Applied Acoustics 56 (1999) 5766

Integrated bus/rail station

C.H. Chew*
Department of Mechanical & Production Engineering, National Universtiy of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge CrescentSingapore 119260 Received 7 May 1997; received in revised form 11 January 1998; accepted 3 February 1998

Abstract The implementation of an integrated bus/rail station is warmly received by the commuters as it facilitates the transfer from bus to rail and vice versa. The transfer can take place in comfort and convenience, and also the commuters are sheltered from rain and shine. Complaints have, however, been received that the ambient noise level of this type of bus station is higher than the conventional open type bus station. Detailed analysis of the problem shows that the noise eect on the commuters is similar in both types of stations. If account is taken of the dierence in the bus circuit of the two stations, the eective dierence in ambient noise is about 3 dB(A), which is not very signicant. # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Integrated bus/rail station; Ambient noise level.

1. Introduction To further encourage more people to use the public transport so as to relieve the trac congestion, the concept of an integrated bus/rail station is being promoted. The present concept is to build the bus station below the train station. The rst integrated bus/rail station has been completed and is in operation presently. The strong point in favour of the above system is the relative ease of commuters to transfer from bus to train and vice versa. Another advantage of the system is that commuters will not get wet when it rains. It also helps in optimising the land use. Since its inception, the concept is well received. However, the only drawback is the higher ambient noise level experienced in this bus station compared to the usual more open type of bus station. A study has been carried out to measure the noise levels in this integrated bus/rail station for comparison with the usual open type bus station. The parameters aecting
* Fax: 00-65-779-1459. 0003-682X/99/$see front matter # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S000 3-682X(98)0000 9-7

58

C.H. Chew/Applied Acoustics 56 (1999) 5766

the noise environment will be examined to determine if the noise environment could be improved. 2. The open type bus station In the normal open type bus station, only the concourse area where the commuters are waiting for the buses is sheltered. The bus lanes are in the open. The advantage of this type of bus station is that the station is lighted naturally and open, and with lower ambient noise level. However, in term of land use, extra land space is needed to accommodate both the bus and rail stations; they are designed to be within walking distance. The main disadvantage is that commuters will get wet during the raining period on alighting and embarking the buses. Figs. 1 and 2 show the section and plan views of this type of open station. Buses enter the station at either lane 1 or lane 2. For lane 1 buses, the passengers alight at a dierent part of the station near the parking bay which is located in the open space. This arrangement creates less noise pollution at the station. Passengers are picked up in lane 1 at position 1. Lane 2 serves as a parking bay as well, with the buses parked perpendicular to the bus bay and with the engine further away from the commuters, thereby improving the noise environment. Passengers alight and embark at position 3. The dimensions of the bus station considered for this study are as shown. 3. Integrated bus/rail station Figs. 3 and 4 show the section and plan views of the partially enclosed bus station. The train station is above the bus station. It maximises the land use and provides

Fig. 1. Section view of open type bus station.

C.H. Chew/Applied Acoustics 56 (1999) 5766

59

Fig. 2. Plan view of open type bus station.

Fig. 3. Section view of partially enclosed type bus station.

60

C.H. Chew/Applied Acoustics 56 (1999) 5766

Fig. 4. Section view of partially enclosed type bus station.

great convenience to the commuters in the transfer from bus to rail and vice versa. Unlike the open type, commuters are sheltered from rain during alighting and embarking. The ceiling extends to cover both lanes 1 and 2. To maintain the air quality in the station, ventilation fans are installed. Due to the partially enclosed nature of the bus station, the noise environment in this station is worse than the open type. At lane 1, the side wall is lower and this side of the station allows the diuse sound energy to be dispersed into the atmosphere. It results in lower ambient noise level at this side of the station. The buses have to circle round lanes 1 and 2 before leaving the bus station. Each bus contributes to the ambient noise twice, once moving along lane 1 and the other along lane 2. For the open bus station, only buses along lane 1 contribute towards the ambient noise. 4. Model for predicting the noise environment The noise experienced by the commuters at the stations are of two types: (a) the peak noise level due to the passing buses, and (b) the ambient noise level. In the proposed model, the ambient is taken to be due to the diuse component of the sound eld from the buses, whereas the peak noise results from the multiple reections (or the direct and ground reection if no multiple reections exist) from the passing buses as well as the diuse component. The direct and multiple reection component of the bus noise at the receiver is given by: [1,2]

C.H. Chew/Applied Acoustics 56 (1999) 5766

61

p2 mr

" # 1 1 X Wc 1 X Rm Rn 4 z2 m1 z2 l2 z2 l2 m n n1

where z lm ln R W  c = = = = = = = shortest distance from bus to receiver distance of the mth image of source from oor to receiver distance of the nth image of source from ceiling to receiver reection coecient of facade average power emitted by bus density of air velocity of sound in air.

For simplicity in the modelling, the reection coecients from the ceiling and the oor are assumed to be identical and are represented by R in Eq. (1). The diuse component is assumed to be given by: [1,2]
p2 dif 2ca b  Iz I0ez 2 l n 1 n1 WX 2 lR 2 i3 4 n0 h 2 2 2 z n1 2 l 2

where
Iz

l h   a

= = = = =

height of ceiling width of ceiling absorption coecient scattering coecient 1 1 l 1 0:5R  2h

R  2l 2h1 2h 4h2 l2

b = 2 =

1 .
3

The peak sound pressure is due to the multiple reections and diuse component:
2 2 p2 t pmr pdiff

It is assumed in this case that the peak noise level experienced by the commuters is due to p2 t , while the ambient level is due to the diuse component. The diuse component is evaluated at the center of the concourse. It is taken to be representative of the ambient noise as workers in the bus stations are concentrated around this area. 5. Results and discussion To verify the adequacy of the model proposed above, noise measurements were taken at positions 1 to 3 at both stations during the peak period. From the correlation of the eld data with the predicted values from the above model, L5 and L95, in

62

C.H. Chew/Applied Acoustics 56 (1999) 5766

dB(A), are better indicators for the peak sound level and the ambient noise level, respectively. L5 is the level exceeded 5% of the period under measurement (about half an hour) and L95 corresponds to 95% of the time exceeded. Table 1 shows the measured noise levels for the two types of bus stations. The number of buses departing at the two stations studied above were about equal. It averaged about 105 buses per hour. The average power emitted by each bus W has been selected to provide a good t to the measured values of L5 and L95. At position 1, the peak level at both stations is not much dierent as it is dominated by the direct sound. The dierence at position 3 is due to the orientation of the bus in lane 2 in the open station. As can be seen from Table 1, the diuse component for the partially enclosed bus station comes from buses in lanes 1 and 2, while for the open type it is from lane 1 only. An increase of 3 dB(A) in the ambient noise level for the partially enclosed type bus station could be accounted for by the above dierence. The other 3.3 dB(A) could be attributed by the longer width and shorter height of the partially enclosed bus station.

Table 1 Measured L5 and L95, in dB(A), at bus stations Bus station Position 1 2 3 Descriptor L5 L95 L5 L95 L5 L95 Open 76.1 61.3 70.0 62.0 69.0 62.5 Partially enclosed 76.8 64.3 74.6 68.3 76.4 66.7 Dierence (open)(enclosed) 0.7 3.0 4.6 6.3 7.4 4.2

Table 2 Dierence between predicted and measured levels, in dB(A) Bus station Open Location 1 2 3 Descriptor L5 L95 L5 L95 L5 L95 Predicted 76.4 61.1 71.6 61.1 68.6 61.1 Measured 76.1 61.3 70.0 62.0 69.0 62.5 Dierence 0.3 0.2 1.6 0.8 0.4 1.4 Partially enclosed Predicted 76.9 68.4 73.6 68.4 76.9 68.4 Measured 76.8 64.3 74.6 68.3 76.4 66.7 Dierence 0.1 4.1 1.0 0.1 0.5 1.7

N.B.: Dierence=(Predicted)(Measured).

C.H. Chew/Applied Acoustics 56 (1999) 5766

63

From the dimensions shown in Figs. 14, the value of W has been adjusted to best t the data obtained, taking ( 0 and  0:2 (R which is equal to (1  ) is set to be 0.8 in this case). Table 2 shows the comparisons for the measured and predicted values. The predicted values correlate very well with L5. For L95, the correlation is good at position 2. Except for the open station, the measured L95 at positions 1 and 3 were lower than predicted. This could be due to the fact that the diuse energy dispersed into the open space at each end of the station. However, we are more concerned with the L95 at the center of the concourse as its eect on the workers here is of more importance. The dierence in L5 and L95 is more than 10 dB(A). As such, the commuters are aected more by the peak noise level than the ambient as the average waiting for their buses is about 10 min. 6. Parameters aecting the noise environment To examine the parameters which would aversely aect the noise environment at the partially enclosed bus station, we have to study the dierences between the two stations. The ceiling height of the partially enclosed station is 6 m compared to 9 m for the open type. The main reason for this dierence is the high cost involved in extending the height for the integrated station. The other is the greater width of the concourse which causes an increase in the diuse energy (20 m compared to 15 m). Also, for the partially enclosed bus station, buses along lanes 1 and 2 contribute towards the ambient noise, while for the open type station, the ambient noise is mainly due to buses moving along lane 1. This dierence alone could account for 3 dB(A) dierence in the ambient noise level between the two types of bus stations. We would study in detail the eects the changes in these parameters have on the noise environment. 6.1. Extending ceiling height We would now examine the eect of extending the height of the ceiling for the partially enclosed station, say by extending the ceiling from 6 m to 9 m. Table 3
Table 3 Height of ceiling extended from 6 to 9 m for partially enclosed bus station Location 1 2 3 Descriptor L5 L95 L5 L95 L5 L95 Original Height (6 m) 76.9 68.4 73.6 68.4 76.9 68.4 Extended height (9 m) 76.6 64.2 72.2 64.2 76.6 64.2 Dierence dB(A) 0.3 4.2 1.4 4.2 0.3 4.2

N.B.: Dierence=(Original)(Extended).

64

C.H. Chew/Applied Acoustics 56 (1999) 5766

shows the dierences in the predicted values for the above cases. It is to be noted that the peak noise level at positions 1 and 3 is not much changed as it is dominated by the direct sound. At position 2, the peak level decreases by about 1.4 dB(A) due to the decrease in the value of the multiple reections. The decrease in the ambient level is about 4.2 dB(A). Even though the ambient noise level is at 64.2 dB(A), if a 3 dB(A) dierence could be taken into consideration for the dierence in the bus circuit, this level is comparable to the open station (at 61.1 dB(A)). Though the decrease in the ambient noise is signicant, the benet to the commuters is much doubted. As the commuters would queue for the buses at either position 1 or 3 for less than 10 min, they would be more aected by the peak noise level. The reduction in the ambient level may not justify the high cost involved in extending the ceiling height as the exposure of workers could be mitigated by other more ecient means. 6.2. Reducing concourse width The other alternative is to reduce the concourse width from 20 m to 15 m but with the ceiling extended to cover both lanes 1 and 2, but with the height remaining at 6 m. Table 4 shows the comparison. The ambient noise level is now also comparable with the open type station if they have the same bus circuit. The results obtained are similar to that of extending the ceiling height. The reduction in the concourse width may not be feasible as the train station is above the bus station. 6.3. Increased ceiling absorption One possibility of reducing the diuse component is to increase the absorption of the ceiling. As mentioned earlier, as the ceiling is substantially covered with ductwork, the amount of absorption that could be introduced is limited. Assume now that we could increase the absorption such that the average absorption of oor and ceiling is 0.1 (then R 0:7, and  0:2), the reduction in the noise levels are as shown in Table 5. A reduction of 5.4 dB(A) could be attained in the ambient level. Thus the ambient noise could be signicantly brought down by the introduction of absorption onto the ceiling. By taking into account the 3 dB(A) dierence due to the bus circuit,
Table 4 Reduced concourse width from 20 to 15 m Location 1 2 3 Descriptor L5 L95 L5 L95 L5 L95 Original 76.9 68.4 73.6 68.4 76.9 68.4 Reduced width (15 m) 76.7 64.4 73.8 64.4 76.7 64.4 Dierence dB(A) 0.2 4.0 0.2 4.0 0.2 4.0

N.B.: Dierence=(Original)(Reduced width).

C.H. Chew/Applied Acoustics 56 (1999) 5766 Table 5 Reduction due to increase absorption (R 0:7,  0:2, and  0:1) Location 1 2 3 Descriptor L5 L95 L5 L95 L5 L95 Original 76.9 68.4 73.6 68.4 76.9 68.4 Increased absorption 76.6 63.0 70.1 63.0 76.6 63.0 Dierence dB(A) 0.3 5.4 3.5 5.4 0.3 5.4

65

N.B.: Dierence=(Original)(Increased absorption).

the introduction of absorption could reduce the ambient noise level below that of the open type. However, the peak level received by the commuters is not much changed. As such the benecial eect on the commuters is much doubted. 7. Conclusion As discussed above, increasing the ceiling, reducing the concourse width, or increasing ceiling absorption could reduce the ambient level by 4 to 5 dB(A), a level comparable to the open type bus station if both the bus stations have the same bus circuit. However, the reduction in the peak noise level is imperceptible. On closer examination of the actual situation, the benet derived may not be spectacular. The average waiting time for the commuters is about 10 min. They will be aected more by the peak level than the ambient. Not much could be done to reduce the peak noise level as it is due to direct sound radiation and ground reection from the bus to the commuters queuing for the bus. Introducing additional absorption on the ceiling may have undesirable eect besides the cost involved. Dust and soot will gather on the acoustical material in no time, and it is dicult to maintain the cleanliness and appearance of the material. Complaints may be received soon on the unsightliness of the station concerned. Furthermore, we have to take into consideration that the two stations are dierent in one important respect. For the open type only buses in lane 1 contribute to the ambient noise, whereas for the partially enclosed type, both buses on lanes 1 and 2 contribute to the ambient noise. If a factor of 3 dB(A) is taken to account for this dierence, the ambient noise at the partially enclosed station is only about 3 dB(A) higher than the open type, which may not be very signicant. The ambient noise will aect the workers more than the commuters. It is much better to house the workers in an air-conditioned enclosure to shield them from excessive noise. It will also provide them with a more conducive working environment. All in all, it may be better o leaving the station as it is, as the hard surfaces are much easier to maintain. Dirty surfaces will invite more complaints from the commuters.

66

C.H. Chew/Applied Acoustics 56 (1999) 5766

References
[1] Chew CH, Lim KB. Facade eects on the trac noise from the expressway. Applied Acoustics 1994;41:4762. [2] Davies HG. Multiple-reection diuse-scattering model for noise propagation in streets. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1978;64(2):517521.