Road traffic noise in urban streets is shaped not only by traffic sources but also by sound propagation through the surrounding street geometry. Existing prediction methods are still largely source-oriented, and receptor-specific models that rely on street morphology alone remain uncommon. We developed and compared interpretable machine-learning models to predict a cyclist-side sound pressure level (SPL) under fixed source conditions, using 12 spatial parameters extracted from 5060 street sections on 195 streets in Harbin, China. Acoustic simulations were performed in ODEON under fixed source-power conditions, and four models—Linear Regression, support vector regression (SVR), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and Random Forest (RF)—were evaluated through an illustrative 80/20 split, 20 repeated random 80/20 splits, and 20 road-name-based grouped holdout repetitions. The nonlinear models consistently outperformed the linear baseline. Under grouped holdout validation, XGBoost achieved the highest predictive accuracy (R2 = 0.953 ± 0.018, RMSE = 0.583 ± 0.119 dB, MAE = 0.418 ± 0.082 dB). RF reached comparable accuracy (R2 = 0.938 ± 0.041, RMSE = 0.662 ± 0.210 dB, MAE = 0.453 ± 0.128 dB) and was retained for the interpretation of feature importance and marginal response patterns. A computation-time comparison based on 93 representative ODEON simulations showed that ODEON required a median of 2 min 33 s per street section, whereas the trained models predicted all 5060 sections in 0.013 s with XGBoost and 0.143 s with RF. The RF-based interpretation identified vehicle-lane width, sidewalk width, and near-zone cross-sectional enclosure degree as the most influential variables. Width-related parameters dominated cyclist-side SPL prediction, while enclosure-related parameters became more relevant mainly under narrower width conditions. The framework is therefore intended as a comparative morphology-screening tool under fixed source conditions, not as a predictor of real-world traffic noise under varying traffic states.
Wu et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: