This is a compendium and update of train horn issues in south Richmond. If you have complaints, questions or suggestion, just “reply to all.” There are a lot of players and a lot of information; keep everyone in the loop.

The key to ultimate success staying on top of this and not letting go.

Can’t sleep at night because of train horns? Think your government cares? Think the railroad companies care? Think again.

American railroads came to California in the 19th Century when robber barons owned not only California but much of America. Railroads became synonymous with greed, arrogance, corruption and power. Over the last 100 years or so, political reformers have siphoned off much of that power, but the railroads have clung to what they can in remembrance of their golden age.

The crowning macho vestige of that once overwhelming political and economic power has been distilled in the locomotive train horn and the sadists who blow it with abandon.

As a part of the political reforms intended to moderate the power of the railroads, the federal government formed the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and the state government formed the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC). On paper, they look like great organizations intended to serve the people.

Indeed, the FRA Mission Statement looks like they really care about you and me:

“Serve the United States by ensuring a safe transportation system that furthers our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American people.”
FRA Mission Statement
Similarly, the CPUC Mission Statement and Vision Statement include lofty goals that would lead you to believe they actually care about us:

“We lead with integrity, take initiative, and inspire a shared vision in the pursuit of the public interest.”
CPUC Mission Statement

“The California Public Utilities Commission betters the lives of all Californians through our recognized leadership in innovative communications, energy, transportation, and water policies and regulation.” 

The truth is that neither gives a whit about us. They are not much more than pandering fronts for the railroads, and in the case of the CPUC, the other utilities they regulate. You only have to look at the San Bruno gas pipeline explosion to see how the CPUC helped PG&E avoid maintenance and testing of gas lines until it was too late. The CPUC shows the same affinity for protecting and enhancing the interests of the railroads.

Despite a growing body of evidence that loud nighttime sound disturbances, such a train horns, are a significant public health threat, both the FRA and the CPUC remain irrationally obsessed with protecting and enhancing the railroad’s use of literally deafening locomotive horns, particularly at grade crossings, as much and as loud as possible, all in the name of safety.

The scenario below, although rare, is an obsession for railroad-regulatory complex and their love affair with train horns. That’s all they know and all they think about.

The fact is that most injuries and fatalities resulting from railroad operations would not have been prevented by horns, gates and flashing lights. Most involve people not in vehicles intentionally or inadvertently intimately sharing the tracks with a train, which is not a good idea. The railroads pejoratively call this “trespassing,” despite the fact that that rights-of-way are rarely fenced or signed. What vehicle collisions do occur at grade crossings usually involve a driver ignoring gates and lights. Take a look at the typical train related deaths during the period October 24-28, 2011:

• Kanawha Train Death
• Man killed by train was son of Miamisburg’s police chief
• Man killed by Amtrak train identified Northridge, CA
• Train death ruled accidental Yolo County Davis, CA 
• Hope College student killed by train Holland, Mich.
• Elderly Woman Struck, Killed By Metra Train In McHenry County
• Man struck and killed by train in Acton, Boston MA
• Hope College Mourns Student Holland, Mich. & Hope College student killed by train 
• Hammond bicyclist killed by train Chicago, IL 
• Elderly Driver Killed In Train Crash Schertz, TX & Retired U.S. Air Force vet killed in Schertz train crash 
• 19-year-old killed by train in Anna, IL
• Man Struck, Killed by SEPTA Train Philadelphia
• Man killed by Amtrak train in Buena Park, Orange Cty CA
• Woman Hit and Killed By Train El Paso, TX 
• Freight train strikes man in Bloomingdale NJ

Why are train horns at night such a problem in Richmond, particularly south Richmond?

This is a complicated issue and involves many parties. Some are part of the problem, and some are part of the solution. And some are a little of both.

For many years, the railroad tracks that crisscross south Richmond were seldom used, night or day. They were essentially abandoned infrastructure largely left over from the WWII shipyard complexes. About the only train activity on the area was a multi-modal facility BNSF operated at the Richmond rail yards that parallel Garrard Boulevard north of Point Richmond and a few industrial customers along Canal Boulevard and Harbour Way South. In the early 1990s, the City completed a study that recommended removal of most of the rails.

Beginning about the year 2000, all that changed. The multi-modal facility was moved from Point Richmond to the Port of Oakland, and BNSF started using its meandering south Richmond trackage as a main line, moving ponderous mile-long trains from the Port of Oakland through Richmond and on to Martinez. BNSF, and later, the Port of Richmond ramped up the use of the spur line that runs through Point Richmond to transport car-carrying trains both in and out of a yard owned by BNSF at the intersection of Canal and Cutting Boulevards.

In 2009, with the completion of the Honda Port of Entry project, night trains dramatically increased use of a track east of and parallel to Canal Boulevard to reach Point Potrero Marine Terminal. This track has one public grade crossing at Wharf Street and six private grade crossings, adding significantly to the nighttime horn blowing.

I asked Juan Acosta of BNSF if arrangements could be made to limit trains on Canal Boulevard to times people are most likely to be sleeping, midnight to 6:00 AM. Mr Acosta replied on October 10, 2011, with the following, essentially indicating that the convenience of the businesses was more important than the community’s sleep:

Since our discussion at the recent wayside horn demonstration at the Canal Street crossings, I surveyed several colleagues who work in a cross section of disciplines, including general operations, auto facilities, industrial products and rules/safety.  At the time of our discussion, my initial reaction to your suggestion was not to be too hopeful inasmuch as my hunch, as I described it that day, was rail operations are often dictated by customer needs and related considerations.  After several internal inquiries, the information I received confirmed my hunch.

For both the several industrial products customers and the auto facility, there are several factors which require evening rail operations.  For example, the industrial products customers along Canal have daytime business hours operations that are inconsistent with rail car switching.  The switching operation commences after our customers complete their first and second shifts.  During customer business hours, there is a large amount of truck traffic in/out of their facilities.
Trying both to complete rail switching operations and accommodate truck traffic during daylight business hours would take significantly longer than is currently the case.  The result would be business and rail operations that run well into the evening and commence earlier in the morning, with more traffic congestion as trucking moves are delayed at crossings while rail operations proceed through the multiple crossings.

Additionally, our industrial product customers currently use their first and second shift crews to load and unload cars.  If the industrial customers were switched during the day, they would be forced to consume a substantial amount of their employee time waiting while we attend to the lugubrious, but necessary tasks of removing brake hoses, securing cars, and performing required safety checks after we arrived to switch the cars.  Moreover, time used by BNSF crews to conduct such operations would also limit the industrial customers' time and ability to complete loading/unloading the rail cars.

Similarly, the port-related rail operations are dependent on customer needs and factors such as ship arrivals and are, therefore unpredictable.  As is the case with loading rail cars at the industrial customers' facilities, it is difficult to conduct rail operations at the same time car loading takes place.  Arrival and departures for steamships set the parameters for loading rail cars with autos and, in turn, establish when rail cars can be switched in and out of the port.

In 2006, the Federal Railroad Administration Train Horn Rule went into effect, which clarified when and how train horns must be sounded at public grade crossings but at the same time established a procedure for creating Quiet Zones. The City of Richmond moved rapidly to create as many quiet zones as possible, going after the “low hanging fruit.” Quiet Zones generally require a combination of crossing warning devices that may included bells, lights and gates with medians to discourage drivers from maneuvering around gates.

Richmond was a pioneer is Quiet Zone establishment and has more Quiet Zones than any city in California.

To date, there are seven existing quiet zones in Richmond, consisting of 14 total crossings. The quiet zones are as follows:

• North One (Atlas and Giant)
• West One (Richmond Ave)
• West Two (Garrard, Cutting and Canal)
• West Three (Richmond Parkway and Ohio)
• West Four (Richmond Parkway)
• West Five (S. 2nd Street and S. 3rd Street)
• South One (Marina Way South [southern crossing], Regatta and Marina Bay Parkway)

 

Under the federal train horn laws, the routine sounding of horns at the existing quiet zone crossings is prohibited. At all other crossings in Richmond (public and private), federal and State laws require the train engineer to sound the horn with two long blasts, one short blast and one long blast starting at least 15 seconds, but no more than 20 seconds, before the train enters the crossing. Grade crossings not yet in Quiet Zones include:

• 4th and Cutting (The West 6 Quiet Zone has been noticed and should be established in the next 90 days)
• Wright Avenue and Harbour Way South
• Private driveway at All Aboard Storage on Meeker Avenue
• Marina Way South (northern crossing)
• South 34th Street
• Erlandson Street

 

The horn blowing pattern is required to be repeated or prolonged until the train fully occupies the crossing. In addition, the train engineer may sound the horn at the existing 14 quiet zone crossings in his or her sole judgment in order to prevent injury, death or property damage. What the FRA train horn rule does not do is specify the length of the short and long blasts. That’s where the engineers come in. Compassionate engineers will limit blasts to the absolute minimum length, while sadistic engineers will lay on the horn like they can’t let go.

The minimum volume of a locomotive train horn is 96 dB. If a sound reaches 85 dB or stronger, it can cause permanent damage to your hearing.

Before the West Three, West Four, West Five and South One Quiet Zones were established, a train traversing south Richmond would blow its horn a least 44 times, often more. Even though the Train Horn Rule did not specify the minimum length of the toots, train engineers routinely would stretch out the longs to 4-10 seconds or more, making a total of as much as 3 minutes of almost continuous horn blowing. Because of the volume required by the Train Horn Rule, these horns can be sleep disturbing within a half mile or more, taking in many neighborhoods in south Richmond and over 10,000 people that include Point Richmond, Marina Bay, Atchison Village, the Irion Triangle, Santa Fe and Coronado. Depending on wind direction and weather conditions, the sound can travel even further and is particularly disturbing on summer nights when residents tend to leave windows open.

A critical deficiency in the Train Horn rule is that it leaves the railroads unscathed and requires cities to pay for whatever improvements are needed to create a Quiet Zone, and those improvements can cost several hundred thousand dollars per crossing. Another critical deficiency is that in a controversial Federal pre-emption matter, the railroads are allowed to use the horn in yards to signal train movements, usually one or two toots.

If you live in south Richmond and are disturbed by nighttime train horn blowing, you could be hearing any combination of the following:

• Grade crossing horn blowing at private crossings at All Aboard Storage on Meeker Avenue or Marina Way.
• Yard horn blowing at the yards between Marina Way and Marina Bay Parkway, yards south of the former Safeway facility, or grade crossings at South 34th Street and Erlandson Avenue.
• Grade crossings at Harbour Way South and Wright Avenue and 4th Street and Cutting Boulevard.
• Grade crossings east of Canal Boulevard.
• Engineers who are simply violating the rules.

 

La Ronda Bucciarelli has been recording the train horn blasts in the Marina Bay condo complex for several weeks. In particular, November 17 was the night when the train engineer far exceeded the required amount of train horn blasts.She characterized it s abusive, intolerable, and the most contemptuous behavior she has ever heard. Unfortunately for people living in Marina Bay, this behavior continued on for another two nights. Click on http://web.me.com/laronda/Marina_Bay/Train_Horn_Podcasts/Train_Horn_Podcasts.html

User Name: marinabay
Password: trains

In addition, there is evidence that BNSF and a contractor working under BNSF, NorCal, routinely violate the Quiet Zone rules, honk horns longer than necessary and use horns for signaling in the yards when radios are a perfectly acceptable alternative. On May 17, 2011, the City Council adopted a new Noise Ordinance. Section  9.52.050.p deals with “yard” horn use:

(Train bells, sirens, horns, whistles or similar audible warning devices shall be 11 exempt from the provisions of this chapter only to the extent that the General Code of Operating Rules (GCOR) adopted by railroad companies or Federal or State law permits or requires their use and such use is strictly limited to the GCOR or Federal or State sounding standards, including, but not limited to, the sound level, the necessity for using the signal and the pattern or frequency of use.

Where an adopted GCOR allows the use of “other forms of communication,” railroad companies are encouraged to use maximum reasonable restraint in the use of horns, particularly during times when people are likely to be sleeping (10:00 PM until 7:00 AM) and to use “other forms of communication,” including radios and visible signals whenever possible, consistent with safety requirements.

Because of federal preemption, this is the strongest language we could use. Unfortunately, railroad companies have chosen not to exercise that level of constraint and engage in yard horn blowing on a regular basis.

There is, however, some relief in sight. As a part of the conditions of approval for the Honda Port of Entry Project, the City of Richmond agreed to establish a Quiet Zone along Canal Boulevard and extend the Quiet Zone that starts at the Garrard Boulevard crossings near Atchison Village to the grade crossings at 4th Street and Cutting Boulevard. While the 4th and Cutting Quiet Zone was initially hindered by the FRA, it has recently been more helpful. The good news is that the crossing at 4th and Cutting was submitted for FRA approval on November 16, 2011, and indications are that it will be approved.

Some existing problem areas include:

• The first issue is a private driveway that crosses a single track at All Aboard Storage on Meeker Avenue. Unfortunately, the property is bifurcated by the track. The office is on one side and the storage units are on the other side of the track. My understanding is that the security gate does not even allow access to the storage units at night. There are no gates, flashing lights or bells at this crossing, and none are required. I don’t know why the City of Richmond and the CPUC ever approved this project, but that’s water under the bridge. The CPUC’s interpretation and enforcement of their Section 7604 requires trains to sound their horns four times at his crossing. This is the full-on locomotive horn that is incredibly loud and upsetting to Marina Bay residents at night. The rest of the Marina bay crossings are in an FRA Quiet Zone, but this one is not because it is under CPUC jurisdiction. It would cost the City of Richmond $324,000 to upgrade this crossing sufficiently for the CPUC to let it go quiet. We have proposed a wayside horn in lieu of the locomotive horn, but the CPUC will not allow it.
• The second issue is Canal Boulevard, which has seven driveways to adjacent business properties crossing a single track on the east side running parallel to Canal. Currently, the CPUC requires the locomotive train horn to be blown four times at each crossing for a total of 28 blasts for a train traversing Canal. These trains are typically run constantly during the early hours of the morning, often resulting in over a hundred full-on blasts that can be heard all over southwest Richmond by thousands of otherwise sleeping residents. The CPUC had denied our request to treat this as would be required under federal rules. According to Deputy City Attorney Carlos Privat, “Felix [Ko of the CPUC] raised concerns with setting precedent for all private crossings and a resultant ‘proliferation of mini private quiet zones across California’ but acknowledged that this approach may actually make those crossings safer.” Our Assembly member, Nancy Skinner,  has so far been unwilling to carry a bill that would make this possible.

 

Who are the good guys and the bad guys:?

• The City of Richmond City Attorney’s Office, Engineering Division and Public Works have been great, particularly Assistant City Attorney Carlos Privat, City Engineer Edric Kwan and Joel Camacho. And don’t forget the City Council and city manager who have consistently supported Quiet Zones.
• The FRA had been mostly a hindrance, but of lately they are coming around. Leeann Dickson (916-773-0253 or LeeAnn.Dickson@dot.gov) recently pointed out to the CPUC, “NorCal” (known to FRA as Inter-Rail Management Inc.) and BNSF that California Public Utilities Code 7604, which regulates train horn use at private crossings, does not, in fact, require the type of horn blowing that BNSF and NorCal have been using. The Federal regulation regarding the Use of Locomotive Horns found in C.F.R., Title 49, Section 222.21(a), which establishes the train horn pattern when approaching public highway-rail grade crossings, states: “This pattern may be varied as necessary where crossings are spaced closely together.” California Public Utilities Code 7604, which regulates train horn use at private crossings, references Section 222. Ms Dickson pointed out that it will be this “varied” shortened train horn pattern that will now be used along Canal Boulevard, and FRA will monitor for compliance. This has improved but not eliminated the Canal Boulevard problem.
• The City of Richmond Port Department committed to a Quiet Zone on Canal Boulevard in 2008 but has not delivered.
• The following businesses that have private grade crossings or utilize rail service on Canal have been unsympathetic:
• Brenntag Pacific, contact Paul Seffrood, Phone: (510) 970-7535, Email: pseffrood@brenntag.com, Address: 860 Wharf St, Richmond, CA 94804
• National Gypsum, J. P. Burrall – Owner, Tom Nelson - License Tax Manager, (510)233-4874,. 1040 Canal Blv, No email listed: no answer to phone call
• Conoco Phillips, Robert A. Mcelroy- 600a Plaza Office Bldg., Bartlesville, 0K  74005, (510)412-7612, 1300 Canal Blvd, No email listed: no answer to phone call
• BP West Coast Products, LLC, Ronald J. Arnault – Owner, Sir John Brown – Site Manager, 1306 Canal Blvd, No phone or email listed
• Auto Warehousing Co, 1311 Canal Blvd, Richmond,  CA  94804-3555, (510) 234-1817steves@autowc.com.
•  
• The BNSF railroad is nothing but a pain in the ass. They have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone afflicted by horns.
• The CPUC is the worst. They are incompetent, unreasonable, irrational overcautious and counterproductive. Despite its Mission Statement and Vision Statement (see below) the CPUC is an ineffective  bureaucracy that has largely failed the people of California.

 

“We lead with integrity, take initiative, and inspire a shared vision in the pursuit of the public interest.”
CPUC Mission Statement
“The California Public Utilities Commission betters the lives of all Californians through our recognized leadership in innovative communications, energy, transportation, and water policies and regulation.” 
CPUC Vision Statement
When the Honda Point of Entry Project was approved in 2008, the Conditions of Approval required establishment of Quiet Zones. To date, this has not happened. The City has been exploring less expensive solutions, but BNSF, the FRA and the CPUC have not been cooperative. It is time to simply get this job done as ordered.

Exhibit 1: From the Minutes of the November 18, 2008, City Council meeting:

The city clerk announced this was the time set, pursuant to published notice, to conduct a public hearing to consider an appeal by Fred Arm from the Design Review Board's (DRB) approval of the certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Design Review Permit for the Honda Port of Entry Project at Point Potrero and affirm, modify, or deny the certification of the EIR with Statement of Overriding Consideration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program and affirm, modify, or deny the Design Review Permit, subject to conditions. Planning Director Richard Mitchell gave an overview of the item. Mayor McLaughlin declared the public hearing open. Fred Arm and Legal Counsel Bradley Brownlow spoke as the appellants. Mr. Brownlow submitted, for the record, a detailed list of concerns with the status of the current Environmental Impact Report (EIR). On motion of Councilmember Bates, seconded by Councilmember Lopez accepted into the record the detailed list of concerns regarding the EIR submitted by the appellant by the unanimous vote of the Council. Jim Matzorkis and Bill Robbins spoke as the major opponents. Speakers from the audience were: Katrinka Ruk, Robert Lane, Anthony J. Craig, Jim Dewitt, Eva Craig, A William Bodle, Jack Bryant, Harold Brinkley, Allison Bryant, Douglas Kidder, Bruce Beyaert, Lee Jones, Larry Magid, Bobbi Scott Hlebek, Amon Rappaport, Ric Borjes, Michael Davenport, Jerome Smith, Corky Booze, Theresa Wilkerson, Sherry Padgett, and Kate Spaulding. Bradley Brownlow gave a rebuttal on behalf of the appellant. Port Director Jim Matzorkis and Bill Robbins gave a rebuttal as the major opponents. On motion of Councilmember Bates, seconded by Councilmember Viramontes closed the public hearing by the unanimous vote of the Council. Discussion began. Councilmember Butt stated that an agreement had been reached on the last two issues regarding grade crossings and emissions. Mr. Matzorkis read the new mitigations conditions as follows: “The project shall not undertake switching operations that block traffic on Canal, West Cutting, and Garrard Boulevards. Project operations shall occur primarily between 7:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. Grade crossing blockages associated with the project shall be in the 1.5 to 6 minute range and in no case shall the project create blockages that violate CPUC Rule 135. The city shall be responsible for installing an automated monitoring system that automatically records grade crossing blockages on Canal, West Cutting, and Garrard Boulevards and that information shall be made available to the public on a monthly basis. Any grade crossing blockages in excess of 10 minutes that violate CPUC Rule 135 shall be prosecuted by the City.” Jim Matzorkis read the following language regarding emissions: “Following implementation of carb regulation for fuel sulfur for ocean-going vessels in 2009 and 2010 the emissions of NOX and PM10 including those from this project shall be lower in Richmond than in current base line and the health risk assessment shall indicate a lower risk than which currently exist. Calculations shall be provided to show how this conclusion could be reached and such calculation shall be incorporated in the Design Review Permit”. Mr. Matzorkis stated the calculations could be provided within 30 days. City Attorney verified that Mr. Matzorkis read conditions to the permit not mitigation. Councilmember Viramontes requested that the record reflect that the agreement was reached with Councilmember Butt outside of the Council Meeting. Following discussion a motion was made by Councilmember Bates, seconded by Councilmember Viramontes to deny the appeal and affirm the DRB’s decision. A friendly amendment was offered by Councilmember Butt to adopt the five amended conditions of approval that the applicant has agreed to which includes: train noise, grade crossing blockages, solar electricity generation, historic resources parking, and emissions. Also modify finding 11 to reflect the latest projections provided by the Finance Director Jim Goins. The amendment was not accepted. A substitute motion was made by Councilmember Butt, seconded by Councilmember Thurmond to deny the appeal and certify the EIR with the change in finding 11 and adopt the five amended conditions of approval that the applicant has agreed to which includes: train noise, grade crossing blockages, solar electricity generation, historic resources parking, and emissions. A second substitute motion was made by Councilmember Viramontes, seconded by Councilmember Butt to deny the appeal and approve the staff recommendations and conditions of approval that the applicant has agreed to, modify finding 11 to reflect the latest projections provided by Finance Director Jim Goins. Discussion ensued and a friendly amendment was offered by Councilmember Bates to direct staff to evaluate for two years noise impacts and also to work with the railroads to eliminate horn noise. The amendment was accepted. The second substitute motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Bates, Butt, Lopez, Rogers, Sandhu, Thurmond, and Viramontes. Noes: Mayor McLaughlin. Abstention: None. Absent: Vice Mayor Marquez.

Exhibit 2: From the Staff Report for the November 18, 2008, City Council Meeting:

Train Noise

The project will increase train traffic south of the Canal Boulevard Grade crossing, and it is possible that trains will be sounded at grade crossings. The City of Richmond shall determine what is required to establish a Quiet Zone and shall obtain cost estimates for providing sufficient grade crossing safety devices at grade crossings south of the Canal Boulevard grade crossing to qualify for a Quiet Zone. The City of Richmond shall maintain a reserve fund for a period of two years sufficient to pay for such devices, if required. If train horns are routinely sounded at grade crossings south of the Canal Boulevard grade crossing, the City of Richmond shall implement a Quiet Zone extending from the Canal Boulevard grade crossing to the PPMT. After two years, the reserve capital fund shall no longer be required, but if after two years, train horns are routinely sounded at grade crossings south of the Canal Boulevard grade-crossing, the city of Richmond shall install such devices in a timely manner as necessary and establish a Quiet Zone from the Canal Boulevard grade crossing. “Routinely sounded” means sounded in accordance with Federal Railroad Administration orders at grade crossings but does not include sounding in case of emergencies. In addition, the City of Richmond shall complete the required improvements and establish a Quiet Zone from the existing Garrard Boulevard (Richmond Parkway east leg) to and including the grade crossing at Cutting Boulevard near 4th Street.

The Port of Richmond, in conjunction with BNSF shall investigate, adopt a plan and apply best practices to continually reduce wheel squeal on tight radius curves on tracks serving the Honda Port of Entry Project. Practices may include gauge face lubrication; top of rail friction modification and the maintenance and modification of track and rolling stock.
Although not a noise issue, blockage of grade crossings by trains has also increased despite promised by the Port Department to the contrary:
Mr. Matzorkis read the new mitigations conditions as follows: “The project shall not undertake switching operations that block traffic on Canal, West Cutting, and Garrard Boulevards. Project operations shall occur primarily between 7:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. Grade crossing blockages associated with the project shall be in the 1.5 to 6 minute range and in no case shall the project create blockages that violate CPUC Rule 135. The city shall be responsible for installing an automated monitoring system that automatically records grade crossing blockages on Canal, West Cutting, and Garrard Boulevards and that information shall be made available to the public on a monthly basis. Any grade crossing blockages in excess of 10 minutes that violate CPUC Rule 135 shall be prosecuted by the City.”
None of these promises has been kept.
Both the FRA and the CPUC are so obsessed with potential railroad grade crossing train-vehicle collisions, they completely ignore what is statistically a larger health problem relating to noise.
Effects on Sleep
Uninterrupted sleep is known to be a prerequisite for good physiological and mental functioning of healthy persons. Whereas sleep disturbance is considered to be a major effect of environmental noise, data on the effects of environmental noise on sleep are limited. Recent research on sleep disturbance has been conducted for aircraft noise, road traffic, and railway noise. For example, road traffic noise in excess of 30 dB disturbs sleep. The probability of being awakened increases with the number of noise events per night. When background noise is low, noise exceeding 45 dB should be limited; for sensitive individuals, an even lower level is preferred.
The primary sleep disturbance effects are: difficulty falling asleep, frequent awakenings, waking too early, and alterations of sleep stages and depth, especially a reduction of REM sleep. Other effects of noise during sleep include increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, increased finger pulse amplitude, vasoconstriction, changes in respiration, cardiac arrhythmias, and increased body movement. For each of these, the threshold and response relationships may be different. Studies have shown that the frequency of noise-induced awakenings decreases over eight consecutive nights; however no such habituation has been shown for heart rate and after effects.
Exposure to night-time noise also induces secondary effects, or so-called after effects. These are effects that can be measured the day following the night-time exposure while the person is awake. These include reduced perceived sleep quality, increased fatigue, depressed mood or well being, and decreased performance.
Long-term effects on psychosocial well-being have been related to nocturnal noise exposure. Noise annoyance during the night increases total noise annoyance for the following 24 hours. People exposed to night-time noise report an increased use of sedatives, closed bedroom windows, and use of personal hearing protection. Particularly sensitive groups include the elderly, shift workers, persons vulnerable to physical or mental disorders, and those with sleeping disorders.
Other factors that influence the problem of night-time noise include its occurrence in residential areas with low background noise levels, combinations of noise and vibration such as that produced by trains and heavy duty vehicles, and sources with low-frequency components which are more disturbing, even at very low sound pressure levels. These low-frequency components have a significant detrimental effect on health. (Dr. Louis Hagler, Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague (2007).