustics and of interest to members of the Society. These include but are not limited to: Architectural and Building Acoustics, Environmental Noise, Underwater Acoustics, Engineering Noise and Vibration Control, Occupational Noise Management, Hearing, Musical Acoustics.