Only 55.6% of Shinkansen noise measurement points met Japan’s environmental standard in FY2022, against 94.9% for road traffic noise and 88.3% for aircraft noise (Japan Ministry of the Environment, FY2023 Policy Evaluation Report). The world’s best-known high-speed railway still fails its own noise rule at almost half of its monitored sites, and on the Hokuriku Shinkansen in Nagano Prefecture only 3 of 17 points complied in FY2025 (Nagano Prefecture, Hokuriku Shinkansen Noise and Vibration Results FY2025). Physics explains part of the gap: the overall pass-by level, dominated by rolling noise, climbs at roughly 30 log of speed, but aerodynamic noise climbs at 60 to 80 times the logarithm of speed (Thompson et al., International Journal of Rail Transportation 2015), so every extra km/h costs more decibels at the top of the speed range. We aggregated data from the European Union’s Noise TSI regulation, the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration, Japan’s Ministry of the Environment and two prefectural monitoring programs, HS2 Ltd, and peer-reviewed acoustics research from China, the UK and Spain. For the broader picture of traffic, aircraft and urban noise exposure, see our noise pollution statistics roundup; this page stays on the trackside physics and the rules written around it.
TL;DR
- Only 55.6% of Shinkansen measurement points met Japan’s noise standard in FY2022, down from 60.8% in FY2020 (Japan Ministry of the Environment, FY2023 Policy Evaluation Report).
- Road traffic noise compliance in Japan was 94.9% in the same year, and aircraft noise 88.3% (Japan Ministry of the Environment, FY2023 Policy Evaluation Report).
- Only 3 of 17 Hokuriku Shinkansen points in Nagano met the 70 dB standard in FY2025, a 17.6% rate (Nagano Prefecture, FY2025 results).
- An EU electric multiple unit may emit at most 95 dB(A) passing at 250 km/h, measured 7.5 m from the track (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2014, Noise TSI, consolidated 2023).
- Aerodynamic noise rises at 60 to 80 times the logarithm of speed and dominates from around 300-350 km/h (Thompson et al., International Journal of Rail Transportation 2015).
- Rolling noise still dominated the overall dB(A) pass-by level of a Chinese train at 350 km/h (Sheng et al., Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure 2023).
- Wheel-rail noise typically dominates the A-weighted level up to approximately 160 mph, about 257 km/h (FRA, High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 2012).
- HS2 set its rolling stock target 3 dB below the 2008 TSI limit at 360 km/h (Sica et al., HS2 Ltd and SENER, IWRN13 2019).
- A fully enclosed barrier reduced simulated aerodynamic train noise by 4.5-6 dB, against about 4 dB for a vertical barrier (Zhang et al., Frontiers in Acoustics 2025).
- The WHO-recommended level for railway noise is 54 dB Lden and 44 dB Lnight, below the EU reporting thresholds of 55 dB and 50 dB (EEA, Environmental Noise in Europe 2025).
1. The Speed Crossover: When Aerodynamic Noise Overtakes the Wheels
The single most useful number in high-speed rail acoustics is the slope, not the level. Aerodynamic noise rises at 60 to 80 times the logarithm of speed (Thompson et al., International Journal of Rail Transportation 2015), against roughly 30 times for the overall pass-by level of a Chinese train, which is dominated by rolling noise (see the table below). In plain arithmetic, doubling the speed adds about 9 dB of rolling noise (30 x log10(2) = 9.0 dB) but 18 to 24 dB of aerodynamic noise (60 x log10(2) = 18.1 dB; 80 x log10(2) = 24.1 dB). Going from 300 to 350 km/h alone adds about 2.0 dB of rolling noise (30 x log10(350/300)) but 4.0 to 5.4 dB of aerodynamic noise.
That is why the crossover speed matters so much for line design, and why the sources disagree on where it sits. The U.S. manual places wheel-rail dominance up to roughly 160 mph, the Southampton review puts aerodynamic dominance at 300-350 km/h, and Chinese field data found the wheels still on top at 350 km/h. The answer depends on how quiet the wheels and rails already are: a smoother track pushes the crossover higher. The review is available through its publisher record (DOI 10.1080/23248378.2015.1052996), and the Chinese measurements are summarized in the open-access 2023 review of high-speed railway noise research.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Speed up to which wheel-rail noise typically dominates the A-weighted level | Approximately 160 mph (about 257 km/h) | FRA, High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 2012 |
| Speed at which aerodynamic sources begin to generate significant noise | Approximately 180 mph (about 290 km/h) | FRA, High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 2012 |
| Speed range above which aerodynamic noise becomes the main source | Around 300-350 km/h | Thompson et al., International Journal of Rail Transportation 2015 |
| Rate at which aerodynamic sound level rises with train speed | 60 to 80 times the logarithm of speed | Thompson et al., International Journal of Rail Transportation 2015 |
| Rate at which overall pass-by level of a Chinese 8-car train rose between 200 and 350 km/h | Roughly 30 log(V/V0), with V0 = 200 km/h | Sheng et al., Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure 2023 |
| Main contributor to the overall dB(A) pass-by level at 350 km/h, Chinese line | Wheel-rail rolling noise | Sheng et al., Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure 2023 |
| Speed above which pantograph noise could become dominant on a 1984 West German test train | Greater than 200 km/h | Pfizenmaier and King, INTERNOISE 84 Proceedings 1984 |
Context note: the FRA and Thompson figures are the most recent available editions of their documents (2012 and 2015). The 1984 test is included only as a historical marker: designers then targeted a peak wayside level not exceeding 90 dB(A) at 25 m for a train designed for 350 km/h (Pfizenmaier and King, INTERNOISE 84 Proceedings 1984).
2. Inside the Pass-By: Which Part of the Train Makes the Noise
A high-speed train is not one sound source but a stack of them, each with its own height and frequency band. At 350 km/h the noise splits cleanly by frequency: bridge structure below about 80 Hz, aerodynamic flow from about 100 to 300 Hz, and wheel-rail rolling noise above about 500 Hz (Sheng et al., Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure 2023). That split is what makes mitigation so hard: a measure that removes the high-pitched rolling noise leaves the low, hard-to-block aerodynamic and structural noise untouched, which is the same low-frequency problem seen in our wind turbine infrasound and low-frequency noise statistics.
The rail matters more than most people assume. The rail radiates more sound than the wheels in overall level, and the pantograph (the roof-mounted arm that collects current from the overhead wire) sits high enough that ground-level barriers struggle to shield it. Separating these sources in a moving train relies on microphone arrays, the same beamforming technique covered in our acoustic camera and noise source localization statistics. The U.S. reference values come from the FRA High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment manual, and the Shinkansen current-collection result from the Railway Technical Research Institute study record.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Reference sound exposure level (SEL) at 50 ft for high-speed electric trains: wheel-rail source at 90 mph vs aerodynamic sources at 180 mph (train nose, wheel region, pantograph) | 91 dBA vs 89, 89 and 86 dBA | FRA, High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 2012 (Table 5-2) |
| Frequency bands dominated by each source at 350 km/h on a Chinese viaduct line | Bridge below about 80 Hz; aerodynamic about 100-300 Hz; rolling above about 500 Hz | Sheng et al., Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure 2023 |
| Which part of the track radiates most rolling noise | Rail dominates 500-2,000 Hz and in overall level; wheel dominates above 2,500 Hz | Sheng et al., Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure 2023 |
| Wayside noise from the current-collection system (pantograph) below the overall level, 100 Series vs 300 Series Shinkansen | 7 dB(A) lower vs 3.5 dB(A) lower | Morikawa, RTRI Quarterly Reports 1997 |
Outlier note: the Shinkansen result shows the pantograph’s share growing between two train generations. On the older 100 Series the current-collection system sat 7 dB(A) under the overall level, while on the faster 300 Series it was almost level with the remaining sources (Morikawa, RTRI Quarterly Reports 1997). That paper is from 1997 and is the most recent available data from this record.
3. Europe’s Type-Test Ceiling: the Noise TSI Limits
Every new train placed on the EU market has to pass a type test under the Technical Specification for Interoperability on noise (the Noise TSI). The key metric is pass-by noise, the A-weighted equivalent level over the time the train takes to pass a microphone 7.5 m from the track centre and 1.2 m above the rail. An electric multiple unit, the usual high-speed train format with motors spread along the cars, may emit at most 95 dB(A) at 250 km/h; an electric locomotive gets 99 dB(A) (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2014, Noise TSI, consolidated 2023). For trains with a top speed of 250 km/h or more, the rule adds a second microphone 3.5 m above the rail to catch the pantograph and upper body, and tests run up to an upper limit of 320 km/h. The full limit tables are in the consolidated Noise TSI on EUR-Lex, with revision history on the European Union Agency for Railways Noise TSI page.
The limits are a ceiling, not a target. HS2 wrote its own specification 3 dB below the 2008 TSI value at 360 km/h, and dedicated field tests for HS2 ran a Siemens Velaro E at 250 to 350 km/h (Sica et al., HS2 Ltd and SENER, IWRN13 2019). A 3 dB cut is not cosmetic: it halves the acoustic energy. The tests are documented in the HS2 Learning Legacy paper.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Pass-by noise limit for electric multiple units at 250 km/h (LpAeq,Tp, 7.5 m from track centre) | 95 dB(A) | Regulation (EU) No 1304/2014, Noise TSI, consolidated 2023 |
| Pass-by noise limit for electric locomotives at 250 km/h | 99 dB(A) | Regulation (EU) No 1304/2014, Noise TSI, consolidated 2023 |
| Starting noise limit for electric multiple units with top speed of 250 km/h or more vs below 250 km/h | 83 dB vs 80 dB | Regulation (EU) No 1304/2014, Noise TSI, consolidated 2023 |
| Driver’s cab interior noise limit at top speed, trains with top speed of 250 to under 350 km/h vs under 250 km/h | 80 dB vs 78 dB | Regulation (EU) No 1304/2014, Noise TSI, consolidated 2023 |
| Extra allowance when the 250 km/h test runs on slab track (track laid on concrete slab instead of ballast) | 2 dB above the standard limits | Regulation (EU) No 1304/2014, Noise TSI, consolidated 2023 |
| HS2 rolling stock noise target compared with the 2008 TSI limit at 360 km/h | 3 dB lower | Sica et al., HS2 Ltd and SENER, IWRN13 2019 |
| Speed normalisation law used in the HS2 field tests, reference speed 250 km/h | 50 log(V/Vref), reliably extended to 350 km/h | Sica et al., HS2 Ltd and SENER, IWRN13 2019 |
4. Japan’s Shinkansen Standard: Strict on Paper, Partial in Practice
Japan regulates what neighbours hear, not what a train emits on a test track. The standard is 70 dB or less in mainly residential areas and 75 dB or less elsewhere, evaluated as the energy mean of the higher half of the peak levels from 20 successive trains (Japan Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Quality Standards for Shinkansen Superexpress Railway Noise). Peak-based rules are harsher than average-based ones because a single loud pass-by counts in full. The full rule is on the Ministry of the Environment Shinkansen noise standard page.
The national compliance rate fell from 60.8% in FY2020 to 55.6% in FY2022, against a 100% target (Japan Ministry of the Environment, FY2023 Policy Evaluation Report). The ministry itself notes that operators are reducing noise at the source but land-use measures near the line may not be keeping up. Prefecture data on the Hokuriku Shinkansen, including the newer section from the Fukui border to Tsuruga, show the problem is not limited to the oldest lines: residential points fail far more often than commercial ones. Nagano’s own monitoring page and Fukui’s FY2025 survey report publish the point-by-point results.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Shinkansen noise standard, mainly residential areas (Category I) vs other areas (Category II) | 70 dB or less vs 75 dB or less | Japan Ministry of the Environment, Shinkansen Noise Standard |
| Measurement rule | Energy mean of the higher half of peak levels from 20 successive trains, 1.2 m above ground, applied 6 a.m. to midnight | Japan Ministry of the Environment, Shinkansen Noise Standard |
| National share of Shinkansen measurement points meeting the standard, FY2020 vs FY2021 vs FY2022 | 60.8% vs 55.5% vs 55.6% | Japan Ministry of the Environment, FY2023 Policy Evaluation Report |
| Compliance in FY2022: road traffic noise vs aircraft noise vs Shinkansen noise | 94.9% vs 88.3% vs 55.6% | Japan Ministry of the Environment, FY2023 Policy Evaluation Report |
| Hokuriku Shinkansen points meeting the standard in Fukui, FY2025: all points vs residential (70 dB) points | 15 of 24 (63%) vs 8 of 17 (47%) | Fukui Prefecture, Hokuriku Shinkansen Noise and Vibration Survey FY2025 |
| Fukui FY2024 survey: points meeting the standard and range of measured evaluation values at 25 m | 17 of 34 (50%); 61 dB to 74 dB | Fukui Prefecture, Hokuriku Shinkansen Noise and Vibration Survey FY2024 |
| Hokuriku Shinkansen points meeting the 70 dB standard in Nagano, FY2021 vs FY2025 | 10 of 17 (58.8%) vs 3 of 17 (17.6%) | Nagano Prefecture, Hokuriku Shinkansen Noise and Vibration Results FY2025 |
Most recent available national data: Japan Ministry of the Environment, FY2022 figures published in its FY2023 policy evaluation. Context note: vibration is a different story. Both Fukui and Nagano reported 100% of points within the 70 dB vibration guideline in FY2025, so the problem is airborne sound, not ground-borne shaking (Fukui Prefecture, FY2025 survey; Nagano Prefecture, FY2025 results). North of Nagano Station, none of the 4 points complied in FY2025 (Nagano Prefecture, FY2025 results).
5. Measuring Harm: Annoyance, Startle and Exposure Thresholds
A high-speed pass-by is short, which makes average-based metrics flatter the problem. The U.S. assessment method adds a check for onset rate, meaning how many decibels per second the sound climbs as the train approaches. Annoyance rises above about 15 dB per second, and people tend to be startled above approximately 30 dB per second, according to the U.S. manual summarized in the table below. The 15 dB per second figure comes from U.S. Air Force research on aircraft noise, the same sudden-onset problem that drives the numbers in our aircraft noise exposure and airport communities statistics.
Distance does most of the protective work. The manual’s screening distances, the zone inside which a detailed study is required, more than double in quiet rural areas once aerodynamic noise is in play. On the exposure side, the WHO recommends lower levels for rail than the EU uses for reporting, which means official counts above the reporting line understate the population above the health-based line. The WHO values are listed on the EEA Environmental Noise in Europe 2025 threshold comparison, and the U.S. emission rule is in 40 CFR 201.13.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Onset rate (speed at which sound level climbs) above which annoyance increases | About 15 dB per second | FRA, High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 2012 |
| Onset rate above which people tend to be startled | Approximately 30 dB per second | FRA, High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 2012 |
| Screening distance for a new steel-wheel corridor in quiet suburban or rural areas: wheel-rail speed range vs aerodynamic speed range | 600 ft (about 183 m) vs 1,300 ft (about 396 m) | FRA, High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 2012 (Table 4-1) |
| U.S. federal noise emission limit for rail cars above 45 mph, measured 30 m from the track centre | 93 dB(A) | 40 CFR 201.13, Rail Car Operations Standard |
| WHO-recommended rail noise level vs EU reporting threshold, day-evening-night (Lden) | 54 dB vs 55 dB | EEA, Environmental Noise in Europe 2025 |
| WHO-recommended rail noise level vs EU reporting threshold, night (Lnight) | 44 dB vs 50 dB | EEA, Environmental Noise in Europe 2025 |
Context note: the night gap (44 dB vs 50 dB) is six times larger than the day-evening-night gap (54 dB vs 55 dB). Night-time high-speed operation is therefore where the health-based and regulatory views of rail noise diverge most. The FRA manual dates from 2012 and is the most recent available edition.
6. Mitigation: What Barriers, Bridges and Bogies Buy in Decibels
Mitigation numbers are smaller than people expect, because each measure only touches one source in one frequency band. A fully enclosed barrier cut simulated aerodynamic train noise by 4.5-6 dB, while a conventional vertical barrier delivered about 4 dB (Zhang et al., Frontiers in Acoustics 2025). The bigger warning is in the same study: a barrier with a two-thirds opening produced higher levels than no barrier at all beyond 10 m at one monitoring point, so a badly shaped partial enclosure can backfire. Full results are in the Frontiers in Acoustics barrier study; for barrier materials and performance across road and rail, see our outdoor noise barrier statistics.
China’s network shows why bridges matter. More than 80% of its roughly 42,000 km of high-speed line (end of 2022) runs on viaducts, and cutting holes in the viaduct wings gave about 3 dB of overall reduction in one study cited by the Sheng review. Height is the other constraint: barriers aimed at aerodynamic noise have to rise at least 15 ft (about 4.6 m) above the top of rail, because the pantograph and upper body sit well above the wheels.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Typical attenuation from a trackside noise barrier; minimum height above top of rail to block aerodynamic noise | 5-15 dBA; at least 15 ft | FRA, High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 2012 |
| Reduction from a fully enclosed barrier vs a vertical barrier, aerodynamic noise of a train model at about 350 km/h | 4.5-6 dB vs about 4 dB | Zhang et al., Frontiers in Acoustics 2025 |
| Distance from the track beyond which a two-thirds-open barrier was louder than no barrier at one monitoring point | Greater than 10 m | Zhang et al., Frontiers in Acoustics 2025 |
| Overall reduction from sixteen 0.75 m holes in viaduct wings (acoustic short-circuit), citing He et al. 2021 | About 3 dB | Sheng et al., Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure 2023 |
| Reduction from a dual staggered air jet at the bogie at 400 km/h, citing He 2023: sound pressure level vs sound power | 2 dB vs 3.5 dB | Sheng et al., Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure 2023 |
| Deadline for existing Shinkansen lines to fix zones measuring 80 dB or more | Within 3 years | Japan Ministry of the Environment, Shinkansen Noise Standard |
Context note: the jet and viaduct results are research findings cited inside a review, not network-wide outcomes. The Sheng review concludes that for 400 km/h trains, controlling rolling noise is at least as important as controlling aerodynamic noise, which argues for rail and wheel work alongside nose and pantograph redesign.
Summary: High-Speed Rail Aerodynamic and Wheel-Rail Noise by the Numbers
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Shinkansen measurement points meeting Japan’s noise standard, FY2022 | 55.6% | Japan Ministry of the Environment, FY2023 Policy Evaluation Report |
| Road traffic noise vs aircraft noise compliance in Japan, FY2022 | 94.9% vs 88.3% | Japan Ministry of the Environment, FY2023 Policy Evaluation Report |
| Hokuriku Shinkansen points meeting the 70 dB standard in Nagano, FY2025 | 3 of 17 (17.6%) | Nagano Prefecture, FY2025 results |
| Hokuriku Shinkansen points meeting the standard in Fukui, FY2025 | 15 of 24 (63%) | Fukui Prefecture, FY2025 survey |
| Shinkansen standard, residential vs other areas | 70 dB vs 75 dB | Japan Ministry of the Environment, Shinkansen Noise Standard |
| EU pass-by limit for electric multiple units at 250 km/h, 7.5 m | 95 dB(A) | Regulation (EU) No 1304/2014, Noise TSI, consolidated 2023 |
| EU pass-by limit for electric locomotives at 250 km/h | 99 dB(A) | Regulation (EU) No 1304/2014, Noise TSI, consolidated 2023 |
| HS2 target compared with the 2008 TSI limit at 360 km/h | 3 dB lower | Sica et al., IWRN13 2019 |
| Aerodynamic noise growth with speed | 60 to 80 times log of speed | Thompson et al., International Journal of Rail Transportation 2015 |
| Speed range where aerodynamic noise becomes the main source | Around 300-350 km/h | Thompson et al., International Journal of Rail Transportation 2015 |
| Main contributor to overall dB(A) at 350 km/h, Chinese line | Wheel-rail rolling noise | Sheng et al., Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure 2023 |
| Speed up to which wheel-rail noise typically dominates | Approximately 160 mph (about 257 km/h) | FRA, High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 2012 |
| Pantograph noise below overall level, 100 Series vs 300 Series Shinkansen | 7 dB(A) vs 3.5 dB(A) | Morikawa, RTRI Quarterly Reports 1997 |
| U.S. rail car emission limit above 45 mph at 30 m | 93 dB(A) | 40 CFR 201.13 |
| WHO-recommended rail noise level at night (Lnight) | 44 dB | EEA, Environmental Noise in Europe 2025 |
| Fully enclosed barrier vs vertical barrier reduction | 4.5-6 dB vs about 4 dB | Zhang et al., Frontiers in Acoustics 2025 |
Methodology and Sources
- European Union, Commission Regulation (EU) No 1304/2014, Technical Specification for Interoperability relating to noise, consolidated version of 28 September 2023: EUR-Lex
- European Union Agency for Railways, Noise TSI page (amendments 2019/774 and 2023/1694, quieter routes status as of 15 December 2024): era.europa.eu
- U.S. Federal Railroad Administration, High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2012 edition: railroads.dot.gov PDF
- U.S. Federal Railroad Administration and Ricardo, Comparison of Noise for Train Standards, DOT/FRA/ORD-22/02 (dated 2019): ROSA P record
- U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR 201.13, Rail car operations standard: law.cornell.edu
- Thompson, Latorre Iglesias, Liu, Zhu and Hu, Recent developments in the prediction and control of aerodynamic noise from high-speed trains, International Journal of Rail Transportation, 2015: DOI
- Sheng et al., Recent advances on research into high-speed railway noise, Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure, 2023: Oxford Academic
- Zhang, Li, Yang, Chen and Yang, Study on the noise reduction effect of sound barriers on the aerodynamic noise of high-speed trains, Frontiers in Acoustics, 2025: frontiersin.org
- Sica, Sole and Huguenet (HS2 Ltd and SENER), Pass-by noise assessment of high speed units by means of acoustic measurements in a perimeter close to the train, IWRN13, 2019: HS2 Learning Legacy
- Japan Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Quality Standards for Shinkansen Superexpress Railway Noise: env.go.jp
- Japan Ministry of the Environment, FY2023 Policy Evaluation Report, Goal 3-2 (conservation of the atmospheric living environment), FY2020-FY2022 achievement data: env.go.jp PDF
- Fukui Prefecture, Hokuriku Shinkansen (Fukui border to Tsuruga) noise and vibration survey, FY2025: pref.fukui.lg.jp; FY2024: pref.fukui.lg.jp
- Nagano Prefecture, Shinkansen railway noise and vibration measurement results, FY2020-FY2025: pref.nagano.lg.jp
- European Environment Agency, Environmental Noise in Europe 2025, END vs WHO threshold comparison: eea.europa.eu
- Morikawa, Simulation of wayside time-dependent noise level on Shinkansen, RTRI Quarterly Reports Vol. 38 No. 4, 1997: TRID record
- Pfizenmaier and King, On the Relative Importance of Aerodynamic and Wheel/Rail Noise Sources Generated by Railway Trains, INTERNOISE 84, 1984: TRID record
- Data watch: the crossover speed is genuinely disputed. The FRA manual says wheel-rail noise dominates up to approximately 160 mph and that aerodynamic sources become significant at approximately 180 mph, while its own Table 4-3 sets the electric-train transition at 170 mph; Thompson et al. put aerodynamic dominance at 300-350 km/h; and Chinese measurements found rolling noise still dominant at 350 km/h. FRA’s 2019 comparison report describes the Japanese metric as an hourly Leq and lists China’s GB 12525-90 day and night values in an order we could not confirm against the standard itself, so we used the Ministry of the Environment’s own peak-level definition and left the Chinese limits out. Japan’s national FY2023 and later Shinkansen compliance figures were not published in the evaluation we read, and the FRA manual (2012) and Thompson review (2015) are older than three years, flagged as most recent available editions. The Frontiers 2025 study reports a 1.4 dB gap between simulation and measurement and a figure label that conflicts with its text, so treat its barrier values as model results. We deliberately excluded the EEA headline count of people exposed to rail noise, which is covered in our general noise pollution roundup.
Last updated: October 18, 2026. We update this roundup quarterly, and the next refresh is expected when Japan’s Ministry of the Environment publishes its next policy evaluation with FY2023 and FY2024 Shinkansen compliance data.