Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Railway noise is a source of annoyance for populations living near railway infrastructure, particularly in the context of increasing high-speed train traffic. This study investigates short-term annoyance induced by individual high-speed train passages in everyday residential settings, with the aim of understanding the respective contributions of acoustic, situational, and personal factors. Short-term annoyance was assessed in situ using the experience-sampling method, which consists of repeated real-time ratings collected in daily life and associated with simultaneously recorded acoustic events. Participants living along three French high-speed railway lines provided short-term annoyance ratings following train passages, together with information on their activity, location and windows position, and indoor sound environment. A range of acoustic indicators, including conventional A- and C-weighted level indicators, loudness, and speed-related indicators, were examined using linear mixed-effects models. Results show that models based on L Aeq, Tevt , L Amax , SEL A , E A and loudness performed similarly and were statistically related to short-term annoyance but explained only a limited proportion of its variance. Indicators targeting low-frequency content or train speed did not provide any additional explanatory value in situ. In contrast, noise sensitivity and situational factors affecting perceived sound levels (participant location, windows position and indoor sound environment) played a dominant role and strongly influenced short-term annoyance ratings. The experience sampling method allowed us to study the short-term annoyance induced by high-speed trains noise in an ecological situation. With this method, we showed that considering the residents’ real exposure is more important than focusing on subtle acoustic differences between train events, and the use of different facade-based indicators would not improve how residents’ annoyance is considered.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Roux et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: