Noise and vibration part 1

City Rail Link Noise and Vibration Assessment Report No.: 001 R07 2012068A

13 August 2012

84 Symonds Street PO Box 5811 Wellesley Street Auckland 1141 New Zealand T: +64 9 379 7822

F: +64 9 309 3540 www.marshallday.com

Technical Report Revision History Status:

Rev:

Comments

Date:

Draft

-

Preliminary Draft Noise and Vibration Report

Draft

1

Final Draft Noise and Vibration Report

8-6-2012

Draft

2

Noise and Vibration Report

20-6-2012

Final Draft

3

Noise and Vibration Report Revision

6-7-2012

Approved

4

Final

31-7-2012

Approved

5

Final

13-8-2012

Approved

6

9-11-2012

Approved

7

Post AC review NoR 7 removal and NoR 6 optimisation changes

30-3-2012

10-12-2012

Author: Steve Peakall Craig Fitzgerald James Whitlock Siiri Wilkening Steve Peakall Craig Fitzgerald James Whitlock Steve Peakall Craig Fitzgerald James Whitlock Mike Carter Craig Fitzgerald James Whitlock Craig Fitzgerald James Whitlock Craig Fitzgerald James Whitlock James Whitlock Craig Fitzgerald James Whitlock

Reviewer:

Curt Robinson Graham Warren

Curt Robinson

Technical Report Review and Acceptance Action

Name

Prepared by

Craig Fitzgerald

Signed

Date 10-12-2012

James Whitlock Reviewed by

Curt Robinson

10-12-2012

Approved by

Curt Robinson

10-12-2012

On behalf of Marshall Day Acoustics

Disclaimer Reports produced by Marshall Day Acoustics Limited are prepared based on the Client’s objective and are based on a specific scope, conditions and limitations, as agreed between Marshall Day Acoustics and the Client. Information and/or report(s) prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics may not be suitable for uses other than the original intended objective. No parties other than the Client should use any information and/or report(s) without first conferring with Marshall Day Acoustics.

Copyright The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Marshall Day Acoustics constitutes an infringement of copyright. Information shall not be assigned to a third party without prior consent.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.

2.

3.

4.

4.1 4.2 5.

5.1 5.2 6.

6.1 6.2 6.3 7.

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 8.

8.1 8.2 8.3 9.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................................................... 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................ 7 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY............................................................................ 7 Noise.......................................................................................................................................... 7 Vibration ................................................................................................................................... 8 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................ 9 Existing Noise Environment ..................................................................................................... 9 Existing Vibration Environment............................................................................................. 12 NOISE AND VIBRATION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS......................................................... 15 Literature review .................................................................................................................... 15 Project Criteria - Construction Phase .................................................................................... 15 Project Criteria - Operational Phase ..................................................................................... 19 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND MITIGATION OPTIONS – CONSTRUCTION PHASE .......................................................................................................... 21 Construction Noise ................................................................................................................. 21 Construction Vibration ........................................................................................................... 28 Options for Avoiding, Remedying or Mitigating Adverse Construction Effects................. 34 Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) ........................................ 34 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND MITIGATION OPTIONS – OPERATIONAL PHASE ............................................................................................................. 35 Operational Noise .................................................................................................................. 35 Operational Vibration and Reradiated Noise ....................................................................... 37 Options for Avoiding, Remedying or Mitigating Adverse Operation Effects ..................... 39 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 40

APPENDIX A – REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION NOISE CRITERIA APPENDIX B – REVIEW OF OPERATIONAL NOISE CRITERIA APPENDIX C – VIBRATION LITERATURE REVIEW APPENDIX D – VIBRATION PREDICTION METHODS APPENDIX E – EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT APPENDIX F – EXISTING VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT APPENDIX G – CONSTRUCTION NOISE CONTOURS APPENDIX H – CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION CONTOURS APPENDIX I – OPERATIONAL VIBRATION CONTOURS APPENDIX J – DRAFT CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION MANAGEMENT PLAN (CNVMP) APPENDIX K – CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION SOURCE REGRESSION CURVES APPENDIX L – REFERENCES This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 3 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

1.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS Term / Acronym AEE Ambient

AT BPO CDR CH CNVMP CRL dB

EMP EMU EPBM Frequency FTA

GIS Hertz (Hz) LAeq (T)

LAFmax LA10 (T)

Meaning Assessment of Environmental Effects The ambient noise or vibration level is the level measured in the absence of the subject noise or vibration source i.e. before the CRL. Ambient levels are measured to determine the situation prior to the addition of a new noise source.

Auckland Transport Best Practicable Option Concept Design Report Chainage. Distance in metres along the proposed alignment from Britomart Station towards the North Auckland Line connection Construction noise and vibration management plan. CNVMP is part of the EMP City Rail Link Decibel - Unit. Used to express noise and vibration levels.

Expressed as a logarithmic ratio of noise pressure or vibration velocity relative to a reference value i.e. dB = 20 x log(X/Xref), where Xref =20 ď ­Pa for noise and 1 nm/s for vibration.

Environmental management plan Electric Multiple Unit Earth pressure balance capable tunnel boring machine. Refer also TBM. The number of pressure fluctuation cycles per second of a noise wave.

Measured in units of Hertz (Hz).

Federal Transit Administration. The agency within the United States Department of Transportation that provides financial and technical assistance to public transit systems. The FTA General Method has been adopted for the assessment of operation vibration and reradiated noise (refer to Appendix D of this document).

Ground Information Survey - Auckland Council's mapping and property information service Hertz is the unit of frequency. One hertz is one cycle per second.

One thousand hertz (1000 cycles per second) is a kilohertz (kHz).

The equivalent continuous (time-averaged) A-weighted noise level. This is commonly referred to as the average noise level. The suffix "T" represents the time period to which the noise level relates, e.g. (8 h) would represent a period of 8 hours, (15 min) would represent a period of 15 minutes and (2200-0700) would represent a measurement time between 10 pm and 7 am.

The A-weighted maximum noise level. The highest noise level which occurs during the measurement period. F = Fast weighting.

The A-weighted noise level equalled or exceeded for 10% of the measurement period. This is commonly referred to as the average maximum noise level.

The suffix "T" represents the time period to which the noise level relates, e.g. (8 h) would represent a period of 8 hours, (15 min) would represent a period of 15 minutes and (2200-0700) would represent a measurement time between 10 pm and 7 am.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 4 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

Term / Acronym LA90 (T)

MDA NAL NoR PPV

Principal Adviser Project Criteria

Reradiated Noise

Road Header Sound Insulation Sound Pressure Level (Lp) Sensitive Receivers

Special Audible Characteristics

Strata (designation)

Sub-strata (designation) Surface (designation) TBM

Meaning The A-weighted noise level equalled or exceeded for 90% of the measurement period. This is commonly referred to as the background noise level. The suffix "T" represents the time period to which the noise level relates, e.g. (8 h) would represent a period of 8 hours, (15 min) would represent a period of 15 minutes and (2200-0700) would represent a measurement time between 10 pm and 7 am.

Marshall Day Acoustics North Auckland Line – The existing railway line operating between Newmarket junction via Waitakere to Otiria Notice of Requirement Peak Particle Velocity. Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) is the measure of the vibration amplitude, zero to maximum. Used for building structural damage assessment.

The principal adviser to Auckland Transport for this Project is Aurecon Group The noise and vibration performance standards, both national and international that are recommended for use in the Project. There are four sub-categories of Project Criteria: Construction Noise, Construction Vibration, Operation Noise and Operation Vibration. Refer Section 6.

Noise that is radiated into a room through the vibration of its walls, ceiling and floor. Ground-borne vibration enters a building structure and becomes reradiated noise in each room, if the level is sufficient to be audible.

A type of tunnel excavating equipment consisting of a boom-mounted cutting head, a conveyor and a crawler travelling track.

Sound insulation refers to the ability of a material, or building element to reduce sound travelling through it.

A logarithmic ratio of a noise pressure measured at distance, relative to the threshold of hearing (20 µPa RMS) and expressed in decibels.

Receivers (usually building occupants) whose amenity needs to be considered with regards to noise and/or vibration effects; including but not limited to dwellings, hotels, educational facilities, hospitals, places of worship, laboratories, studios, theatres and auditoria.

Distinctive characteristics of a noise which are likely to subjectively cause adverse community response at lower levels than a noise without such characteristics. Examples are tonality (e.g. a hum or a whine) and impulsiveness (e.g. bangs or thumps).

Designation of land layer between the ground surface and the sub-strata designation. This starts at a nominated distance below the surface and extends down to meet the sub-strata designation (the tunnel envelope) Designation of land starting below the strata designation to the centre of the earth (provides for the rail tunnels) Designation of the ground surface (including air space above the land below to the centre of the earth).

Tunnel Boring Machine. A machine designed and used for excavating tunnels with a circular cross-section. Also known as a “mole”. For CRL, a particular type of TBM is proposed, refer EPBM.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 5 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

2.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This technical expert report provides an independent assessment of the effects associated with the proposed City Rail Link (CRL) from a noise and vibration perspective. The assessment identifies and quantifies issues associated with the construction and operation phases of the CRL, and recommends mitigation options to control the effects. An assessment of the existing noise and vibration environment has been undertaken at key positions along the route.

The construction noise assessment reviews typical machinery and timeframes, predicts the construction noise levels and assesses them in terms of compliance with recommended Project Criteria. Significant effects are predicted from works during the night-time period.

However with the implementation of recommended mitigation and the implementation of the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP), construction noise effects can be appropriately controlled.

The effects of construction vibration have been quantified by identifying the primary vibration sources. Emission radii which comply with the Project Vibration Criteria have been calculated. GIS based construction contours have been produced to inform the Project Structural Engineering and Built Heritage Experts of buildings at risk of damage. There is potential for effects on some buildings and building occupants. However it is considered that, with the implementation of the CNVMP, the effects of construction vibration on buildings and building occupants can be adequately managed.

Operational noise has been assessed against Project Criteria. The primary noise effect is expected to be from ventilation stacks at each station. With appropriate design these effects can be mitigated.

The primary operation vibration effect is reradiated noise causing disturbance of building occupants. A number of sensitive receivers have been identified and mitigation options have been proposed to reduce the effects.

It should be recognised that the CRL would be of regional and potentially national significance and its noise and vibration effects would be no greater than that of many major roads in the area.

Where recommended mitigation measures are implemented, it is predicted that the noise and vibration effects of the CRL construction and operation can be managed to an acceptable level.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 6 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

3.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City Rail Link (CRL) is a 3.4km underground passenger railway (including two tracks and three underground stations) running between Britomart Station and the North Auckland Line (NAL) in the vicinity of the existing Mount Eden Station. The CRL also requires 850m of modifications within the NAL. For ease of reference in this report, the stations included in the CRL NoR have been temporarily named Aotea Station, Karangahape Station and Newton Station. The stations will be formally named in the future. A fuller description of the CRL is provided in the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) which supports the Notices of Requirement (NoR).

This technical expert report has been developed by Marshall Day Acoustics Limited (MDA) to provide an independent assessment of the effects associated with the proposed CRL from a noise and vibration perspective.

This City Rail Link: Noise and Vibration Assessment is an appendix of the AEE which supports the NoR to be served by Auckland Transport on Auckland Council to designate the CRL for future construction, operation and maintenance. The NoR covers ground surface (surface designation), strata designation (designation of land layer between the ground surface and the sub-strata designation) and sub strata designation (designation of land starting below the strata designation to the centre of the earth-provides for the rail tunnels) within the Auckland City District Plan, both Isthmus and Central Area Sections.

MDA confirms that the content of this report has been written with reference to the Key Project Parameters set out in the Concept Design Report (CDR)1.

4.

TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

4.1

Noise The methodology for assessing the effects of construction and operational noise from the CRL has been divided into ten general steps:  Review the CDR and other documentation provided by AT and its Principal Advisor (Aurecon) to establish an understanding of CRL, and identification of aspects relating to noise for the NoR  Walk the route and undertake visits to certain locations, with AT and other technical experts, to observe, identify and discuss matters relating to the CRL  Identify receivers along the route which may be affected by construction and/or operation noise, and select a representative number of sites for ambient noise measurement  Establish, through noise measurement at these selected sites the existing ambient noise environment (March-June 2012) for sensitive receivers that may in future be affected by construction and/or operational noise from the CRL

1

Concept Design Report: Assessment of Environmental Effects: Volume 3 Technical Reports Appendix 13

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 7 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

 Review performance standards currently employed by the territorial authorities with jurisdiction in the CRL area (Auckland Council) in terms of whether they provide appropriate guidelines, and other relevant international standards and guidelines, to develop Project Noise Criteria for the construction and operation phases  Identify those construction and operational activities with the potential to generate noise levels approaching or exceeding the relevant Project Noise Criteria based on the designation footprint and the indicative alignment of the rail tunnels within it, indication construction methodology provided in the CDR, likely rail corridor operations and ancillary support services  Analyse measured and obtained equipment data for baseline assessment purposes  Calculate noise propagation between sources and sensitive receivers and determine whether the predicted noise levels meet the Project Noise Criteria  Assess the noise effects of the CRL for sensitive receivers in the vicinity  Consider current best practicable option (BPO) noise management and mitigation measures, including a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) as part of the CRL’s Environmental Management Plan (EMP) 4.2

Vibration The general methodology for assessing the vibration effects of the CRL has been divided into ten general steps:  Review of the CDR and other documentation provided by AT and its Principal Advisor (Aurecon) to establish an understanding of the CRL, and identification of aspects relating to vibration for the NoR  Walk the route and undertake visits to certain locations, with AT and other experts, to observe, identify and discuss matters relating to the CRL. The vibration assessment is particularly relevant to the Structural Engineering and Built Heritage technical experts, and there has been a particular focus on information sharing between these experts  Attend workshops and meetings with AT, the Principal Advisor and other technical experts to evaluate station options and discuss vibration effects  Review a range of international vibration standards and prediction methodologies to establish a suitable vibration assessment methodology, and Project Vibration Criteria for the construction and operation phases  Establish, through vibration measurements on building structures, the current ambient vibration conditions for sensitive receivers in representative locations  Identify those CRL construction activities likely to generate significant vibration levels, and source data for these activities through previous MDA measurements, and reference literature  Analyse the collected vibration data and using prediction models (incorporating distance and ground attenuation effects), develop contour maps relating to the Project Criteria along the route for both the construction and operation phases. These risk contours are

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 8 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

to be used to assess building damage risk, public complaint risk, and develop mitigation strategies.  Identify key receivers along the route whose building uses are particularly sensitive to vibration or reradiated noise (i.e. auditoria, studios etc.)  Review the catalogue of at-risk building structures along the route contained in the Structural Engineer Report2  Develop best practicable option (BPO) vibration management and mitigation measures, including a CNVMP as part of the CRL’s EMP 5.

EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

5.1

Existing Noise Environment

5.1.1 Noise Level Surveys This section provides a summary of the noise level surveys undertaken for CRL over the period March to June 2012. The surveys are intended to provide an understanding of the ambient noise levels in the community adjacent to the CRL prior to construction and operation of CRL. It enables the assessment of noise effects by providing a base level with which predicted construction and future operation noise levels can be compared.

Ten sites were identified as being representative of the existing noise environment at relevant sensitive receiver locations.  DFS Galleria: Representative of residential buildings along lower Albert Street due to the proximity of the designation footprint. The DFS Galleria is housed in a historically significant building. The logger was located on the third floor rooftop of the building, overlooking lower Albert Street. This location enables external noise levels to be measured at a representative height and is similar to locations of noise exposure for other buildings along this part of the alignment  Sky City Grand Hotel: Representative of noise levels along Albert Street and near Aotea Station. A noise logger was located on the walkway roof covering the footpath outside the Sky City Grand Hotel. It should be noted that daytime construction works were taking place at 120 Albert Street throughout the measurements. Nevertheless measured noise levels are consistent with inner city noise exposure and are therefore considered relevant  Aotea Centre: The Aotea Centre is in close proximity of the CRL designation footprint. It houses the ASB Theatre which as a performance venue it is sensitive to noise  The Beresford (22 Beresford Square): Representative of noise levels near the Karangahape Station. An apartment building adjacent to the proposed Karangahape Station and construction worksite. It is considered representative of residential buildings in the area  Mercury Theatre: Representative of noise levels near the Karangahape Station. The Mercury Theatre is also a historically significant building. A noise logger was located on 2

Structural Engineer Report; Assessment of Environmental Effects: Volume 3 Technical Reports: Appendix 10.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 9 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

the front veranda of the Mercury Theatre at 9 Mercury Lane. The logger was approximately 1m from the building façade  23 Dondunald Street: A residential receiver adjacent to the primary entrance to Newton Station. Access for the noise survey was not obtained  French Café: Representative of the upper Symonds Street area near Newton Station. A noise logger was located on the front veranda of the French Café at 210 Symonds Street.

The logger was approximately 1m from the building façade  1 Akiraho Street: An apartment building overlooking the current Mount Eden Rail Station and in proximity to the connection of the CRL with the NAL and the main CRL construction worksite. Noise levels measured at this site are representative of noise exposure for other noise sensitive receivers located in proximity to the CRL along the existing NAL rail line  10 Ruru Street: An apartment building located directly above a cut-and-cover section of the route adjacent to the NAL connections and tunnel portals  27 Brentwood Avenue: A residential building in close proximity to the NAL connection.

Noise levels measured at this site are representative of noise exposure for other noise sensitive receivers located in proximity to the CRL designation footprint areas along the existing NAL rail line 5.1.2 Noise Level Survey Results Measurements at 23 Dondunald Street were not possible as access to suitable premises was not obtained.

The results of these nine completed noise level surveys (refer Appendix E) show a high ambient and background noise environment. The locations with the lowest night-time noise exposure are at Akiraho Street, Ruru Street and the French Café (Newton Station). This is expected, based on their more suburban location. Inner city areas are subject to higher night-time background noise levels. On the weekends, the night-time background noise level along Albert Street is considerably higher at 60 – 74 dB LA90. The noise level did not drop below 60 dB LA90 at any time at this location. Table 5.1.2 below summarises the results for each of the nine sites.

Table 5.1.2: Existing Noise Environment Summaries Location

DFS Galleria

Time Period

Measured Noise Levels dB LAeq

dB LA90

Day

59-72

55-64

Night

54-68

53-64

Commentary

The noise environment at this site is elevated during both the day and night-time periods, with background noise levels of 53 – 64 dB LA90. This is considered to be typical of a metropolitan inner city area, where noise levels are high and controlled predominantly by city road traffic, with contributions from other sources, such as business activity, sirens and alarms.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 10 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

Location

Sky City Grand Hotel

ASB Theatre Aotea Centre (Inside) (Outside)

The Beresford

Mercury Theatre

The French Café

1 Akiraho Street

Time Period

Measured Noise Levels dB LAeq

dB LA90

Day

64-80

62-76

Night

61-77

60-74

Day

29

26

Day

57

54

Day

54-67

50-58

Night

48-64

44-56

Day

60-77

53-66

Night

55-80

46-66

Day

65-81

51-70

Night

54-75

41-64

Day

51-70

40-55

Commentary

The noise environment at this site is elevated during both the day and night-time periods, with background noise levels of 60-74 dB LA90. This is considered a very high noise level, but typical of a metropolitan inner city area. Background noise levels are also higher on weekends – note that the area contains a large number of entertainment facilities.

A sound level meter was located on the ground floor of the ASB theatre in close proximity to the stage. A corresponding external measurement was taken at rear façade of the theatre, in a carpark adjacent to Mayoral Drive. The external measured levels are considered a typical daytime noise level for a location near a busy urban road, such as Mayoral Drive.

The noise environment at this site is lower than at some other inner city locations, due to its distance from local city roads. However, the state highway network is in reasonable proximity, and does impact to a degree on the measured noise levels. The background noise levels of 44 – 58 dB LA90 are reasonably low for the metropolitan area. These noise levels are considered typical of those expected to be experienced on the city fringe, at distance from local city roads and other noise sources.

The noise environment at this site is elevated during both the day and night-time periods, with background noise levels of 46 – 66 dB LA90. This is considered typical of a metropolitan inner city area, where noise levels are controlled predominantly by city road traffic, with some contributions from other sources. Although this site is more affected by noise from the Central Motorway Junction than the Karangahape Station environs, it is still considered typical of the area.

The noise environment at this site is elevated during both the day and night-time periods, with reasonably variable background noise levels of 41 – 70 dB LA90. The noise levels are particularly high during the day, where the area contains a major route into and out of the city centre for road traffic. The night-time noise levels are slightly lower and are more typical of activities associated with commercial operations in the mixed use zone.

The noise environment at this site is lower than at other locations, due to its distance from local roads. However, the NAL is adjacent to the measurement location, and does impact the measured noise levels, particularly

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 11 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

Location

10 Ruru Street

27 Brentwood Avenue

5.2

Time Period

Measured Noise Levels

Commentary

dB LAeq

dB LA90

Night

43-70

35-51

during the day. The background noise levels of 35 – 55 dB LA90 are low. These noise levels are considered typical of those expected to be experienced by receivers along the length of the NAL near the CRL designation footprint.

Day

50-71

44-55

Night

43-53

42-44

The noise logger only operated for 11 hours at this location due to battery longevity. The measured period shows reasonably low background noise levels of 42 – 55 dB LA90, consistent with the sites distance from local roads.

Day

40-61

40-53

The noise environment at this site is lower than at other locations, due to its distance from local roads. However, the NAL is adjacent to the measurement location, and does impact the measured noise levels, particularly during the day. The background noise levels of 40 – 53 dB LA90 are low. These noise levels are considered typical of those expected to be experienced by receivers along this length of the CRL by the NAL.

Existing Vibration Environment

5.2.1 Vibration Level Surveys This section provides a summary of ambient vibration surveys undertaken for CRL over the period March to June 2012. The results are intended to provide an understanding of the ambient vibration levels in the community adjacent to the CRL, prior to construction and operation of CRL. Twelve sites were identified as being representative of the existing vibration environment at relevant sensitive receiver locations. The majority of locations were the same as for the ambient noise surveys (Section 5.1). However, noise surveys required an outdoor location (i.e. balcony) whereas vibration surveys did not, so some vibration locations differed to those selected for noise.  Quay West Suites: Representative of residential buildings on lower Albert Street. The vibration logger was located on the fifth floor of this large residential building and hotel  Sky City Grand Hotel: Representative of vibration levels along Albert Street and near Aotea Station. The vibration logger was located on the ground floor adjacent to Albert Street. It should be noted that daytime construction works were taking place at 120 Albert Street throughout the measurements. Nevertheless measured vibration levels are consistent with inner city vibration levels  Aotea Centre The Aotea Centre is in close proximity to the CRL designation footprint. It houses the ASB theatre which, as a key Auckland performance venue, is sensitive to vibration. The vibration logger was located in the front row of stalls adjacent to the stage This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 12 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

 Rendezvous Hotel: Representative of residential/hotel receivers on Vincent Street. The vibration logger was located on the second floor adjacent to Vincent Street (lowest residential floor)  The Beresford (22 Beresford Square): Representative of residential receivers in the Karangahape Road area. The vibration logger was located on the fifth floor balcony. The fifth floor is the building’s first residential floor  George Court Apartments: Representative of residential and hotel buildings on Vincent Street. The vibration logger was located on the second floor  Cittá Apartments: Representative of the upper Symonds Street area near Newton Station. The vibration logger was located on the ground floor of the building at the Symonds Street façade  Roundhead Studio: A sensitive receiver and heritage building above the proposed Newton Station and adjacent to the secondary construction/ventilation shaft. Access for the vibration survey was not obtained  23 Dondunald Street: A residential receiver adjacent to the primary entrance to Newton Station. Access for the vibration survey was not obtained  TV 3 Building: A vibration-sensitive environment housing a TV studio. The logger was located in the main broadcast studio  10 Flower Street: A residential receiver. The vibration logger was located on the balcony of a first floor apartment  27 Brentwood Avenue: A residential building in close proximity to the NAL connection.

Vibration levels measured at this site are representative of vibration exposure for other vibration sensitive receivers located in proximity to the CRL designation footprint areas along the existing NAL rail line 5.2.2 Vibration Level Survey Results Measured data and details of the ten completed vibration level surveys have been plotted and summarised in survey sheets attached in Appendix F. Measurements at two locations were not possible, as access to the premises were not obtained.

The mean peak particle velocity (PPV) can be considered representative of the typical vibration levels at each site. Note that overall, the mean PPV values did not exceed the perception threshold (0.3 mm/s PPV) at any site. Table 5.2.2 below summarises the results for each site.

Table 5.2.2: Ambient vibration measurement summary Location

Quay West Suites

Vibration Levels Max PPV (mm/s)

Mean PPV (mm/s)

0.4

0.2

Commentary

This is considered typical for a residential building in a metropolitan inner city area. The mean PPV was below the threshold of human perception for residents.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 13 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

Location

Vibration Levels

Commentary

Max PPV (mm/s)

Mean PPV (mm/s)

Sky City Grand Hotel

0.8

0.1

The vibration measurements at this site show reasonably high activity levels during the daytime and lower levels during the night-time. This correlates with more activity, including construction and greater traffic flows, taking place during the daytime. Overall, the mean PPV is below the threshold of human perception for occupants.

ASB Theatre Aotea Centre

0.1

0.1

A short-term measurement was only possible in this location due to theatre scheduling, however this was acceptable due to the consistent vibration level. The level was extremely low inside the ASB theatre, around the limit of sensitivity of the equipment.

Rendezvous Hotel

0.3

0.1

The vibration environment at this site is low, with the mean PPV below the threshold of human perception for residences.

The Beresford

0.2

0.1

The vibration environment at this site is low, with the mean PPV below the threshold of human perception for residences.

This is considered typical for a residential building on the city fringe.

George Court Apartments

0.6

0.1

The vibration measurements at this site show reasonably high activity levels during the daytime and lower levels during the night-time. This correlates with more activity, including greater internal movements, taking place during the daytime.

Overall, the mean PPV is below the threshold of human perception for residences.

Cittรก Apartments

0.6

0.1

The vibration environment at this site is low, with slightly higher vibration levels during the day, correlating with greater traffic on Symonds St. The mean PPV is below the threshold of human perception for residences. This is considered typical for a residential building in the mixed use zone.

TV 3 Building

0.9

0.1

In general, the vibration environment at this site is low, with short periods of elevated vibration levels. The Max PPV event was not consistent with the rest of the period, so this was likely due to local activity in the studio area.

10 Flower Street

2.5

0.2

The vibration environment at this site is highly variable, with elevated vibration levels during the daytime exceeding the threshold of human perception at times. There are lower levels generally at night-time. This is consistent with diurnal activities of the occupants, and is unlikely to represent the ambient vibration environment. Overall, the mean PPV is below the threshold of human perception for a residence.

Occupant activity is the likely cause of high vibration levels during the daytime.

27 Brentwood Avenue

1.5

0.1

Recorded vibration levels show high activity levels during the daytime and lower levels during the night-time. The mean PPV was 0.14 mm/s which is below the threshold of human perception of 0.3 mm/s PPV for a residential receiver.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 14 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

6.

NOISE AND VIBRATION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

6.1

Literature review To ensure the most relevant noise and vibration performance criteria are chosen for the CRL, a review of standards and other literature (e.g. case studies, governmental policies, academic papers etc.) has been undertaken.

The literature reviews for noise and vibration are summarised in Appendices 3, 4, 6, 7 attached. The most relevant to the CRL is the Resource Management Act (RMA), refer Section 6.1.1 below. The proposed Project Criteria are outlined in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 below.

6.1.1 Resource Management Act Under the provisions of the Resource Management Act (RMA) there is a duty to adopt the best practicable option to ensure that the noise from any development does not exceed a reasonable level. Note that the definition of noise in the RMA includes vibration.

Specifically, Sections 16 and 17 reference ‘noise’ effects as follows:  Section 16 states that “every occupier of land (including any coastal marine area), and every person carrying out an activity, shall adopt the best practicable option to ensure that the emission of noise from that land or water does not exceed a reasonable level”  Section 17 states that “every person has a duty to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effect on the environment arising from an activity, whether or not the activity is in accordance with a rule in a plan, a resource consent or relevant sections of the RMA” 6.2

Project Criteria - Construction Phase

6.2.1 Construction Noise A review of relevant construction noise standards and other performance criteria for the assessment of construction noise effects is included as Appendix A. This includes a review of construction noise limits adopted for a sample of other relevant projects in the Auckland area and United Kingdom (Auckland Electrification Project, Waterview Connection, and Crossrail UK). A summary of the review and recommended Project Criteria is contained below.

Under the provisions of the Resource Management Act (Sections 16 and 17) there is a duty to adopt the ‘best practicable option’ to ensure that noise does not exceed a reasonable level, and that any adverse effects shall be avoided, remedied or mitigated. This report supports the AEE for the NoR to designate land for the CRL, and therefore compliance with the District Plan noise rules would not apply to the works covered under the CRL designation. Rather, District Plan noise rules provide guidance as to acceptable standards for compliance. It is considered that compliance with the recommended Project Noise Criteria in accordance with the provisions of the Construction Noise Standard (NZS 6803:1999), including implementation of an approved CNVMP as part of the wider EMP, would constitute the adoption of the ‘best practicable option’.

The Construction Noise Standard NZS 6803: 1999 provides for relaxed limits during normal working hours to enable construction activity to take place. However, it makes no allowance for noisy construction work during Sundays or night-time periods. We note that the Auckland City District Plan (Central Area Section) recognises the nature of the high existing This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 15 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

noise environment and specifies higher noise limits for these periods. Note that at night, the primary acoustic objective is to ensure that any noise activities do not give rise to sleep disturbance for occupants of dwellings. For this reason, Auckland City District Plan (Isthmus and Central Area Sections) have set internal noise limits for habitable spaces in new dwellings due to external noise sources (such as traffic or commercial activities).

Aligned with this, MDA considers that construction activities would be deemed acceptable if the noise generated in the bedrooms of dwellings did not exceed 35 dB LAeq. However, we consider in special cases that this limit could be relaxed by 5 decibels where a specific scheduled construction activity would only occur for 1 period of up to 2 consecutive nights in any 10 days. Similarly, in special cases the daytime limit could also be relaxed where a specific scheduled construction activity would only occur for 1 period of up to 2 consecutive weeks in any 2 months. Any such special case would still require the use of noise management techniques as part of ‘best practicable option’ to ensure that noise contributions from construction activity are reduced.

Table 6.2.1 below is reproduced from Table A8 of Appendix A. It presents recommended Project Criteria for construction noise. The criteria would be implemented in conjunction with a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) as part of the wider EMP, of which a proposed draft is included in Appendix J. Table 6.2.1: Project Criteria – Construction Noise Description

All days (dB LAeq) 2

1 3

Day time (0700 to 2300)

Night-time (2300 to 0700)

Commercial and industrial buildings

75

80

Noise sensitive activity (e.g. dwelling)

75

60

4

Notes: 1. Construction noise should be measured and assessed in accordance with the provisions of NZS 6803:1999 2. Noise limit may be relaxed by 5 decibels for 1 period of up to 2 consecutive weeks in any 2 months 3. Noise limit may be relaxed by 5 decibels for 1 period of up to 2 consecutive nights in any 10 days 4. Or 35 dB LAeq measured inside a bedroom

6.2.2 Construction Vibration Two types of construction vibration effects are considered:  Vibration damage to buildings  Human response to construction vibration The risk of building damage exists primarily during the construction phase because the machinery involved (e.g. vibratory rollers) deliver more energy into the ground (and therefore into buildings) than a train, and are often in closer proximity to receivers.

Effects relating to human response (e.g. annoyance, sleep disturbance) can generally be avoided and/or mitigated through the effective implementation of the CNVMP. Also, the construction period will have a defined timeframe (indicatively at this stage as 5-6 years), so receivers understand when the effects will cease. Moreover, the most common concern of This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 16 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

occupants during construction is damage to their building, and this is addressed by applying the building damage criteria.

Vibration – Building Damage: DIN 4150-3:1999 There are no New Zealand standards that address construction vibration. As discussed above, the primary concern during the construction phase is damage to buildings.

The Standard most commonly used in New Zealand to address building damage risk from ground-borne vibration is German Standard DIN 4150-3:1999 “Structural Vibration - Part 3: Effects of Vibration on Structures”. It (and the preceding 1986 version of the same Standard) is referenced in the Auckland and Waitakere City District Plans, the NZ Transport Agency Environmental Plan and the National Environmental Standard for Electricity Transmission Activities. It has been adopted for major infrastructure projects throughout New Zealand such as Waterview Connection (road and tunnel), MacKay’s to Peka Peka (road), Vic Park Tunnel (road and tunnel) and the NoR for Marsden Point Rail Link (rail).

It should be noted that DIN 4150-3:1999 is a conservative standard. Its criteria are designed to avoid superficial damage to buildings and are well below the levels at which damage to building foundations would occur (Siskind et al., 1980).

Tables 1 and 3 of the DIN 4150-3:1999 Standard are adopted as Project Criteria, and are summarised in Table 6.2.2.1 below. The standard states “Experience has shown that if these values are complied with, damage that reduces the serviceability of the building will not occur.”

Table 6.2.2.1: Project Criteria – Construction Vibration (Building Damage) Type of Structure

1

Short-term vibration PPV at the foundation at a frequency of

Long-term vibration PPV at horizontal plane of highest floor (mm/s)

PPV at horizontal plane of highest floor (mm/s)

1 - 10Hz (mm/s)

1 - 50 Hz (mm/s)

50 - 100 Hz (mm/s)

Commercial/ Industrial

20

20 – 40

40 – 50

40

10

Residential/ School

5

5 – 15

15 – 20

15

5

Historic or sensitive structures

3

3–8

8 – 10

8

2.5

Note: 1. Standard defines short-term vibration as “vibration which does not occur often enough to cause structural fatigue and which does not produce resonance in the structure being evaluated”. Longterm vibration defined as all other vibration types not covered by the short-term vibration definition.

The majority of the CRL’s construction vibration activities would be classed as ‘long-term’.

Note this term defines a property of the vibration signal, and is not related to construction time-frame.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 17 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

Vibration – Human Response: BS 5228-2:2009 As noted previously, the risk of building damage is considered to be the primary effect during the construction phase of the CRL. However Appendix B.2 of British Standard BS 5228-2:2009 provides supplementary guidance relating to human expectations and response to construction vibration. The criteria are given in Table 6.2.2.2 below.

Table 6.2.2.2: Guidance for human response to construction vibration in BS 5228-2:2009, Annex B Vibration level (PPV)

Effect

0.14 mm/s

Vibration might be just perceptible in the most sensitive situations for most vibration frequencies associated with construction. At lower frequencies, people are less sensitive to vibration.

0.3 mm/s

Vibration might be just perceptible in residential environments

1.0 mm/s

It is likely that vibration of this level in residential environments will cause complaint, but can be tolerated if prior warning and explanation has been given to residents.

10 mm/s

Vibration is likely to be intolerable for any more than a very brief exposure to this level.

Note that according to the Standard these values relate to effects on residences, however they can reasonably be applied to offices, with 1 mm/s being acceptable provided notification has been given.

Comparing these values with the DIN 4150-3:1999 criteria, it can be seen that people are likely to complain at vibration levels significantly below those which may cause superficial building damage (such as cracking in paint or plasterwork). Additionally, people are generally more sensitive to vibration at frequencies higher than those which cause building damage. Construction activities generate vibration at a wide range of frequencies, and peoples’ sensitivity to the higher frequencies in this range exacerbates their perception of the potential for building damage. It is anticipated that construction activities which cause concern, but not building damage, will be managed by the CNVMP, in particular through community liaison and education.

It is noted that the BS 5228-2:2009 Standard does not address the effects of reradiated noise – i.e. vibration energy in the building structure that manifests itself as a 'rattle or hum' and is heard rather than felt. It is often difficult for a listener to distinguish this effect from felt vibration, and complaints of vibration can be made when the cause of disturbance is in fact reradiated noise.

This effect varies considerably from structure to structure due to complexities in the connection of building elements and variance in building materials etc. It is anticipated that for the construction phase, this effect would be handled on a case-by-case basis through the complaint management procedures in the CNVMP. For the operational phase, reradiated noise is considered and addressed as a separate effect to vibration. Refer Project Criteria presented in Table 6.2.1.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 18 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

Vibration – Damage to Services: DIN 4150-3:1999 The DIN 4150-3:1999 standard also contains criteria for buried pipe work (Table 2 of the Standard). The criteria vary depending on the pipe material, and range from 50 mm/s to 100 mm/s PPV. The management of damage risk to pipes and other underground services should be undertaken on a case-by-case basis through the CNVMP. 6.3

Project Criteria - Operational Phase

6.3.1 Operational Noise A review of relevant noise standards for this assessment is contained as Appendix B. A summary of the review and recommended Project Criteria is reproduced below.

NAL has a Kiwi Rail designation for rail purposes. As such, the District Plan noise rules do not apply for the control of noise emissions within this designation. CRL above-ground rail movements will be within the existing NAL designation, and as such, the conditions of the NAL designation apply. Therefore CRL works to be undertaken within the NAL designation footprint will not be covered by the CRL NoR. CRL footprint areas are identified adjacent to the NAL designation as a result of new or realigned tracks and other rail infrastructure. It is appropriate to assess the indicative change in noise level due to, for example, tracks being moved closer to a noise sensitive receiver. A change in noise level of 1-2 decibels is generally considered to be indiscernible, while 3-4 decibels is just noticeable. On this basis, the noise effect from a change in noise level of less than 3 decibels is considered to be negligible.

Note that the KiwiRail Reverse Sensitivity Guidelines can be used as a guide for new rail infrastructure developments for control of noise emissions, as well as providing methods to control reverse sensitivity effects arising from incompatible developments nearby. Further discussion is given in Appendix C. The District Plan noise rules are considered appropriate for assessment of mechanical plant and ancillary infrastructure servicing the underground rail sections of the CRL. Consequently, the Project Criteria largely mirror the District Plan criteria. However, the latest (2008) versions of NZS 6801 and NZS 6802 now recognise the equivalent continuous sound level (LAeq) as the noise index that best represents the community response to noise, as opposed to the LA10 noise index used in previous standards (note Auckland Council is likely to adopt the LAeq noise index during the next review of the District Plan). The recommended Project Criteria for operational noise is presented in Table 6.3.1 below (reproduced from Table B4 of Appendix B).

Table 6.3.1: Project Criteria – Operational Noise (excluding rail movements) Location

Period

Auckland Central Area

7.00am to 11:00pm

65

11:00pm to 7:00am

60 70 @ 63 Hz 65 @ 125 Hz

7.00am to 10:00pm

60

10:00pm to 7:00am

55

Auckland Isthmus Area

dB LAeq

dB LAFmax

75

75

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 19 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

6.3.2 Operational Vibration and Reradiated Noise There are no current New Zealand standards that address human response to vibration or reradiated noise from trains. Furthermore, CRL is the first significant underground rapid transit project undertaken in New Zealand, so there is little precedent in terms of vibration methodology or assessment.

A number of international projects were reviewed to identify the commonly adopted methods and criteria (refer Appendix C). The method that has been adopted for CRL is the United States’ Federal Transit Administration (FTA) General Assessment Method (refer Appendix D). It has been chosen because it is a comprehensive tool integrating both prediction and assessment methodologies, it is well supported by academic research (Saurenman et.al., 1982), and has been used in many significant rapid transit projects.

The performance standards in the FTA General Assessment Method set out suitable performance standards for vibration and reradiated noise from underground and surface railways. These have been adopted as the CRL operational Vibration Criteria, as summarised in Table 6.3.2 below. The vibration criteria are also expressed as PPV values (unlike in the FTA document). It is noted that the reradiated Noise Criteria for dwellings in Table 6.3.2 match those contained in the Kiwirail Reverse Sensitivity Guidelines (refer Appendix C).

Table 6.3.2: Project Criteria – Operation Vibration Building Type

Vibration Criteria

Reradiated Noise Criteria (dB re: 20 ď ­Pa)

(dB re: 1 nm/s)

PPV (mm/s)

Commercial and Industrial Buildings

103

0.2

40

Dwellings

100

0.15

35

Auditoria/Theatres

97

0.1

30

TV/Recording Studios

93

0.06

25

A vibration level of 100 dB corresponds to approximately 0.15 mm/s PPV, which is close to the limit of perception (refer Table 6.2.2.2), so effectively the FTA objective for dwellings is imperceptibility. The limit for auditoria/theatres is lower (to ensure there is no disturbance), and the limit for TV/Recording Studios is lower again, most probably to avoid effects on equipment (e.g. camera shake or electrical noise). Note also that these values are an order of magnitude below the most stringent building damage criterion of 2.5 mm/s, so compliance with the limits in Table 6.3.2 indicates that there is no risk of vibration induced building damage from operation of the CRL.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 20 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

7.

ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND MITIGATION OPTIONS – CONSTRUCTION PHASE

7.1

Construction Noise

7.1.1 Key Construction Noise Considerations The indicative 5 – 6 year construction programme, including worksites A – I, is contained in the CDR. The construction programme is largely dictated by the tunnelling timeline. Exposed above ground works are expected to result in significantly more noise impact compared with tunnelling and enclosed works (e.g. excavation of the two tunnels, construction inside stations and enclosed cut-and-cover sections). With the exception of the NAL connection site, the duration of above ground construction works is anticipated to vary significantly, but be a small proportion of the total programme period at any one location.

This assessment focuses on the following five grouped above ground worksites:  Britomart Station to Aotea Station (Worksites E, F, G and H)  Karangahape Station (Worksite D)  Newton Station (Worksite C)  Connection with the NAL and the main construction site (Worksites A and I) The construction of CRL will result in noise which will have some impact on occupiers in the vicinity of the required works for a limited period. The following sub-sections identify key construction activities, determine the likely noise levels generated by the activities, predict the resulting noise effects and discuss feasible mitigation measures.

While the indicative construction methodology provides a basis for the assessment of effects, there is the potential that the actual methodology used may differ in some aspects depending on the approach taken by the contractor. However, a prudent assessment has been undertaken for the purposes of this report, and it is expected for the majority of the CRL, that noise emissions will not vary significantly between methodologies where the equipment required for each is likely to be somewhat similar (e.g. using bulldozers or graders for earthworks). For some specific activities, noise levels may vary markedly for different methodologies (e.g. alternative piling techniques). Deviation from the indicative methodology would be addressed in the CNVMP to achieve the best practicable option for mitigation.

7.1.2 Source Data Table 7.1.2.1 overleaf contains a list of typical ‘noisy’ machinery items or activities anticipated as part of the CRL construction works. It is not intended to be exhaustive, but form a basis for this assessment. The plant items are paired with reference to noise sources in Annex C and D of BS 5228-1, which is referenced by NZS 6803: 1999.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 21 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

Table 7.1.2.1: Machinery Items Item

Machinery Item

BS 5228 reference

Item Noise Level at 10m (dB LAeq)

1

Mobile Crane

C4.43

70

2

Diaphragm wall rig

D4.101

86

3

Secant piling rig

D4.93

89

4

Bentonite / grouting plant

D6.9

76

5

Concrete truck

C4.18

75

6

Excavator

C4.64

75

7

Road truck (idling)

C4.8

56

8

Road truck movements

C4.7

78

9

Dewatering

C2.45

65

10

Front End Loader

C2.28

76

11

Grader

D3.75

84

12

Vibratory Roller

C5.25

75

13

Excavator with Pecker

C1.4

76

Table 7.1.2.2 below presents anticipated ‘construction activities', which are combinations of the individual items from Table 7.1.2.1. Cumulative ‘activity’ noise levels enable simple assessment for comparison with recommended construction noise limits (refer Table 6.2.1) and minimum setback distances.

Table 7.1.2.2: Construction Activities Activity

Construction Activity

Machinery Items

Activity Noise Level at 10m (dB LAeq)

A

D-wall construction

1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9

87

B

Secant piling

1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9

89

C

Excavation

6, 7, 9

75

D

Surface works

6, 7, 11, 12

85

E

NAL site tunnelling services

4, 6, 7, 10

80

F

Truck movements off-site

8

78

G

Demolition

7, 13

76

Note that cumulative ‘activity’ assessment is considered conservative and appropriate for assessing a prudent effects envelope, because it assumes all group items operate continuously and simultaneously for the full assessment period. Furthermore, it assumes that all noise sources are concentrated at one source position, when in practice they may be geographically spread over a site. Therefore in practice, activity levels will likely be lower than those in Table 7.1.2.2.

Multiple ‘activities’ (e.g. D-Wall construction and Excavation) will often occur simultaneously, however they would be geographically separated. Therefore the construction noise levels within close proximity of the worksite are likely to be dominated by the closest ‘activity’, but may increase the level by up to 3 decibels in some cases.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 22 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

7.1.3 Noise Prediction Table 7.1.3.1 overleaf summarises the required setback distance from an activity to enable compliance with the most relevant Project Criteria; daytime period at all receiver types, and night-time at residential receivers (refer Table 6.2.1 for full criteria).

Table 7.1.3.1: Setback Distance Activity

Construction Activity

1

Approximate Setback Distance (m) 75 dB LAeq

2

60 dB LAeq

A

D-wall construction

40

220

B

Secant piling

50

300

C

Excavation

10

60

D

Surface works

30

180

E

NAL site tunnelling services

20

110

F

Truck movements off-site

15

80

G

Demolition

10

60

3

Notes: 1. Setback distances may be shorter with the inclusion of intermediate building shielding and mitigation 2. Daytime Project Criteria at all receiver types 3. Night-time Project Criteria at residential receivers

Table 7.1.3.2 below summarises the activities considered at each assessment site. Note that provision for 24 hour construction is preferred to provide the maximum flexibility for working in the Central City area, where it may be more practical and the best practical option to undertake works at night.

Table 7.1.3.2: Site Activities Est. Chainage

Construction Site

Surface Works Summary

Construction Activities

0000 – 1000

Britomart Station to Aotea Station (Sites: E, F, G, H)

A, B, C, D, F, G

1850 & 2025

Karangahape Station (Site: D)

2700 & 2800

Newton Station (Site: C)

3100 – 3350

Connection to the NAL and the main construction site (Sites: A, I)

Demolition and site preparation works, staged cut-and-cover tunnel and station construction to minimise road closures, and station construction.

Demolition and construction of two cutand-cover station shafts; corner of Beresford St and Pitt St, and corner of Mercury Ln and Cross St. Demolition and construction of two cutand-cover station shafts; corner of Symonds St and New North Rd, and near corner of Dundonald St and Newton Rd. Demolition and site preparation works for NAL connection site, cut-and-cover construction to NAL connection, and tunnelling supports services.

A, C, F, G

A, C, F, G

A, B, C, D, E, F, G

Computer modelling of noise generated by one selected construction activity at each site has been undertaken to assess the effects for the determination of appropriate mitigation measures. Modelling enables a comprehensive overall picture of future noise effects to be This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 23 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

produced and has utilised ‘SoundPLAN’, an internationally recognised computer noise modelling programme.

In summary, SoundPLAN uses a digital topographical terrain map of the area as its base.

Each noise source (refer Table 7.1.2.1) is located in the digital map and the software then calculates noise propagation for multiple directions, allowing for terrain, topography, shielding, and meteorological conditions. The SoundPLAN model uses the calculation algorithms of ISO 9613-2: 1996 ‘Acoustics – Attenuation of noise during propagation outdoors – Part 2: General method of calculation’.

Noise contours plans are presented at 1.5m elevation as well as 3D projections of the contours to show the noise profile on building facades. The most relevant activity for each section has been modelled in SoundPLAN, as follows:  Britomart Station to Aotea Station: Activity B (Secant Piling) at Aotea Station (Worksite E)  Karangahape Station: Activity A (D-wall construction) at Beresford St shaft (Worksite D)  Newton Station: Activity A (D-wall construction) at Dundonald St shaft (Worksite C)  Connection to the NAL and the main construction site: Activity E (NAL site tunnelling services) at tunnelling support site (Worksite A) 7.1.4 Britomart Station to Aotea Station Activity B (secant piling) is the loudest activity type in Table 7.1.2.2. This activity is proposed for cut-and-cover construction from Britomart to Aotea Station (as well as the connections to the NAL). Within this section, Aotea Station was chosen as the modelling site due to its proximity to a large number of noise sensitive receivers. Noise contours are presented in Figures 1 and 2 of Appendix G. It can be seen that the immediately adjacent buildings are predicted to be subject to noise levels in excess of the 75 dB LAeq daytime Project Criteria (refer Table 6.2.1). This model does not include mitigation measures such as a site perimeter hoarding, as they are likely to have limited benefit for any receivers except ground floor occupants. However it can also be seen that affected buildings provide intermediate shielding to noise sensitive receivers located beyond, limiting the number of affected receivers. This model is a snapshot-in-time of particularly noisy works at one location. As the works migrate along the worksite from Britomart Station to Aotea Station, the contours will vary depending on the intermediate shielding provided by adjacent buildings, topography and mitigation measures applied.

7.1.5

Karangahape Station and Newton Station Activity A (D-wall construction) is the loudest activity type at both Karangahape Station and Newton Stations. This activity is proposed for cut-and-cover construction of the station access and ventilation shafts. Beresford St (northern) shaft at Karangahape Station and Dundonald St (northern) shaft at Newton Station were chosen due to their proximity to noise sensitive receivers. With the activity located near the centre of the proposed respective shafts, noise contours are presented in Figures 3 and 5 of Appendix G. 3D projections of the contours are presented in Figures 4 and 6 of Appendix G. As per Section 7.1.4, it can be seen that the immediately adjacent buildings are predicted to be subject to noise levels in excess of the 75 dB LAeq daytime Project Criteria (refer Table 6.2.1). This model does not include mitigation measures such as a site perimeter hoarding,

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 24 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

as they are likely to have limited benefit for any receivers except ground floor occupants.

However it can also be seen that affected buildings provide intermediate shielding to noise sensitive receivers located beyond, limiting the number of affected receivers.

7.1.6 Connection to the NAL and the main Construction Site Activity E (activities associated with the operation and maintenance of the TBM tunnelling) is proposed only at the NAL end of the CRL and within the main construction worksite. This activity is unique in terms of its 24 hour / 7 day operation, multi-year duration, and location.

These activities include conveying and equipment associated with spoil removal, tunnelling ventilation, construction dewatering, tunnel wall panel forming and storage facilities. The proposed construction site is located on a strip of land adjacent to the northern side of the NAL, stretching west from Ruru Street to Porters Avenue. Noise contours are presented for the activity grouped at two arbitrary site locations referred to as ‘eastern scenario’ and ‘western scenario’ respectively (the proposed site setup and machinery item locations will not be known until the contractor is appointed). The eastern scenario has the activity centred between Ruru and Ngahura Streets, presented in Figures 7 and 8. The western scenario has the activity centred between Ngahuru Street and Porters Avenue, presented in Figures 9 and 10.

It can be seen for both scenarios that the received noise levels at immediately adjacent buildings are predicted to comply with daytime Project Criteria recommended in Table 6.1.2.

The majority of façades that are shown to exceed 60 dB LAeq are not residential / noise sensitive buildings, therefore also comply with the night-time Project Criteria. Identified residential façades exceeding 60 dB LAeq are marked with a red shaded roof. An example that does not comply is at the residential building on the corner of Ruru and Nikau Streets where the activity is located at the eastern end of the site. However with the application of appropriate mitigation and management to control noise emissions (refer Section 7.3 and 7.4), this activity will likely enable compliance with the Project Criteria at all locations. For example, favourable site setup to locate noisy machinery items away from noise sensitive receivers, use of site buildings as intermediate acoustic barriers, avoiding night-time operations of targeted machinery items and selection of low noise equipment.

Other activities may operate simultaneously on the adjacent designated sites (such as cutand-cover works for the tunnel portal). Therefore depending on the site location, the cumulative construction noise emissions may exceed the Project Criteria. Activity B (secant piling) is the loudest expected within this area of the designation footprint. Refer to Section 7.1.4 for typical noise propagation from this activity. Note that as mentioned above, the levels will vary depending on the shielding provided by intermediate buildings, topography and mitigation measures applied.

7.1.7 Other Construction Activities Other activities not addressed above are anticipated to have effects similar to, or less than those discussed above. These are addressed briefly below:  Activity C (Excavation): This activity will occur during cut-and-cover construction at ground level. Once the section is covered at ground level and excavation recommences below ground level, the noise levels received are anticipated to drop significantly, depending on ventilation, truck movements and conveying equipment where required This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 25 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

 Activity F (Truck movements off-site): Truck movement strategy would form part of the CNVMP and can be managed to control noise effects  Activity G (Demolition): Demolition will be managed through the CNVMP to control noise effects 7.1.8 Assessment of Effects Construction activities will occur in close proximity to receivers, and during sensitive periods when restricted Project Criteria are recommended. In some instances, noise emissions will potentially exceed the recommended Project Criteria.

For most large scale construction projects, exceedances of their construction noise limits for brief periods are common. Provided these exceedances are temporary and brief, noise levels may not be unreasonable. Measures should be implemented to avoid, remedy and mitigate noise generation as far as is practicable, particularly for exceedances of longer duration or greater magnitude.

The received internal noise level (e.g. in an office or bedroom) will depend on the sound insulation performance of the façade (particularly the glazing) as well as room constants (such as room dimensions and surface finishes). As these factors can vary widely, the construction noise standard (NZS 6803) provides its guidance with respect to external façade levels dependant on internal receiver type. Commentary on typical façade sound level difference for New Zealand dwellings is included in Appendix A, Section A8.

For the purpose of this document, the generalised façade sound insulation performance of buildings is categorised by the type of glazing / ventilation provision as follows:  Sealed glazing

30 decibels level difference (Dw)

 Operable windows

25 decibels level difference (Dw)

 Open Windows

15 decibels level difference (Dw)

‘Noise effects matrices’ presented in Tables 7.1.8.1 and 7.1.8.2 will assist people to estimate the internal noise level received during construction based on the external noise level and façade glazing type. They are indicative for NoR purposes only, as it is recommended that receivers be addressed on a case by case basis (as appropriate) at a detailed design and / or construction stage. The potential risk of noise effects is colour coded as follows:  Green: Acceptable  Orange: Minor  Red: Significant To use the matrices, follow this three step process:  Estimate the external noise level at a relevant façade from Table 7.1.3.1 or indicative construction noise contours provided in Appendix G  Determine the category of façade glazing sound insulation performance presented on the previous page  Use the relevant lookup Table 7.1.8.1 or 7.1.8.2 to estimate the received internal noise level to identify the potential risk of effects, and examples of effects which may be experienced This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 26 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

Table 7.1.8.1: Daytime in commercial & industrial buildings and habitable rooms in dwellings External Noise Level (dB LAeq)

Estimated Internal Noise Level (dB LAeq)

(refer Appendix G)

Sealed glazing (Dw 30 dB)

Operable windows (Dw 25 dB)

Open windows (Dw 15 dB)

90

60

65

75

85

55

60

70

80

50

55

65

75

45

50

60

70

40

45

55

65

35

40

50

60

30

35

45

 < 50 dB LAeq

Typically acceptable

 50 – 60 dB LAeq Annoyance and reduction in work efficiency  > 60 dB LAeq

Difficulty holding a normal conversation and reduction in work efficiency

For commercial and industrial receivers and habitable rooms in dwellings during the day, effects could range from difficulty holding a normal conversation to a reduction in work efficiency. However, the effects from these activities during the daytime period may be controlled with the implementation of an appropriate CNVMP, as part of the wider EMP. Table 7.1.8.2: Night-time in bedrooms of dwellings External Noise Level (dB LAeq)

Estimated Internal Noise Level (dB LAeq)

(refer Appendix G)

Sealed glazing (Dw 30 dB)

Operable windows (Dw 25 dB)

Open windows (Dw 15 dB)

90

60

65

75

85

55

60

70

80

50

55

65

75

45

50

60

70

40

45

55

65

35

40

50

60

30

35

45

 < 35 dB LAeq

Typically acceptable

 35 – 40 dB LAeq Annoyance and sleep disturbance for some noise sensitive receivers  > 40 dB LAeq

Annoyance and sleep disturbance for most noise sensitive receivers

Piling and surface works (activities A, B, C, D and G) are predicted to significantly exceed the night-time Project Criteria at nearby noise sensitive receivers (such as dwellings). For these This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 27 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

receivers, effects could range from annoyance to sleep disturbance. Due to the magnitude of the exceedance, significant adverse effects are predicted at worst effected noise sensitive receiver locations. It is recommended that these activities be undertaken during day and evening periods where practicable, or with agreement of sensitive receivers, they be temporarily relocated for the duration exceeding the Project Criteria. The noise effects from these activities during the daytime period may be controlled with the implementation of an appropriate CNVMP, as part of the wider EMP. The tunnelling activities and truck movements associated with the main construction site area and connections to the NAL (activities E and F), are predicted to comply with the Project Criteria at the majority of receiver locations. With the application of appropriate noise management and mitigation, the noise effects from these activities are predicted to be acceptable.

7.2

Construction Vibration

7.2.1 Key Construction Vibration Considerations As discussed in Section 6.2.2, the primary concern of building occupants during the construction phase is likely to be building damage. The key output of this assessment, therefore, is identifying buildings that may be at risk of vibration induced damage from construction machinery. ‘Risk contours’ have been developed to enable other experts (e.g.

Structural Engineering and Built Heritage) to produce registers of at-risk buildings (refer Section 7.2.3).

Development of the risk contours has involved consideration of the following variables:  Highest anticipated construction vibration source levels – from collected and referenced data  Distance from source to building – which is dependent on tunnel depth and building foundation depth (particularly whether the building has basement levels)  Receiver type – categorised according to DIN 4150-3:1999 Adverse human response effects to construction vibration are expected, with levels high enough to impede daily activities or disturb sleep at some receivers (in the case of 24 hour operations such as TBM tunnelling). These effects will be managed through the CNVMP, in particular by communication and liaison strategies.

This assessment is limited to the prediction of vibration levels at building foundations. The potential effects on buildings are guided by the assessment criteria contained in DIN 41503:1999, but the responsibility for assessing the building response and structural integrity lies with the Structural Engineering expert, with reference to the risk contours (refer Section 7.2.4).

7.2.2 Source Data Vibration data for activities have been sourced from historical Marshall Day Acoustics (MDA) measurements, BS 5228-2:2009 and the Cross River Rail Project (refer Appendix L). The most significant vibration-inducing construction activities have been identified as:  Vibratory Roller – preparation of road surface, and rail base course preparation in cutand-cover and surface works sections This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 28 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

 Road Header – hand-mined tunnel, station and construction shaft excavation  Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) – driven tunnel excavation  Diaphragm Wall Rig – D-wall construction for cut-and-cover sections It is noted that other construction machinery may produce vibration, but these four identified sources are the worst-case within the indicative construction methodology.

Regression analysis of measured data has been undertaken to establish vibration propagation trends. The dataset is representative of generic measurements which vary in terms of machine type/size and ground conditions, so caution is needed in applying these to other sites. A safety factor of 100% has been added to the regression curves (refer Hunt et al., 2010), to ensure conservative estimates until on-site testing can be undertaken to refine the prediction model. Note this was essentially the same method adopted for the Waterview Connection Project. The most common geology for that Project was East Coast Bays Formation (ECBF) - a softish sandstone (depending on its weathered status), which is the same for CRL. The propagation model used in the assessment and a discussion of geology are attached in Appendix D. The vibration regression curves for the four identified sources are attached in Appendix K. 7.2.3 Construction Contours Maps of construction contours indicating the vibration risk to buildings of different types are shown in Appendix H. They were produced by the BECA GIS team using emission radii values from MDA and 3D alignment data from Aurecon (Auckland Transport Principal Advisor for CRL). The GIS framework enables flexible and customised assessment of construction vibration risk by taking a section through any building or structure.

The Structural Engineer and Built Heritage experts have reviewed these safe distance contour maps, and used them in their assessments of effects on buildings3,4. The Structural Engineer Report is attached in AEE: Volume 3 Technical reports: Appendix 10.

These contours are highly conservative, as they are based on the conservative DIN 4150-3:1999 Standard (refer Section 6.2.2) and represent vibration levels from the worst-case machinery used in each area of the CRL. The machinery will not be active in all areas all the time, so the contours also represent the worst-case vibration level at any time during the construction period, not the levels received at all times.

The contours shown would be typical of any large project involving heavy machinery (in particular vibratory rollers) so despite the extent of contours shown on the maps in Appendix H, the vibration levels are not expected to be atypical for urban construction.

Emission radii Vibration emanates from a source in roughly a spherical manner, and reduces with distance away from the source. There will be a particular distance from each source where the vibration level equals the Project Criteria. This distance is termed the ‘emission radius’.

3 4

Structural Engineer Report; Assessment of Environmental Effects: Volume 3 Technical Reports: Appendix 10 Built Heritage Assessment; Assessment of Environmental Effects: Volume 3 Technical Reports: Appendix 4

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 29 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

Emission radii vary depending on the source and receiver types. The predicted emission radii to achieve the Project construction criteria are shown in Table 7.2.4 below.

Table 7.2.4: Emission radii to achieve Project Criteria Source

Emission radii for each receiver type (from DIN 4150-3:1999) Heritage (2.5 mm/s)

Residential (5 mm/s)

Commercial (10 mm/s)

Vibratory Roller

30 m

14 m

6m

Road Header

19 m

13 m

9m

TBM

17 m

8m

4m

D-Wall Rig

15 m

4m

<2m

The distance from source to receiver varies considerably along the CRL and is influenced by tunnel depth. Building foundations must also be considered as there are existing buildings along the CRL that have many underground levels, which brings the foundations closer to construction works.

As the TBM (for example) progresses construction of the CRL tunnels, its vibration sphere leaves a cylindrical ‘trail’, where the cylinder radius is equal to the emission radius. Where the cylinder breaches the ground surface, the resulting lines of intersection produce ‘construction contours’, outside of which the vibration levels would comply with the Project criterion for that receiver type. See Figure 7.2.4 overleaf for a graphical representation.

Furthermore, to assess the effects of deep (i.e. driven tunnel and station cavern) construction vibration on buildings with significant basement structures, safe distance contours at a depth of 20 metres have also been calculated between Aotea Station and Newton Station. The 20 metre depth is an arbitrary value to enable a general assessment of buildings with basements.

Maps showing construction contours at ground level and 20m below ground are attached in Appendix H.

Construction contours at ground level

20 m Construction contours at 20 metres depth

E. radius (m)

Figure 7.2.4: Relationship between tunnel depth, emission radius and construction contours

Construction vibration will be perceptible in buildings outside the construction contours, however communication and follow-up strategies will assist in reducing effects (such as annoyance) on stakeholders (refer CNVMP).

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 30 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

7.2.4 Contour Map Discussion The Construction Contour Maps in Appendix H indicate that there is a potential risk of building damage in many areas along the route, as the contour lines intersect with many buildings.

However, the contour extents are substantially reduced when each building is compared with only the contour relating to its type – the green line only relates to heritage buildings and structures, and the orange only to residential buildings. In general, the red line is the most relevant contour as it relates to commercial buildings which are the most numerous along the route. The Built Heritage Report5 and Structural Engineer Report6 contain more in depth assessments of individual buildings highlighted by these contours.

It can be seen that the contours extend furthest where vibratory rollers are to be used, particularly in the following areas:  Downtown Site to Aotea Station (cut-and-cover)  NAL western turnout to the western Project extent (cut-and-cover and surface works)  NAL eastern turnout to the eastern Project extent (cut-and-cover and surface works) Such vibration levels are anticipated only when vibratory rollers are used and a much reduced contour extent would be expected at other times.

Key receivers A number of particularly sensitive receivers have been identified along the CRL. Although these are not the only receivers in their respective vicinities that may be sensitive to vibration, they have been singled out due to the nature of the activity undertaken in the space. Three such receivers have been identified: Aotea Centre The closest CRL tunnel comes within 4 – 5 metres of the north-west corner of the Aotea Centre complex. Vibration levels are predicted to exceed the commercial Project criterion for this receiver (refer construction contours: 20m below ground in Appendix H). Therefore, construction management as per the CNVMP will be crucial (i.e. regular vibration monitoring, building condition surveys etc.). Practicable mitigation measures to address the effects on the building, such as strengthening of the building structure, may also be explored (refer Structural Engineer Report7, Section 8.6).

TV3 Studios – 3 Flower St, Eden Terrace The main studio in the TV3 building is on the ground floor, approximately 15 metres from, and directly above the CRL tunnels. The predicted vibration level at this distance is approximately 4 mm/s, which would disturb the building occupants and interrupt operations. This issue may be resolved through liaison with TV3, and using alternative construction techniques where practicable.

Roundhead Studios – 151 Newton Rd, Eden Terrace

5

Built Heritage Assessment; Assessment of Environmental Effects: Volume 3 Technical Reports: Appendix 4 Structural Engineer Report; Assessment of Environmental Effects: Volume 3 Technical Reports: Appendix 10 7 Structural Engineer Report; Assessment of Environmental Effects: Volume 3 Technical Reports: Appendix 10 6

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 31 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

Roundhead Studios are approximately 35 metres above Newton Station, on the 2nd floor of the building. The building is given a Type C classification in the Built Heritage Assessment8 (Appendix C, Report ID 73). The building also houses the Sharondelier shop which sells designer chandeliers, and the owners’ private residence (also vibration sensitive receivers).

A construction shaft is proposed directly adjacent to this building. If hand mining techniques (i.e. roadheaders, rockbreakers or similar) are required in constructing this shaft, vibration levels could exceed the commercial building damage limit of 10 mm/s (i.e. four times the recommended heritage limit of 2.5 mm/s for this building) and cause substantial disturbance to the building occupants. If the work can be undertaken using excavators only, the building damage risk will reduce but may still exceed the heritage limit. Vibration and reradiated noise would still be clearly perceptible, especially in the studio, and may rattle displays in the shop.

Construction management, monitoring, and liaison with the building occupants in accordance with the CNVMP are very important. Also, construction technique is a key factor in controlling the effects, in particular for alleviating the risk of building damage and disturbance to the studio. The most effective mitigation measure would be to relocate the construction shaft further away from this receiver.

Other notable receivers There are many other buildings along the route whose structures may be sensitive to vibration. The construction contours inform the Structural Engineer of areas of potential risk, and will enable identification and cataloguing of at-risk buildings. Liaison with the owners/occupiers of these buildings is recommended in accordance with the CNVMP. Such buildings may include, but are not limited to:  Central Post Office building – Queen Elizabeth II Square (historic building)  HSBC House – Queen Elizabeth II Square  Zurich House – Queen Elizabeth II Square  All buildings on both sides of Albert St between Customs St West and Aotea Station, including:  Quay West Suites – 8 Albert St  Stamford Plaza Hotel – 22-26 Albert St  ANZ Tower – 23-29 Albert St  Auckland District Court – 65-69 Albert St  AA Centre – 99 Albert St  BDO Tower – 120-130 Albert St  Sky City Grand Hotel – 113 Albert St  Crowne Plaza Hotel – 128 Albert St  ASB Tower – 135 Albert St

8

Built Heritage Assessment; Assessment of Environmental Effects: Volume 3 Technical Reports: Appendix 4

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 32 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

 The Elliott Hotel – 15-31 Wellesley St West  Rendezvous Hotel – corner Mayoral Drive and Vincent St  Any buildings on both sides of Vincent St which have basement structures more than 4 stories below ground  Chatham Apartments – 72 Pitt St (historic building)  Central Fire Station – 1 Beresford Sq (historic building)  The Beresford – 22 Beresford Sq  Mercury Theatre - 9 Mercury Lane (historic building and performance space)  221 Symonds St Ground Settlement Ground settlement is not a vibration issue as such, but rather a structural issue brought about by a geotechnical issue, which is exacerbated by vibration. Any building not founded on a stable base may be at risk of differential settlement, which can lead to damage. This is not investigated further in this assessment, refer the Structural Engineering Report9.

7.2.5 Assessment of Vibration Effects Building Damage The construction contour maps in Appendix H show that there is a potential risk of damage to some buildings along the CRL route. There are three contours representing damage thresholds for each building category (refer DIN 4150-3:1999) as follows:  Green – Heritage buildings and structures which may be at risk (refer Built Heritage Assessment10)  Orange – Residential buildings  Red – Commercial buildings Any building within the construction contour relating to its category is at risk of sustaining damage. The damage criteria from DIN 4150-3:1999 are conservative, so the anticipated effects are minor and should be limited to superficial damage such as cracking plaster, lengthening of existing cracks in brickwork etc.

Section 7.2.4 lists some potential at-risk buildings, including three ‘key receivers’ that are particularly susceptible to vibration effects.

Human Response The adverse effects of construction vibration on building occupants could be significant in some areas close to the CRL designation footprint, especially for the receivers identified above. Effects reduce with distance away from the footprint to a point (approximately 200m) where vibration will be imperceptible. Adverse effects could range from annoyance to loss of amenity or inability to undertake work. It is noted that in high-rise buildings,

9

Structural Engineer Report; Assessment of Environmental Effects: Volume 3 Technical Reports: Appendix 10 Built Heritage Assessment; Assessment of Environmental Effects: Volume 3 Technical Reports: Appendix 4

10

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 33 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

vibration level reduces per floor as it propagates up through the building structure, so occupants on the lower floors will receive higher vibration levels.

7.3

Options for Avoiding, Remedying or Mitigating Adverse Construction Effects The most effective option for reducing construction emissions is to select low-noise and lowvibration machinery where practicable. In addition, mitigation and management measures such as temporary relocation of sensitive receivers, provision of mechanical ventilation, or investigation of alternative construction methods/locations may be required. This will be determined on a case-by-case basis throughout the construction process using the CNVMP as the implementation tool.

Continued liaison with stake-holders is essential to ensure their concerns about noise and/or vibration are heard and responded to, particularly those identified in Section 7.2.4 above regarding vibration.

Buildings that fall within their respective construction vibration contours shall be identified and catalogued prior to the start of construction (refer Structural Engineer Report11 and Built Heritage Assessment Report12). Building surveys should be undertaken prior to construction to catalogue any existing dilapidation, and during construction if noncomplying vibration levels are measured.

Detailed mitigation options and management and monitoring strategies for the CRL should be handled through development of a Construction Noise and Management Plan (CNVMP).

A proposed draft CNVMP is attached in Appendix J, and summarised in Section 7.4 below.

7.4

Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) A Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) should form part of a comprehensive suite of environmental controls within the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the construction phase of the CRL. It identifies minimum standards (i.e. Project Criteria) and the best practicable options for noise and vibration management.

A draft CNVMP is attached in Appendix J. It will be updated throughout the course of the CRL to reflect changes in construction techniques and management procedures. An outline of the recommended CNVMP contents in relation to construction vibration is summarised below:  Recommended noise and vibration Project Criteria  Timeframe and hours of operation  Machinery and equipment to be used  Identification and cataloguing of at-risk receivers, structures and buried services  Requirements for building condition surveys of at-risk receivers prior to, and during construction works  Roles and responsibilities of personnel on site, regarding noise and vibration  Construction operator training procedures to minimise unnecessary noise and vibration  Construction noise and vibration monitoring and reporting requirements

11 12

Structural Engineer Report; Assessment of Environmental Effects: Volume 3 Technical Reports: Appendix 10 Built Heritage Assessment; Assessment of Environmental Effects: Volume 3 Technical Reports: Appendix 4

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 34 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

 Construction noise and vibration mitigation options, including strategies where full compliance with the Project Criteria cannot be achieved  Management schedules containing site specific information  Methods for receiving and handling complaints about construction noise and vibration  A framework for site-specific noise and vibration management plans (SSCNMPs and SSCVMPs), which are to be prepared for particular at-risk receivers to address areas of particularly high vibration levels, particularly sensitive structures, or on-going complaints 8.

ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND MITIGATION OPTIONS – OPERATIONAL PHASE

8.1

Operational Noise

8.1.1 Key Operational Noise Considerations All CRL rail movements will be enclosed within underground tunnels, merging within the NAL corridor at grade. Train noise emissions received by patrons on station platforms or inside trains are not addressed as part of this NoR effects assessment.

Above ground noise emissions near stations are predicted to be controlled by mechanical services noise from the ventilation stacks.

8.1.2 CRL Designation Station noise emissions would be primarily from the ventilation stacks. Other noise sources (such as patron noise or PA systems) are likely to be insignificant and are not considered further. The generic station ventilation schematic (refer drawing AC-DW-NOR-T-016 rev B) and supplied mechanical services equipment is summarised as follows:  Britomart: Single station ventilation stack, mechanically serviced by 2 x 90m3/s fans operating at up to 1,100Pa for maintenance testing and emergency operation (standby fan not included)  Aotea, Karangahape and Newton stations: Twin station ventilation stacks at each station (6 stacks total), each mechanically serviced by a 1 x 180m3/s fan operating at up to 1,100Pa and a 1 x 60m3/s fan operating at 1,100Pa for maintenance testing and emergency operation (standby fans not included) The following assessment is based on the ventilation system operating at full design duty, reflecting maintenance testing periods and emergency operation. During normal operation, fan duty will be lower, corresponding to reduced noise emissions. However, regular maintenance testing is likely to be undertaken outside normal train timetable hours during the night-time period. Therefore the most relevant Project Noise Criteria is the night-time limits presented in Table 6.3.1.

A summary of the proposed ventilation stacks and representative receiver locations are presented in Table 8.1.2 overleaf.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 35 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

Table 8.1.2: Ventilation Stack Noise Emissions Est. Chainage

Stack Location

Representative Nearby Receiver Locations

Estimated Faรงade Distance

Project Noise 1 Criteria (dB LAeq)

150

QE2 Square Corner of Albert Street and Victoria Street West Corner of Albert Street and Wellesley Street East Corner of Beresford Street and Pitt Street Corner of Mercury Lane and Cross Street Near corner of Dundonald Street and Newton Road Corner of Symonds St and New North Road

15-20m 35-40m 10-15m 25-30m 5-10m 25-30m 10-15m 10-15m 25-30m 25-30m 5-10m 10-15m

60

750

HSBC House Zurich House Albert Plaza Armishaws Building Elliott Hotel Griffiths Building Samoa House The Beresford Apartments Mercury Theatre George Court Apartments Roundhead Studios Residential Noisecraft building Residential

15-20m 15-20m

55

1000 1850 2025 2700

2800

60 60 60 60 55

Note: 1. Refer night-time Project Criteria from Table 6.3.1, which includes controls of 70 dB LAeq at 63Hz and 65 dB LAeq at 125Hz

Based on predictions of fan sound power levels, system pressure and preliminary attenuator performance estimates, noise emissions from ventilation stacks is considered practicable to achieve compliance with the relevant design criteria presented in Table 8.1.2 at approximately 20m from the stack louvres, reduced to approximately 5m with the inclusion of secondary attenuation. This assessment is based on the selection of suitable plant and inclusion of industry standard proprietary attenuation and noise mitigation techniques at the detailed design stage.

The noise effects from ventilation systems are considered reasonable provided compliance with the above Project Criteria is achieved.

8.1.3 NAL Connection The CRL works to be undertaken within the NAL designation footprint will not be covered by the CRL NoR. However CRL footprint areas are identified adjacent to the NAL designation as a result of new or realigned tracks and other rail infrastructure.

The existing noise environment is dominated by train noise at sensitive receivers within close proximity to the NAL. Therefore the character of the noise environment is not expected to change with the inclusion of the additional tracks within the CRL designation footprint. However CRL works would result in reduced setback distances to existing noise sensitive receivers. Indicative calculations for a representative receiver predict a noise level increase of less than 1 decibel. This is based on a combination of the existing nearest track moving slightly closer, and the more distant existing track moving slightly further away. In general, a small and indiscernible local increase in noise emissions is anticipated. On this basis, the noise effects are considered to be minimal.

Other factors that may result in differing noise emissions are summarised as:

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 36 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

ď&#x201A;ˇ Turnouts are located at the portal to integrate NAL and CRL at grade level. It is anticipated that trains would be travelling slowly to traverse the turnouts safely. Squeal from the wheel and rail interface, as well as impact noise due at junctions may be audible at noise sensitive receivers. ď&#x201A;ˇ Level crossings at Porters Avenue and Normanby Road would be replaced with a dedicated road bridges above the lowered rail corridor in a retained trench. The lower track position in combination with the retaining wall would shield noise sensitive receivers, the existing audible warning signalling system would no longer be required, and there would be reduced noise from load resettlement due to loose items moving as vehicles cross the tracks.

8.2

Operational Vibration and Reradiated Noise

8.2.1 Key Operational Vibration Considerations The key considerations for the operational phase of the CRL are vibration and reradiated noise received by sensitive receivers. The FTA General Assessment method has been adopted for the prediction and assessment of operational vibration and reradiated noise (refer Appendix D). Compliance with the FTA criteria implies comfortable compliance with the building damage criteria, so building damage caused by rail movements is unlikely.

The key output of the operation assessment, is a set of risk contours (refer Section 8.2.4) which indicate distances at which vibration or reradiated noise may exceed the operational vibration Project Criteria.

The most notable receiver for the operation phase is the TV3 building in Flower St, Eden Terrace, which is directly above the western turnout tunnel at CH 2970. The TV3 studio, which is on the ground floor of the building, is a particularly sensitive receiver as it records and broadcasts live television several times a day. Vibration would be generated from the track below the building, as well as the turnout at CH 2900 and the crossover east of CH 3000. Train vibration is higher at turnout and crossover junctions due to the wheels passing over wider joints in the track. Mitigation options have been recommended to address these issues in Section 8.3.2.

8.2.2 Prediction Methodology The FTA General Assessment method uses a series of vibration curves developed from measurements of ground-borne trains. It predicts the vibration for a range of receiver types, taking consideration of a number of variables including those relating to train type, geological conditions and distance. The FTA text states that in cases where the predicted vibration is below its recommended criterion, vibration impact is unlikely.

The predicted reradiated noise levels are calculated from the vibration levels. In every case assessed for this Project, the reradiated noise controls the overall safe distance rather than vibration.

8.2.3 Operational Vibration and Reradiated Noise Prediction To show the potential effects of operational vibration, a set of operational contours has been developed using the same methodology as for the construction contours (refer Section 7.2.4). A train emission radius has been calculated for each relevant receiver type (i.e. commercial/office, residential/hotel, theatre, concert hall/studio).

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 37 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

The train emission radii vary depending on the subway and track configuration (refer Appendix D). Higher vibration levels are produced by trains on surface rail and in driven tunnels than in cut-and-cover sections or stations, because the latter are heavier structures which attenuate vibration.

The emission radii for train movements are shown in Table 8.2.3 below.

Table 8.2.3: Emission radii of subway configurations to achieve FTA criteria for each receiver type Subway configuration

Emission radii for each receiver type (from FTA) Studio

Theatre

Residential

Commercial

Driven tunnel / surface

42 m

26 m

16 m

8m

Cut-and-cover

32 m

20 m

11 m

4m

Station

27 m

16 m

8m

2m

The operation contour maps are attached in Appendix I. Note that they are predicted at ground level only (not 20 metres below as for some of the construction contour maps) because vibration sensitive receivers are generally above ground. Vibration levels outside these contours are expected to comply with the Project Criteria, so it follows that any vibration or reradiated noise impacts are unlikely for these receivers.

8.2.4 Assessment of Effects The operation contour maps in Appendix I show that there is a risk of vibration levels exceeding the FTA criteria for some receivers including (but not limited to):  Aotea Centre’s ASB Theatre (Concert Hall / Theatre)  Roundhead Studios (Studio and residence)  TV3 Buildings (Studio) Mitigation measures have been recommended to reduce these effects. These measures are outlined in Section 8.3.2 below. Once mitigation is in place, sensitive receivers along the route may still perceive vibration or reradiated noise, but the levels are likely to be suitable for their building use and consistent with the existing ambient vibration environment.

Note that the contours indicate exceedence for some residential and commercial receivers in the Eden Terrace area, particularly in Enfield St, Mount Eden Rd and Akiraho St (refer Operation Contour Maps in Appendix I). These receivers are adjacent to the existing NAL and are currently exposed to some degree of train vibration. Any increase in train numbers due to CRL would not raise the train vibration levels.

Vibration levels for some receivers may increase slightly due to realigned tracks coming closer. We note that this can be done as of right where the tracks would lie within the NAL designation, so these effects are not due to the CRL (and are therefore not assessed).

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 38 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

8.3

Options for Avoiding, Remedying or Mitigating Adverse Operation Effects

8.3.1 Stations Ventilation noise:  Select low-noise plant or high performance attenuation where practicable  Station management of noise from announcements, station building ingress/egress etc  Equipment shall be well-maintained and used in a mode of operation that minimises noise  Equipment shall be shut down when not in use 8.3.2 Railway Lines The following generic noise and vibration management and mitigation strategies address noise impacts from railway lines:  Manage the occurrence of wheel and track corrugations through implementation of a rolling stock maintenance protocol  Lubricate turnouts and junctions where practicable  Employ targeted noise mitigation such as the erection of noise barriers  Apply planning constraints to new developments near rail corridors, such as restrictions on future land use, minimum setback distances and minimum noise insulation requirements (refer recommendations in the KiwiRail Reverse Sensitivity Guidelines in Appendix C) Specific vibration rail mitigation is recommended for the tunnels in the following areas:  Aotea Centre's ASB Theatre: This building requires that a two-level mitigation approach be applied to the eastern-most tunnel in order to comply with the concert hall criteria:  Floating track slab within 30 metres of the building (CH 1090 – 1160 approximately), and  Resilient rail fasteners OR continuously welded rail out to 50 metres either side of the building (i.e. CH 1020 - 1090, and CH 1160 – 1185 approximately)  Roundhead Studios: Resilient rail fasteners or continuously welded rail in the westernmost tunnel out to 50 metres either end of the building (i.e. CH 2620 – 2710 approximately)  TV 3 building: This building requires that a two-level mitigation approach be applied to the western-most tunnel in order to comply with the studio criteria:  Floating track slab within 15 metres of the building (CH 2935 – 2995 approximately), and  Resilient rail fasteners OR continuously welded rail out to 30 metres either side of the building (i.e. CH 2920 – 2935, and CH 2995 – 3010 approximately) In all cases, management of wheel and track corrugations through implementation of a rolling stock maintenance programme is strongly recommended.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 39 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

9.

CONCLUSION An assessment of noise and vibration effects has been undertaken for the CRL Project, for the purposes of supporting the NoR. The assessment has identified and quantified issues associated with the construction and operation phases of the CRL, and recommended mitigation options to control the effects. An assessment of the existing noise and vibration environment has been undertaken at key positions along the route.

The construction noise assessment reviews typical machinery and timeframes, predicts the construction noise levels and assesses them in terms of compliance with recommended Project Criteria. Some significant effects are predicted from works during the night-time period. However with the implementation of the recommended mitigation and the implementation of the CNVMP, construction noise effects can be appropriately controlled.

The effects of construction vibration have been quantified by identifying the primary vibration sources. Emission radii which comply with the Project Vibration Criteria have been calculated. GIS based construction contours have been produced to inform the Project Structural Engineering and Built Heritage teams of buildings at risk of damage. Some significant vibration effects on building occupants are predicted. However it is considered that, with the implementation of the CNVMP, the effects of construction vibration on buildings and building occupants can be adequately managed.

Operational noise has been assessed against Project Criteria. The primary noise effect is expected to be from ventilation stacks at each station. With appropriate design these effects can be mitigated.

The primary operation vibration effect is reradiated noise causing disturbance of building occupants. A number of sensitive receivers have been identified and mitigation options have been proposed to reduce the effects.

It should be recognised that the CRL would be of regional and potentially national significance and its noise and vibration effects would be no greater than that of many major roads in the area.

Where recommended mitigation measures are implemented, it is predicted that the noise and vibration effects of the CRL construction and operation can be managed to an acceptable level.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\new tech reports\SP\yesterday\CRL NoR Noise and Vibration December 2012 (clean).docx

Page 40 of 40

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

APPENDIX A REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION NOISE CRITERIA A1

Introduction The following review has been undertaken to determine appropriate construction noise criteria for works associated with the City Rail Link (CRL) Project. It is confined to construction noise generated by the proposed works. It does not determine appropriate operational noise criteria from the station or railway post-construction, which is reviewed separately in Appendix B. The review is structured as follows:  Resource Management Act  Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus and Central Area sections  NZS 6803: 1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise  Case Study 1 – Auckland Electrification Project (AEP)  Case Study 2 – Waterview Connection  Case Study 3 – Crossrail (London, UK)  Discussion and recommended Project Criteria – Construction Noise

A2

Resource Management Act The provisions of Section 16 and 17 of the Resource Management Act apply to the assessment and consideration of an NOR for a designation. There is a general duty to adopt the best practicable option to ensure that the noise from activities related to the CRL Designation do not exceed a reasonable level, and to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects.

“16.

Duty to Avoid Unreasonable Noise

Every occupier of land (including any premises on any coastal marine area), and every person carrying out an activity in, on, or under a water body or in the coastal marine area, shall adopt the best practicable option to ensure that the emission of noise from that land or water does not exceed a reasonable level.

17.

Duty to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects

Every person has a duty to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effect on the environment arising from an activity carried on by or on behalf of that person, whether or not the activity is in accordance with a rule in a plan, a resource consent, section 10, section 10A or section 20.”

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.3 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix A December 2012 (clean).docx

Page A1 of A10

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

A3

Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus and Central Area sections

A3.1

Overview It is understood that, the proposed rail corridor will be designated for railway purposes and therefore, the District Plan rules will not directly apply to activity on that land. However, the District Plan Noise Rules do provide an understanding of limits deemed acceptable for other noise sources in the various zoned environments.

The CRL rail corridor and associated works are proposed for sites in the Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus and Central Area sections.

It is noted that the Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus and Central Area sections refer to the 1984 draft version of the New Zealand Standard NZS 6803, which has now been replaced by an updated version NZS 6803:1999 “Acoustics – Construction Noise”. The 1999 Standard is similar in effect to that of the previous version and it is recommended that the criteria of the 1999 version be substituted and applied to this project.

A3.2

Central Area Section Part 7 of the Auckland City District Plan – Central Area section includes extensive discussion on the objectives and resource management of the noise environment. It acknowledges an expectation of an elevated noise environment within the Central Area due to the density of buildings and infrastructure, balanced with a duty to ensure a reasonable level of amenity in residential precincts. This is reflected by noise limits of lesser stringency (compared with limits typically suitable for suburban residential environments), coupled with construction requirements for new dwellings to limit external noise intrusion to 35 dB LA10 in bedrooms and 45 dB LA10 in any other habitable space.

Specific construction noise rules presented in section 7.6.4 of the District Plan are reproduced in part below for reference. Note the proposed corridor alignment passes under residential precincts at lower Albert Street and Pitt Street.

“7.6.4 Rules – Construction Noise a) Construction work shall be as defined in section 1.3.1 of NZS 6803P:1984. b) Construction noise of less than 15 days duration shall not exceed the following levels when measured 1 metre from the facade of any adjacent building, for any 30 minute period in accordance with section 3.2.1 of NZS 6803P:1984 : Period

L10

Lmax

Monday to Friday 6:30am to 10:30pm

80 dBA

90 dBA

Saturday 7am to 11:00pm

85 dBA

90 dBA

Sunday 9:00am to 7:00pm

80 dBA

90 dBA

At all other times (night time)

60 dBA

75 dBA

At all other times (night time in Residential and Tertiary Education Precincts only)

55 dBA

75 dBA

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.3 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix A December 2012 (clean).docx

Page A2 of A10

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

c) Construction noise of 15 days or more in duration shall not exceed the following levels when measured 1m from the facade of any adjacent building, for any 30 minute period in accordance with section 3.2.1 of NZS 6803P:1984 : Period

A3.3

L10

Lmax

Monday to Friday 6:30am to 10:30pm

75 dBA

90 dBA

Saturday 7am to 11:00pm

80 dBA

90 dBA

Sunday 9:00am to 7:00pm

65 dBA

85 dBA

At all other times (night time)

60 dBA

75 dBA

At all other times (night time in Residential and Tertiary Education Precincts only)

55 dBA

75 dBA”

Isthmus Section Part 4A of the Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus section requires that construction, maintenance and demolition noise complies with the New Zealand Standard NZS 6803P:1984 “The Measurement and Assessment of Noise from Construction, Maintenance and Demolition Work”. However, it also notes that “Where the Council is satisfied that the construction work cannot be carried out during the normal working hours the Council may set other noise limits as are appropriate in the circumstances.”

The proposed CRL corridor alignment and NAL connection is located almost exclusively in or next to land zoned Mixed Use (small areas zoned Business 8 on Symonds Street and Residential 1 on Brentwood Avenue, however no above ground infrastructure including noise generating equipment is proposed on this land). This part of the city has been predominantly zoned Mixed Use / Business 8, which provides for a mix of commercial, residential and industrial activities reflecting the proximity to the central city area.

Consequently, new dwellings in Mixed Use and Business 8 zones must “…be designed and constructed so as to provide an indoor design level of Balanced Noise Criterion (NCB) 30 in any habitable room assuming the building is exposed to a noise level of 60dBA L10 at the boundary of the site…” This can be considered largely equivalent to the requirements for new dwellings in the Central Area discussed above.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.3 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix A December 2012 (clean).docx

Page A3 of A10

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

A4

NZS 6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise Relevant sections of NZS6803:1999 are reproduced below for reference.

A4.1

Residential zones and dwellings in rural areas “Table 2 – Recommended upper limits for construction noise received in residential zones and dwellings in rural areas Time of week

Time period

Duration of work Typical

Weekdays

Saturdays

Sundays and public holidays

A4.2

Short-term

Long-term

Leq

Lmax

Leq

Lmax

Leq

Lmax

0630-0730

60

75

65

75

55

75

0730-1800

75

90

80

95

70

85

1800-2000

70

85

75

90

65

80

2000-0630

45

75

45

75

45

75

0630-0730

45

75

45

75

45

75

0730-1800

75

90

80

95

70

85

1800-2000

45

75

45

75

45

75

2000-0630

45

75

45

75

45

75

0630-0730

45

75

45

75

45

75

0730-1800

55

85

55

85

55

85

1800-2000

45

75

45

75

45

75

2000-0630

45

75

45

75

45

75

Industrial or commercial areas “Table 3 – Recommended upper limits for construction noise received in industrial or commercial areas for all days of the year Time period

A4.3

Duration of work Typical

Short-term

Long-term

Leq

Leq

Leq

0730-1800

75

80

70

1800-0730

80

85

75

Notes in the standards to the tables above 7.2.5 The night time limits in Table 2 shall apply to activities carried out in industrial or commercial areas where it is necessary to prevent sleep interference, specifically where there are residential activities, hospitals, hotels, hostels, or other accommodation facilities located

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.3 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix A December 2012 (clean).docx

Page A4 of A10

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

within commercial areas. The limits in Table 2 may also be used to protect other specific noise sensitive activities at certain hours of the day.

7.2.6 One major factor which should be considered is whether there is a relatively high background sound level (L90) due to noise from sources other than construction work at the location under investigation. In such cases limits should be based on a determination of the existing level of noise in the area (a “background plus” approach).

7.2.7 Where there is no practicable method of measuring noise outside a building, the upper limits for noise measured inside the building shall be the levels stated in tables 2 and 3 minus 20 dBA. This is considered to be a typical value for the sound reduction normally achieved in New Zealand buildings with doors and windows closed.”

A5

Case Study 1 – Auckland Electrification Project (AEP)

A5.1

Overview An ‘Acoustic Sensitivity Analysis’ was undertaken (similar to this for CRL) to determine the actual and potential effects of construction noise emissions on land from works associated with the Auckland Metro Rail Network Electrification Project (upgrade works to 22km of existing rail corridor). The scope of work involved identifying acoustically sensitive land use adjacent to the Project throughout the Auckland Metropolitan region and the likely construction noise impacts on this land. It was confined to construction noise generated by the proposed electrification of the track and did not assess operational noise from the station or railway post-construction.

A review of Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus and Central Area sections noise limits, NZS 6803: 1999, guidance documents was undertaken. In conjunction with a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP), the following common construction noise criteria were adopted project wide: Time period

All days (dB LAeq) Daytime (0730 – 1800)

1

Evening (1800 – 2000)

Night-time (2000 – 0730)

Commercial, industrial, unoccupied buildings

75

80

80

Dwellings

75

70

65

2

1. Noise limit may be relaxed by 5 decibels if construction period less than 3 days 2. Or 35 dB LAeq measured inside the bedroom of the dwelling

A5.2

Discussion The AEP noise criteria were based on a number of factors which differ for CRL, including:  The proposed AEP works were to be undertaken almost exclusively inside an existing operating rail corridor. Therefore noise sensitive receivers were already somewhat accustomed to intervals of high noise level due to train movements. While many CRL construction sites are not located in existing rail corridors, they are predominantly

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.3 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix A December 2012 (clean).docx

Page A5 of A10

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

located adjacent to high volume inner city roads with elevated existing noise environments (refer Section 5.1).  The AEP project spanned many former Auckland Council’s boundaries, however did not involve the Central Area. Therefore noise sensitive receivers were often residentially zoned, with lower background noise environments compared with the proposed CRL corridor alignment.  The construction period affecting any one noise sensitive receiver for AEP was anticipated to be in the order of days or weeks, rather than months or years anticipated for some CRL noise sensitive receivers.

A6

Case Study 2 – Waterview Connection Project

A6.1

Overview An assessment of actual and potential noise effects was undertaken as they may arise from the construction of the NZ Transport Agency’s (the NZTA’s) Waterview Connection Project.

The project includes the construction of twin road tunnels using road headers or TBMs. The tunnels will traverse below established suburban residential areas and a protected stream.

For airborne noise, the NZS 6803:1999 construction noise limits were generally applied, except for Project Sectors where ambient night-time noise levels were elevated due to other noise sources such as traffic on existing major roads. For these Sectors, an adjusted nighttime noise criterion was considered appropriate. Structure borne (reradiated) noise criteria from tunnelling activities only were based on the World Health Organisation noise criteria.

The Project construction airborne and regenerated noise criteria adopted are presented in the following three tables.

“Project Construction Noise Criteria: Residential Receivers Time of week

Monday to Saturday

Sundays and public holidays

Time period

Project Construction Noise Criteria (Long Term Construction) dB Sectors 1 - 7 LAeq(T)

Sectors 8 & 9 LAeq(T)

All Sectors LAFmax

0630-0730

60

45

75

0730-1800

70

70

85

1800-2000

65

65

80

2000-0630

60

45

75

0630-0730

45

45

75

0730-1800

60

45

85

1800-2000

45

45

75

2000-0630

45

45

75

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.3 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix A December 2012 (clean).docx

Page A6 of A10

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

Project Construction Noise Criteria: Commercial and Industrial Receivers Time Period

Project Construction Noise Criteria (Long Term Construction) dB L Aeq(T)

0730 – 1800

70

1800 – 0730

75

Project Construction Noise Criteria: Internal Structure-borne Noise from tunnelling for Residential Receivers Time Period

Project Construction Noise Criteria (Inside)

Habitable Rooms

Daytime

35 dB LAeq(T)

All habitable rooms

Night-time

30 dB LAeq(T)

Bedrooms

(T) means a duration between 15 minutes and 60 minutes, in accordance with NZS6803:1999.”

A6.2

Discussion The Waterview Connection Project has many similar construction activities when compared with CRL (e.g. piling, cut and cover construction, TBM/road header tunnelling). However, the proposed CRL corridor is confined to CBD and mixed use areas with a high existing noise environment (refer Section 5.1), whereas the Waterview Project tunnel traverses established suburban areas which are generally remote from major noise sources.

Therefore, the above criteria could be simplified for CRL while maintaining the elevated alternative night-time criteria set out for residential areas.

Internal noise criteria were set out only for structure-borne (reradiated) noise from tunnelling, taking account of the number of residences above the alignment and the potential for residents’ disturbance due to excitement of dwelling structures, particularly at night-time. No internal airborne criteria for residences or businesses were set out as these would be governed by the external airborne noise criteria set out in the Tables in 6.1.

A set of internal airborne construction noise criteria were developed for licensed educational facilities based on the maximum limits of AS/NZS2107:2000. However, no educational facilities have been identified within close proximity to CRL.

A7

Case Study 3 – Crossrail (London, UK)

A7.1

Overview Crossrail is a high frequency railway due to open in 2017, connecting East and West London via 22km of new tunnels under the central city to above ground rail corridors in outlying residential suburbs. Assessment and mitigation of construction noise and vibration was required in accordance with BS 5228 ‘Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites’ (essentially the British equivalent of New Zealand Standard NZS 6803). Furthermore, the Crossrail Act imposed design requirements including noise criteria in the form of published ‘Information Papers’.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.3 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix A December 2012 (clean).docx

Page A7 of A10

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

A7.2

D09 ‘Noise and Vibration Mitigation Scheme’ Information paper D09 ‘Noise and Vibration Mitigation Scheme’ explains the intention to manage noise from Crossrail worksites through design and mitigation methods. However it acknowledges that in some circumstances, standard mitigation measures may not be feasible and/or sufficient. It states that: “In certain circumstances, the Promoter will either provide and install free of charge, or provide grant aid for, noise insulation and/or arrange temporary re-housing, or help residents to arrange it for themselves and recoup the costs”.

Appendix A of D09 includes guidance to determine Noise Insulation (NI) and Temporary ReHousing (TRH) eligibility of residential buildings due to construction noise. NI qualification was based upon the cumulative noise level reaching the trigger levels presented in Table 1 of document IPD9 Appendix A (reproduced below), or the pre-existing ambient noise level +5dB, whichever is the greater.

Time Monday to Friday

Saturday

Sunday and Public Holidays

Relevant Time Period

Average Time (T)

NI Trigger Level (dB LAeq, T)

07.00 - 08.00

1 hr

70

08.00 - 18.00

10 hr

75

18.00 - 19.00

1 hr

70

19.00 - 22.00

3 hr

65

22.00 - 07.00

1 hr

55

07.00 - 08.00

1 hr

70

08.00 - 13.00

5 hr

75

13.00 - 14.00

1 hr

70

14.00 - 22.00

3 hr

65

22.00 - 07.00

1 hr

55

07.00 - 21.00

1 hr

65

21.00 - 07.00

1 hr

55

To be eligible, the dwelling must be one in which the predicted or actual construction noise exceeds the relevant NI trigger level for:  A period of 10 or more days of working in any 15 consecutive days; or  For a total of 40 days or more in any 6 consecutive months The temporary re-housing qualification is based upon whether the cumulative noise exceeds a level 10 dB greater than the noise insulation trigger levels, or the pre-existing ambient noise level +10 dB, whichever is the greater. Note the pre-existing ambient noise level is determined from a baseline noise survey.

Note the above criteria has been subsequently been incorporated into the revision of BS 5228: 2009 as Annex E.4 – ‘Example of criteria for the assessment of the significance of noise effects’.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.3 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix A December 2012 (clean).docx

Page A8 of A10

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

A7.3

Discussion Crossrail provides insight into construction noise management techniques applied for a similar (albeit much larger) new above and underground integrated rail scheme. Similarities between Crossrail and CRL projects include:  Construction of 5 new twin 6m diameter tunnel sections (totalling 22km in length) and 37 new or refurbished stations (including many in the central business district using a top down excavation method)  Construction of 6 tunnel portals and tunnelling support sites in both residential and commercial areas Due to the scale of the project, the proposed Crossrail NI trigger levels are balanced project criteria for application across both central and suburban areas. However, the CRL project does not extend to residentially zoned areas. As discussed above, all zones which the proposed rail corridor will pass through already include external noise intrusion limits for new residential dwellings to mitigate the existing elevated external noise environment (refer Section 5.1 of the NoR noise and vibration report).

A8

Discussion and recommended Project Criteria – Construction Noise The Construction Noise Standard NZS 6803: 1999 provides for less stringent limits during normal working hours in order to enable normal construction activity to take place.

However, it makes no allowance for noisy construction work during Sundays or night-time periods. Whereas, the Auckland City District Plan – Central Area section recognises the nature of the existing noise environment and provides more liberal noise limits during these periods.

Given that the project is to be undertaken on, beneath or adjacent to, high volume inner city streets, many of the CRL works will need to be undertaken outside peak commuting periods (e.g. at night, weekends, over long weekends, Easter, and the Christmas / New Year period).

Having regard to these operational constraints, and given the overall benefit to the community of the project, permitting construction during night-time and on Sundays is considered to be reasonable and appropriate to reduce the effects on commuters and lessen the duration of construction noise on neighbouring properties. In MDA’s opinion, it would be appropriate to apply the weekday construction noise limits also to Sunday and Public Holidays for the duration of this project. This would permit the works to be carried out in a shorter period of time thus reducing the duration of impact on occupiers in the vicinity and commuters.

At night-time, the primary acoustic objective is to ensure that any noise activities would not give rise to undue sleep disturbance for occupants of dwellings. For this reason, Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus and Central Area sections has set internal noise limits for habitable spaces in new dwellings due to external noise sources (such as traffic or commercial activities). Aligned with this, MDA considers that construction activities would be acceptable if the noise generated in the bedrooms of dwellings did not exceed 35 dB LAeq. However, we consider this limit could be extended to 40 dB LAeq where a specific scheduled construction activity would only occur for 1 period of up to and including 2 consecutive days in any 10 days. A special case would still obligate the use of noise management techniques

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.3 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix A December 2012 (clean).docx

Page A9 of A10

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

as part of ‘best practicable option’ to ensure that noise contributions from construction activity is reduced.

Sound insulation studies of facades of New Zealand dwellings has shown that old villa type dwellings with closed wooden sash windows would provide approximately 25 decibels attenuation, whilst modern dwellings/apartments with closed aluminium windows can provide up to 30 decibels attenuation. Construction noise would, therefore, be considered as acceptable where the noise level at 1m from the façade of a habitable room did not exceed 60 – 65 dB LAeq. It should be noted that the District Plan requirements for mitigating external noise in new dwellings must be achieved with the windows closed and in combination with adequate ventilation. However many existing dwellings will rely on natural ventilation. Due to the proposed extended construction period, closed windows during summer months may not be feasible or appropriate for these properties.

Table A8 below presents recommended construction noise criteria for adoption project wide. The criteria would be implemented in conjunction with an approved Construction noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP), of which a proposed draft is included in Appendix K. This is to be integrated within the project’s Environmental Management Plan (EMP). Noise mitigation strategies for identified affected dwellings should be undertaken on a case by case basis.

Table A8: Recommended Project Criteria – Construction Noise Description

All days (dB LAeq) 1

4 2

Day time (0700 to 2300)

Night-time (2300 to 0700)

Commercial and industrial buildings

75

80

Noise sensitive Activity (e.g. residential)

75

60

3

Notes: 1. Noise limit may be relaxed by 5 decibels for 1 period of up to 2 consecutive weeks in any 2 months 2. Noise limit may be relaxed by 5 decibels for 1 period of up to 2 consecutive nights in any 10 days 3. Or 35 dB LAeq measured inside the bedroom 4. Measured and assessed in accordance with the provisions of NZS 6803:1999

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited Page A10 of A10 C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.3 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix A December 2012 (clean).docx

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

APPENDIX B REVIEW OF OPERATIONAL NOISE CRITERIA B1

Introduction This review has been undertaken to determine appropriate noise criteria for normal operation of the proposed City Rail Link (CRL) following construction. Noise sources to be considered include noise generated from station activities, building and tunnel ventilation systems, and train movements. It does not include consideration of noise from the construction phase, which is reviewed separately in Appendix A. This review is structured with the following sub-sections:  Resource Management Act  Auckland Council District Plan  Discussion and recommended Project Criteria – Operational Noise

B2

Resource Management Act The provisions of Section 16 and 17 of the Resource Management Act apply to the assessment and consideration of an NOR for a designation. There is a general duty to adopt the best practicable option to ensure that the noise from activities related to the CRL Designation do not exceed a reasonable level, and to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects.

“16.

Duty to Avoid Unreasonable Noise

Every occupier of land (including any premises on any coastal marine area), and every person carrying out an activity in, on, or under a water body or in the coastal marine area, shall adopt the best practicable option to ensure that the emission of noise from that land or water does not exceed a reasonable level.

17.

Duty to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects

Every person has a duty to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effect on the environment arising from an activity carried on by or on behalf of that person, whether or not the activity is in accordance with a rule in a plan, a resource consent, section 10, section 10A or section 20.”

B3

Auckland Council District Plan

B3.1

Overview The CRL Project is proposed for sites which would normally be regulated by the ‘Central Area’ and ‘Isthmus’ Sections of the Auckland Council District Plan (former City of Auckland District Plan). The Auckland Council District Plan includes noise rules (district-wide as well as specific to individual zoning) which are intended to control noise emissions from various activities and indicate the degree of acoustical protection intended for an area. As the works would take place within designated land subsequent to the Notice of Requirement (NoR) prepared by a Requiring Authority, the noise effects would not necessarily be controlled by any District Plan noise rules, but be subject to any specific conditions attached to the Designation(s).

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.4 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix B December 2012 (clean).docx

Page B1 of B4

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

In this case, it is considered that noise emissions should where possible be similar to, or align with the design criteria of the District Plan noise controls. However, the District Plan does not contain noise rules relevant to rail noise and alternative assessment methods would be required. It does however contain rules that are appropriate as the basis for design criteria for all other operational noise emissions associated with the Project, such as mechanical services noise.

B3.2

Central Area Section Part 7 of the Auckland Council District Plan (Central Area Section) includes extensive discussion on the objectives and resource management of the noise environment. It acknowledges an expectation of an elevated noise environment within the Central Area due to the density of buildings and infrastructure, balanced with a duty to ensure a reasonable level of amenity in residential precincts. This is reflected by elevated noise limits, coupled with sound insulation requirements for new residences to limit external noise intrusion.

Section 7.6.3 of the District Plan is reproduced in part below: “a) Subject to any other rule in this Part, the A-weighted L10 noise level, the L10 noise levels at 63Hz and 125Hz respectively, and the maximum noise level (Lmax) arising from any activity measured 1 metre from the facade of an adjacent occupied building shall not exceed the following levels: Period

L10

7.00 am to 11:00pm

65 dBA

11:00pm to 7:00am

60 dBA 70 dB @ 63 Hz 65 dB @ 125 Hz

Lmax

75 dBA

c) All accommodation units and non permanent accommodation shall be designed and constructed to provide an indoor noise level of 35dBA L10 in every bedroom and 45dBA L10 in any other habitable spaces (as defined in the NZ Building Code), based on both:  the existing traffic noise levels logarithmically averaged between 10 pm and 7am at all facades of the building;  the noise levels standards in rule 7.6.3(a).

At the same time and under the same physical conditions as the above internal noise levels will be achieved, all bedrooms and other habitable spaces will be adequately ventilated in accordance with clause G4 of the NZ Building Code and the assessment criteria in clause 5.6.3.1(d).10 of the district plan.”

B3.3

Isthmus Section The proposed corridor alignment and the NAL connection are located almost exclusively on or under land zoned Mixed Use (small areas zoned Business 8 on Symonds Street and Residential 1 on Brentwood Avenue, however no above ground infrastructure including noise generating equipment is proposed on this land). There is a requirement for new residences in the Mixed Use zone to include sound insulation to limit external noise intrusion, which is similar to those in the Central Area.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.4 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix B December 2012 (clean).docx

Page B2 of B4

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

Section 8.8.10 (B) of the District Plan is reproduced in part below. “(b) Noise Control within the Mixed Use Zone The L10 noise levels and maximum level (Lmax), arising from any activity, measured at or within the boundary of any adjacent site (not held in common ownership) within the same mixed use zoning shall not exceed: Period

L10

7.00 am to 10:00pm

60 dBA

10:00pm to 7:00am

55 dBA

Lmax

75 dBA

(c) Noise control for Residential Units, residential hospitals, rest homes and retirement villages in the Mixed Use Zone For all residential units, residential hospitals, rest homes and retirement villages within the Mixed Use Zone the building shall be designed and constructed so as to provide an indoor design level of Balanced Noise Criterion (NCB) 30 in any habitable room assuming the building is exposed to a noise level of 60 dBA L10 at the boundary of the site. Such design level being achieved with windows and doors open unless adequate alternative ventilation is provided (the buildings must comply with the minimum ventilation rates, which comply with the New Zealand Building Code G4).”

B4

Discussion and recommended Project Criteria – Operational Noise

B4.1

Above ground rail movements NAL has a Kiwi Rail designation for rail purposes. As such, the District Plan noise rules do not apply for the control of noise emissions within this designation. CRL above-ground rail movements will be within the existing NAL designation, and as such, the conditions of the NAL designation apply. Therefore CRL works to be undertaken within the NAL designation footprint will not be covered by the CRL NoR. CRL footprint areas are identified adjacent to the NAL designation as a result of new or realigned tracks and other rail infrastructure. It is appropriate to assess the indicative change in noise level due to, for example, tracks being moved closer to a noise sensitive receiver.

A change in noise level of 1-2 decibels is generally considered to be indiscernible, while 3-4 decibels is just noticeable. 3 decibels is often utilised as the threshold for assessment of infrastructure improvements. This is supported by the approach for Crossrail (new UK rail project in London, refer section A7 of Appendix A). Crossrail Information Paper D26 ‘Surface Railway Noise and Vibration’ section 5.4 requires: “The design of new surface railway, or alteration of existing surface railway tracks will endeavour to achieve, in all reasonably foreseeable circumstances, predicted operational noise level increase less than 3 dB LAeq,T at the nearest sensitive receptor…”. On this basis, the noise effect from a change in noise level of less than 3 decibels is considered to be negligible.

Note that the KiwiRail Reverse Sensitivity Guidelines can be used as a guide for new rail infrastructure developments for control of noise emissions, as well as providing methods to control reverse sensitivity effects arising from incompatible developments nearby. Further discussion is given in Appendix C5.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.4 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix B December 2012 (clean).docx

Page B3 of B4

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

B4.2

Mechanical plant and all other general noise sources The District Plan noise rules are considered appropriate for assessment of mechanical plant and ancillary infrastructure servicing the underground rail sections. Consequently, the proposed Project Criteria largely mirror the District Plan criteria. However, the latest (2008) versions of NZS 6801 and NZS 6802 now recognise the equivalent continuous sound level (LAeq) as the noise index that best represents the community response to noise, as opposed to the LA10 noise index used in previous standards (note Auckland Council is likely to adopt the LAeq noise index during the next review of the District Plan). The recommended Project Criteria for operational noise is presented in Table B4 overleaf.

Table B4: Project Criteria â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Operational Noise (excluding rail movements) Location

Period

Auckland Central Area

7.00am to 11:00pm

65

11:00pm to 7:00am

60 70 @ 63 Hz 65 @ 125 Hz

7.00am to 10:00pm

60

10:00pm to 7:00am

55

Auckland Isthmus Area

dB LAeq

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.4 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix B December 2012 (clean).docx

dB LAFmax

75

75

Page B4 of B4

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

APPENDIX C VIBRATION LITERATURE REVIEW C1

Introduction The following review has been undertaken to identify New Zealand legislative or local government documents relating to environmental vibration from rail, and to review a number of significant NZ and international projects in terms of their vibration methods and criteria.

The review is structured as follows:  Resource Management Act  Auckland City District Plan  National Environmental Standards  Kiwirail Reverse Sensitivity Guidelines  NZ Project – Waterview Connection  International Projects

C2

Resource Management Act The provisions of Section 16 and 17 of the Resource Management Act apply to the assessment and consideration of an NOR for a designation. These sections are addressed in Section 6.1 of the assessment report and in Appendix A2.

With regards to vibration, it is noted that the definition of noise in the RMA includes vibration.

C3

Auckland City District Plan The Auckland City District Plans reference DIN 4150-3 (both the superseded 1986, and the current 1999 versions). DIN 4150-3:1999 has been adopted in the Project construction vibration criteria (refer Section 6.2.2).

The earlier 1986 version of DIN 4150-3 is referenced in:  Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus Section, section 8.8.2.7 Noise and Vibration arising from Blasting  Auckland City District Plan – Central Area Section, section 7.6.5.2 Noise and Vibration arising from explosive blasting or pile driving The current 1999 version in referenced in:  Auckland City District Plan – Hauraki Gulf Islands Section (Proposed 2006), section 4.6.3 Noise and vibration from blasting or pile driving for construction activities  Whilst not all the above District Plan sections are directly applicable to the Project, the list serves to establish the existing usage of the DIN Standard in NZ legislature.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.5 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix C December

2012 (clean).docx

Page C1 of C3

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

C4

National Environmental Standards Whilst there is no National Environmental Standard (NES) to control noise and vibration from construction works or traffic operation, it is noted that the NES for Electricity Transmission Activities contains reference to DIN 4150-3:1999 in clause 37.3, in relation to vibration control of construction activities relating to existing transmission lines.

C5

Kiwirail Reverse Sensitivity Guidelines In 2011 Kiwirail developed a set of noise and vibration reverse sensitivity guidelines. Whilst these are not understood to be publically available (i.e. do not appear on their website), they have formed part of Kiwirail’s submissions on a number of local body developments, including Rotorua District Plan and Maymorn Structure Plan.

Table C5: Assessment Criteria (Noise and Vibration) for New Developments Adjoining the Rail Corridor Distance from nearest 1 track edge

Assessment Criteria

Less than 40 metres

Noise: Applicants will need to demonstrate they can meet the following noise levels: 

Dwellings: 35 dB LAeq(1hr) inside bedrooms of 40 dB LAeq(1hr) inside other habitable spaces.



All other developments: no greater than the recommended maximum design guidelines given in AS/NZS 2107-2000: Acoustics – recommended design sound level and reverberation times for building interiors.

Compliance with these limits shall be demonstrated by either a desktop exercise based on a design train noise level, or a detailed assessment based on actual train noise levels and recognised acoustic modelling.

Vibration: Applicants should be aware that vibration within this area may cause annoyance and possibly damage to buildings. Vibration is very site specific and applicants are advised to undertake a vibration assessment to determine whether it will be an issue for their particular development.

40 to 80 metres

Standard New Zealand building construction will be acceptable, provided that the total area of glass, other than in walls facing directly away from the rail line, does not exceed 30% of the total area of all external walls. All windows and external 2 doors in bedrooms must be fitted with perimeter seals .

If Applicants consider the above treatment is not warranted, then advice should be sought from an acoustic consultant to justify an alternative approach.

Applicants should note that vibration may be noticeable within this area, but will be less than international standards for damage to modern buildings.

The guidelines contain no criteria relating to vibration, but do flag it as a potential issue. The internal noise criteria, however, are relevant to reradiated noise (which is vibration generated).

C6

New Zealand Project – Waterview Connection An assessment of vibration effects (Technical Report G.19) was undertaken for the construction and operation of the Waterview Connection Project. The construction phase is

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.5 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix C December

2012 (clean).docx

Page C2 of C3

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

most relevant to CRL because it is a roading project, so the methodology and criteria adopted are not applicable to rail.

The project includes the construction of twin road tunnels using road headers and TBM. The tunnels will traverse below established suburban residential areas and a protected stream.

For construction vibration, DIN 4150-3:1999 was adopted (refer Section 6.2.2). Where blasting was proposed, there was provision to exceed the DIN criteria (by up to 100%) for 5% of blasts, an approach supported by Section 8.8.2.7e of the Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus Section for blasting in quarries.

The CNVMP for Waterview Connection also provided an essential tool for vibration management.

With the exception of operation vibration and the statistical approach for blasting, the vibration assessment tools, source data and construction criteria for CRL closely follow those employed in Waterview Connection.

C7

International Projects A large number of international rapid transit projects have been reviewed to inform the methodologies adopted for the CRL vibration assessment. These projects are listed below, and any particular areas that were relevant and adopted for CRL are italicised:  CrossRail Project, London UK  Dart Underground, Dublin Ireland  North West Rail Link, Sydney Australia  Cross River Rail, Brisbane, Australia (construction source data)  Amtrack Downeaster, New England USA (FTA General Method)  Port MacKenzie Rail Extension, Alaska USA (FTA General Method)  Knowledge Corridow – Restore Vermonter, Massachusetts USA (FTA General Method)  Cincinnati Street Car Project, Ohio USA (FTA General Method)  Minneapolis Metropolitan Central Corridor Light Rail Transit, Minnesota USA (FTA General Method)  Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement, New Jersey USA (FTA General Method)  Chicago to Iowa City Project, Illinois-Iowa, USA (FTA General Method)  Evanston Yellow Line Station Feasibility Study, Illinois, USA (FTA General Method)  California High-Speed Train Project, Californa, USA (FTA General Method)  Denver-West Corridor Light Rail Transit Project, Colorado, USA (FTA General Method)

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.5 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix C December

2012 (clean).docx

Page C3 of C3

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

APPENDIX D VIBRATION PREDICTION METHODS D1

Construction – Vibration Propagation Model The basic prediction model for vibration propagation with distance is: PPV = K·D-n

--- (1)

Where: PPV = Peak Particle Velocity (mm/s) – refer Glossary K=

Ground transmission constant (for a given ground type)

D=

Distance from source to receiver (m)

n=

empirical constant based on a number of factors such as the geology, ground profile, frequency of transmitted wave, predominant waveform. The value of n is obtained from regression analysis and generally has a value between 0.5 and 1.5.

The regression curves contained in Appendix K are represented by formulae in the same form as Equation 1, so establishing the safe distance to achieve a certain PPV value is a matter of solving the relevant equation for D (i.e. Equation 2).

D = (K/PPV)1/n

--- (2)

Equation 2 has been used to establish the construction emission radii (refer Section 7.2.3).

D2

The Effect of Geology on Vibration Propagation Geology is a consideration in vibration prediction because vibration propagates more efficiently through hard ground than it does through soft.

For construction, the collected vibration data obviously incorporates the geology of the area in which the measurements were made, so the dataset represents a multitude of ground types. For a large dataset it is impractical to normalise all the data for geology type, and there are also inaccuracies associated with this process.

Therefore a correction factor of + 100% (refer Hunt et al, 2010) has been applied to all regression curves to account for this effect. Furthermore, construction is occurring in close proximity to some receivers so distance attenuation is less significant.

Geology is considered in the FTA General Method (refer Section D3) insofar as the model incorporates provision for ‘increases due to rock’ which refers to the fact that hard rock under the surface reflects vibration energy to the surface increasing the vibration levels.

There are no locations along the CRL route where hard rock is below the tunnel alignment, so these effects do not apply.

D3

Operation – FTA General Method The chosen prediction method for the operation assessment is that developed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) – Refer Section 6.3.2. Its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (1995) “sets forth methods and procedures for determining the level of noise and vibration impact resulting from most federally-funded transit projects and for determining what can be done to mitigate such impact.”

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.6 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix D December

2012 (clean).docx

Page D1 of D3

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

There are two assessments provided – the General Assessment Method and the Detailed Assessment Method. The General Assessment has been adopted as it is designed for preliminary assessments, and therefore appropriate for the NoR stage of CRL. The method uses a series of vibration curves developed from measurements of trains, as shown in Figure E3 below. The rapid transit curve is the most relevant to CRL, so has been used for this assessment.

Figure E3: Generalised Ground Surface Vibration Curves (from FTA General Assessment Method) The method then establishes the criteria based on receiver type and train frequency, taking consideration of the following variables, informed as far as practicable by the Key Project Parameters the AEE. For the majority of the route the variables shown in bold were applied to the model, then certain parameters were adjusted as required to model other conditions like cut & cover sections and stations, and special receiver types such as Aotea Centre and TV3 studio:  Train speed (50 kph)  Train suspension parameters (N/A, stiff primary suspension, resilient wheels etc.)  Track conditions (jointed track, continuously welded rail, corrugated track etc.)  Track treatments (conventional rail on ballast, resilient fasteners, floating track slabs etc.)  Track configuration (at grade, elevated structure etc.)  Subway configuration (bored tunnel, cut & cover, station as appropriate)

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.6 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix D December

2012 (clean).docx

Page D2 of D3

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

 Geological conditions (efficient soil, increase due to rock etc as appropriate.) None apply to CRL  Coupling to building foundations (large masonry on piles, foundation and track connected by rock etc.)  Amplification to first floor and number of floors (Yes or N/A)  Type of building/room (Categories according to Table E3 overleaf) The FTA algorithm predicts a higher level of vibration from stations and cut-and-cover sections than from bored tunnels because the former are heavier in construction (i.e. more concrete) which attenuates vibration levels.

Table E3 overleaf contains selected vibration and reradiated sound criteria from Tables 8-1 and 8-2 of the FTA method. Note that Category 1: “Buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations” from Table 8-1 has been omitted from Table E3. This category relates to research facilities, universities and medical laboratories containing vibration sensitive equipment (such as electron microscopes), and no such buildings have been identified along the CRL route. To address the sensitive buildings in CRL, the TV/Recording Studios and Auditoria criteria are taken from Table 8-2.

Table E3 Selected FTA criteria for human response to train vibration and reradiated sound Type of Building

Ground-borne Vibration Impact 1 Levels (dB re: 1 nm/s)

Ground-borne Noise Impact Levels (dB re: 20 Pa)

Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep

100

35

Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use

103

40

TV/Recording Studios

93

25

Auditoria

97

30

1. The original FTA criteria are expressed in VdB re: 1 in/s (micro-inch per second). Those values have been converted into SI Units i.e. dB re: 1 nm/s (nanometres per second) for this assessment.

In terms of effects, the FTA text states that in cases where the predicted vibration is below the criterion, vibration impact is unlikely. Where it is 0 to 5 decibels greater than the criterion, there is “still a significant chance that actual ground-borne vibration levels will be below the criterion”, and where the predicted level is 5 decibels or more greater than the criterion, “vibration impact is probable” and detailed analysis will be required at the final design stage.

The prediction of reradiated sound is achieved by a simple correction to the vibration level.

The correction value is based on the frequency content of the train source, and the proposed rail and tunnel configuration falls within the ‘typical’ definition, so a correction of 63 dB has been applied.

In every case, the reradiated sound counterpart is more stringent by up to 5 dB so it is this factor that controls the safe distance rather than vibration level.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.6 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix D December

2012 (clean).docx

Page D3 of D3

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

APPENDIX E EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT E1

Ambient Noise Measurement Locations

Map Legend Measurement location

French Cafe 1 Akiraho Street 10 Ruru Street DFS Galleria Suites

Aotea Centre 27 Brentwood Ave Sky City Grand Hotel

Mercury Theatre 22 Beresford Square

E2

City Rail Link – Ambient Noise Monitoring Results This section provides a summary of the noise level surveys undertaken for CRL over the period of March to June 2012. The results are intended to provide an understanding of the ambient noise levels in the community adjacent to the proposed rail link prior to construction and operation of CRL. It enables the assessment of noise effects by providing a base level with which predicted construction and future operation noise levels can be compared.

Nine sites were identified as being representative of the existing noise environment at relevant sensitive receiver locations as shown in the previous figure. Measurements have been completed at all sites.

At each survey location, except the Aotea Centre, 10 Ruru Street and 27 Brentwood Avenue, the ambient noise levels were measured using Acoustic Research Laboratories Pty Ltd Environmental Loggers Type EL-215. A Brüel & Kjær 2238 logger was used at 10 Ruru Street and 27 Brentwood Avenue. All Noise measurements were undertaken generally in accordance with New Zealand Standards NZS 6801: 2008 and NZS 6802:2008. The logger measured noise levels for continuous 15 minute periods over a range of acoustic parameters, such as LAmax, LA10, LAeq and LA90. The surveys ranged in length from 4 to 7 days – a period considered suitable to capture typical ambient levels.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.7 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix E December 2012 (clean).docx

Page E1 of E11

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

Access restrictions at the Aotea Centre limited the noise measurement to approximately 30 minutes at this location. This measurement was undertaken generally in accordance with New Zealand Standards NZS 6801: 2008 and NZS 6802:2008 with a Brüel & Kjær 2260 sound level meter. The measurement was undertaken in the ASB theatre, a top performance venue with a consistent noise level. Thus, the measurement is considered suitable to capture typical ambient levels.

E3

Survey Results Data from the noise level surveys has been plotted and summarised in the following survey sheets. Each sheet provides a description of the site location and brief comments on the equipment setup and measurement at that site. Noise data is provided in graph form, showing time traces with LAmax, LA10, LAeq and LA90 data. Averaged noise levels, with the LAeq level logarithmically averaged and LA10 and LA90 levels arithmetically averaged, and the range of measured noise levels are given for day (0700 – 2300) and night (2300 – 0700) periods over weekdays and weekends.

Rain is a natural event which has the potential to produce readings in the noise data. Rain droplets generate noise on and around the microphones if they are not under cover. Rain data for the measurement period was obtained from the NIWA Auckland Airport rain gauge, via the NIWA CliFlo database. Periods of rain are indicated on the survey sheets for all measurements. Periods of rain events have been excluded from the calculation of averaged noise level data.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.7 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix E December 2012 (clean).docx

Page E2 of E11

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

E4

DFS Galleria

Address: 22 Customs Street West Date:

8 - 12 March 2012

Setup: The noise logger was placed on the third floor rooftop overlooking lower Albert Street.

Comments: There is a high noise level at this site, during both the day and night with background noise levels of 55 – 61 dB LA90. This is typical of a metropolitan inner city area, where noise levels are high and controlled predominantly by city road traffic, with contributions from other sources, such as business activity, sirens and alarms.

Table E4: Average Broadband Noise Levels Parameter

Time Period

Average Range (min – max)

Weekday Noise Levels (dB)

Weekend Noise Levels (dB)

LAeq

LA10

LA90

LAeq

LA10

LA90

Day (0700 – 2300)

65

67

61

63

65

60

Night (2300 – 0700)

60

61

55

61

63

56

Day (0700 – 2300)

60 – 72

62 – 70

56 - 64

59 – 68

62 – 71

55 – 62

Night (2300 – 0700)

54 – 68

56 – 69

53 - 61

57 – 68

59 – 71

54 – 64

12

100

10

0

0

12:00

12:00

2

0:00

20

12:00

4

0:00

40

0:00

6

12:00

60

0:00

8

12:00

80

Wind Speed (m/s)

120

0:00

Sound Pressure Level(dB re:20 micropascals)

Measured Ambient Sound Pressure Levels - DFS Galleria 8 - 12 March 2012

Time of Day LAeq

LAmax

LA10

LA90

Wind speed

Periods of Rain

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.7 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix E December 2012 (clean).docx

Page E3 of E11

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

E5

Sky City Grand Hotel

Address: 109 – 123 Albert Street Date:

8 - 12 March 2012

Setup: The noise logger was placed on the Albert Street gallery outside the Sky City Grand Hotel. It should be noted that daytime construction works were taking place at 120 Albert Street throughout the measurements.

Comments: There is a high noise level at this site, during both the day and night with background noise levels of 62-65 dB LA90. This is typical of a metropolitan inner city area. Background noise levels are also higher on weekends – indicating that the area contains a large number of entertainment facilities with associated levels of patron activity, and many other business activities.

Table E5: Measured Noise Levels Parameter

Time Period

Average Range (min – max)

Weekday Noise Levels (dB)

Weekend Noise Levels (dB)

LAeq

LA10

LA90

LAeq

LA10

LA90

Day (0700 – 2300)

68

69

65

72

71

65

Night (2300 – 0700)

64

65

62

69

69

64

Day (0700 – 2300)

64 – 75

65 – 76

62 – 68

63 – 80

65 – 83

62 – 76

Night (2300 – 0700)

61 – 72

63 – 70

60 – 66

62 – 77

63 – 80

61 – 74

12

100

10

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

0

12:00

0 0:00

2

12:00

20

0:00

4

12:00

40

0:00

6

12:00

60

0:00

8

12:00

80

Wind Speed (m/s)

120

0:00

Sound Pressure Level(dB re:20 micropascals)

Measured Ambient Sound Pressure Levels - Sky City 6 - 13 March 2012

Time of Day LAeq

LAmax

LA10

LA90

Wind Speed

Periods of Rain

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.7 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix E December 2012 (clean).docx

Page E4 of E11

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

E6

Mercury Theatre

Address: 9 Mercury Lane Date:

8 - 13 March 2012

Setup: A noise logger was located on the front veranda of the Mercury Theatre at 9 Mercury Lane.

The logger was approximately 1m distance from the building façade.

Comments: There is a high noise level at this site, during both the day and night with background noise levels of 54 – 60 dB LA90. This is typical of a metropolitan inner city area, where noise levels are high and controlled predominantly by city road traffic, with contributions from other sources, such as business activity, sirens and alarms.

Table E6: Average Broadband Noise Levels Parameter

Time Period

Average Range (min – max)

Weekday Noise Levels (dB)

Weekend Noise Levels (dB)

LAeq

LA10

LA90

LAeq

LA10

LA90

Day (0700 – 2300)

66

67

60

65

65

57

Night (2300 – 0700)

63

63

54

65

63

55

Day (0700 – 2300)

60 – 77

64 – 72

55 – 65

60 – 75

63 – 73

53 – 66

Night (2300 – 0700)

55 – 76

57 – 72

46 – 63

57 – 80

60 -71

51 – 66

12

100

10

0:00

0

12:00

0 0:00

2

12:00

20

0:00

4

12:00

40

0:00

6

12:00

60

0:00

8

12:00

80

Wind Speed (m/s)

120

0:00

Sound Pressure Level(dB re:20 micropascals)

Measured Ambient Sound Pressure Levels - Mercury Theatre 8 - 13 March 2012

Time of Day LAeq

LAmax

LA10

LA90

Wind Speed

Periods of Rain

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.7 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix E December 2012 (clean).docx

Page E5 of E11

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

E7

The French Café

Address: 210 Symonds Street Date:

8 - 13 March 2012

Setup: The noise logger was placed on the balcony of the French Café approximately 1m from the façade.

Comments: There is a high noise level at this site, during both the day and night with background noise levels of 49 – 64 dB LA90 . The noise levels are particularly high during the day, as the site is immediately adjacent to a major road route into and out of the city centre. This is considered a high noise level for such an environment. The, nighttime noise levels are more typical of activities associated with commercial operations in the mixed use zone and are considered typical.

Table E7: Average Broadband Noise Levels Parameter

Time Period

Average Range (min – max)

Weekday Noise Levels (dB)

Weekend Noise Levels (dB)

LAeq

LA10

LA90

LAeq

LA10

LA90

Day (0700 – 2300)

71

73

64

69

71

60

Night (2300 – 0700)

65

66

49

65

68

51

Day (0700 – 2300)

65 – 81

69 – 78

54 – 70

65 – 75

69 – 75

51 – 65

Night (2300 – 0700)

54 – 75

53 – 74

41 – 63

59 – 75

64 – 76

44 – 64

12

100

10

0

12:00

0:00

0 12:00

2

0:00

20

12:00

4

0:00

40

0:00

6

12:00

60

0:00

8

12:00

80

Wind Speed (m/s)

120

0:00

Sound Pressure Level(dB re:20 micropascals)

Measured Ambient Sound Pressure Levels - The French Cafe 8 - 13 March 2012

Time of Day LAeq

LAmax

LA10

LA90

Wind Speed

Periods of Rain

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.7 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix E December 2012 (clean).docx

Page E6 of E11

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

E8

Aotea Centre

Address:

50 Mayoral Drive

Date:

16 April 2012

Equipment:

Brüel & Kjær 2260 Investigator

Setup: The sound level meter was located on the ground floor of the ASB theatre in close proximity to the stage. A further measurement was taken at rear façade of the theatre, in a carpark adjacent to Mayoral Drive. Measurements were 30 minutes length on a weekday afternoon.

Comments: The ASB theatre is top performance venue, with a consistent noise level. The internal measurement shows a low internal noise level that is considered typical for this environment.

The external measurement provides a snap shot of a weekday noise level that is incident of the theatres rear façade. The measured level is considered a typical daytime noise level for a location near a busy urban road, such as Mayoral Drive.

Table E8: Average Broadband Noise Levels Area

Noise Level (dB) LAeq

LA10

LA90

Inside

29

40

26

Outside

57

59

54

A time trace is not provided for this location due to the short measurement period, which correlates with negligible variation in recorded noise levels.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.7 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix E December 2012 (clean).docx

Page E7 of E11

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

E9

The Beresford

Address: 22 Beresford Square Date:

19 - 24 April 2012

Setup: The noise logger was located on the buildings fifth floor balcony overlooking Beresford Square.

Comments: The noise environment at this site is lower than at some other inner city locations, due to its distance from local city roads.

However, the state highway network is in reasonable proximity, and does impact to a degree on the measured noise levels. The background noise levels of 44 – 58 dB LA90 are reasonably low. These noise levels are considered typical of those expected to be experienced on the city fringe, at distance from local city roads and other noise sources.

Table E9: Average Broadband Noise Levels Parameter

Time Period

Average Range (min – max)

Weekday Noise Levels (dB)

Weekend Noise Levels (dB)

LAeq

LA10

LA90

LAeq

LA10

LA90

Day (0700 – 2300)

59

60

55

58

59

54

Night (2300 – 0700)

55

55

48

57

58

52

Day (0700 – 2300)

55 – 67

56 – 66

51 – 58

54 – 64

55 – 66

50 – 57

Night (2300 – 0700)

48 – 64

50 – 67

44 – 56

53 – 60

55 – 63

47 – 55

Measured Ambient Sound Pressure Levels - The Beresford 19 - 24 April 2012 5 4.5

100 4

3

60

2.5 2

Wind Speed (m/s)

3.5

80

40 1.5 1

20

0.5

0 12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

0

12:00

Sound Pressure Level(dB re:20 micropascals)

120

Time of Day LAeq

LAmax

LA10

LA90

Wind speed

Periods of Rain

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.7 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix E December 2012 (clean).docx

Page E8 of E11

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

E10

Akiraho Street

Address: 1 Akiraho Street Date:

19 – 23 April 2012

Setup: The noise logger was located on the buildings second floor balcony overlooking the Mount Eden Rail Station.

Comments: The noise environment at this site is lower than at other locations, due to its distance from local roads. However, the NAL is adjacent to the measurement location, and does impact the measured noise levels, particularly during the day. The background noise levels of 35 – 55 dB LA90 are low. These noise levels are considered typical of those expected to be experienced by receivers along the length of the Project by the NAL. Table E10: Average Broadband Noise Levels Parameter

Time Period

Average Range (min – max)

Weekday Noise Levels (dB)

Weekend Noise Levels (dB)

LAeq

LA10

LA90

LAeq

LA10

LA90

Day (0700 – 2300)

63

58

49

57

54

46

Night (2300 – 0700)

57

51

42

55

50

41

Day (0700 – 2300)

51 – 68

53 – 69

43 – 55

47 – 70

50 – 64

40 – 51

Night (2300 – 0700)

43 – 67

45 – 63

38 – 51

43 – 70

47 – 56

35 – 47

Measured Ambient Sound Pressure Levels - 1 Akiraho Street 19 - 23 April 2012 5 4.5

100 4

3

60

2.5 2

Wind Speed (m/s)

3.5

80

40 1.5 1

20

0.5

0 12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

0

12:00

Sound Pressure Level(dB re:20 micropascals)

120

Time of Day LAeq

LAmax

LA10

LA90

Wind speed

Periods of Rain

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.7 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix E December 2012 (clean).docx

Page E9 of E11

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

E11

Ruru Street

Address: 10 Ruru Street Date:

15 – 16 June 2012

Setup: The noise logger was located 0.5m from the building’s façade on the corner of Ruru Street and Nikau Street.

Comments: The noise logger only operated for 11 hours at this location due to battery failure.

The measured period shows reasonably low background noise levels of 42 – 55 dB LA90, consistent with the sites distance from local roads.

Table E11: Average Broadband Noise Levels Parameter

Time Period

Average Range (min – max)

Weekday Noise Levels (dB)

Weekend Noise Levels (dB)

LAeq

LA10

LA90

LAeq

LA10

LA90

Day (0700 – 2300)

61

58

46

-

-

-

Night (2300 – 0700)

-

-

-

50

49

43

Day (0700 – 2300)

50 – 71

50 – 75

44 – 55

-

-

-

Night (2300 – 0700)

-

-

-

43 – 53

51 – 74

42 – 44

120

7

100

6

5

4

60 3

Wind Speed (m/s)

80

40 2

20

1

0 1:00

0:00

23:00

22:00

21:00

20:00

19:00

18:00

17:00

16:00

15:00

14:00

13:00

0

12:00

Sound Pressure Level(dB re:20 micropascals)

Measured Ambient Sound Pressure Levels - 10 Ruru Street 15 June 2012

Time of Day LAeq

LAmax

LA10

LA90

Wind speed

Periods of Rain

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited Page E10 of E11 C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.7 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix E December 2012 (clean).docx

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

E12

Brentwood Avenue

Address: 27 Brentwood Avenue Date:

7 – 13 June 2012

Setup: The noise logger was located on the dwellings rear balcony facing the NAL. Comments: The noise environment at this site is lower than at other locations, due to its distance from local roads. However, the NAL is adjacent to the measurement location, and does impact the measured noise levels, particularly during the day. The background noise levels of 40 – 53 dB LA90 are low. These noise levels are considered typical of those expected to be experienced by receivers along this length of the Project by the NAL. Table E12: Average Broadband Noise Levels Parameter

Time Period

Weekday Noise Levels (dB)

Weekend Noise Levels (dB)

LAeq

LA10

LA90

LAeq

LA10

LA90

Day (0700 – 2300)

54

53

46

53

52

47

Night (2300 – 0700)

52

48

43

50

49

43

Day (0700 – 2300)

42 – 61

45 – 62

40 – 53

45 – 59

47 – 59

40 – 51

Night (2300 – 0700)

40 – 64

41 – 69

40 – 52

43 – 61

46 – 62

40 – 49

Average Range (min – max)

Measured Ambient Sound Pressure Levels - 27 Brentwood Ave 7 - 13 June 2012 10 9

100 8

6

60

5 4

Wind Speed (m/s)

7

80

40 3 2

20

1

0 0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

0

12:00

Sound Pressure Level(dB re:20 micropascals)

120

Time of Day LAeq

LAmax

LA10

LA90

Wind speed

Periods of Rain

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited Page E11 of E11 C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.7 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix E December 2012 (clean).docx

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

APPENDIX F EXISTING VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT F1

Ambient Noise Measurement Locations

Map Legend Measurement location

Cittá Apartments

10 Flower Street

TV3 Building Quay West Suites

Aotea Centre 27 Brentwood Ave

Rendezvous Hotel Sky City Grand Hotel

George Apartments 22 Beresford Square

F2

City Rail Link – Ambient Noise Monitoring Results This appendix provides a summary of ambient vibration surveys undertaken for CRL over the period of March to June 2012. The results are intended to provide an understanding of the ambient vibration levels in the community adjacent to the proposed route, prior to construction and operation of CRL. It enables the assessment of vibration effects by providing a base level with which predicted construction and future operation vibration levels can be compared.

Ten sites were identified as being representative of the existing vibration environment along the Project route and are shown in the previous figure. Measurements have been completed at all sites.

At each survey location the ambient vibration levels were measured using an Instantel Minimate Pro 6 seismographic logger with tri-axial geophone. The geophones were mounted generally in accordance with DIN 4150-3:1999. The logger continuously measured tri-axial peak particle velocity (PPV) data and logged the highest value every minute. The surveys ranged in length from 3 to 5 days – a period considered suitable to capture typical ambient levels.

Access restrictions at the Aotea Centre limited the vibration measurement to approximately 30 minutes at this location. The measurement was undertaken in the ASB theatre, a top performance venue with a consistent vibration level. Thus, the measurement is considered suitable to capture typical ambient levels.

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.8 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix F December 2012 (clean).docx

Page F1 of F12

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

British Standard BS 5228-2:2009, Annex B states a vibration level 0.3 mm/s PPV “might be just perceptible in residential environments”, so for the purposes of this assessment 0.3 mm/s PPV has been taken as the perception threshold.

The quoted measurement range for the Instantel instruments is 0 – 254 mm/s. However the instruments’ ‘zero’ is limited by the sensitivity of the geophone and electrical interference in the cable and instrument. Analysis of the data indicates that the instruments measured vibration levels as low as 0.08 mm/s (i.e. below the perception threshold).

F3

Survey Results Data from the vibration level surveys has been plotted and summarised in the following survey sheets. Each sheet provides a description of the site location and brief comments on the equipment setup and measurement at that site. Vibration data is provided in graph form, showing the time traces of PPV values. Two specific vibration values are also given, as follows:  Mean PPV – this is the arithmetic average of the measured PPV data  Maximum PPV – this is the highest vibration peak measured by the transducer

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.8 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix F December 2012 (clean).docx

Page F2 of F12

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

F4

Quay West Suites

Address:

8 Albert Street

Date:

15 – 19 March 2012

Maximum PPV:

0.20 mm/s

Mean PPV:

0.13 mm/s

Setup: The geophone was located on the tiled fifth floor balcony of the Quay West Suites along the building’s Albert Street façade. The fifth floor of the building is its first residential floor.

Comments: The geophone recorded largely low vibration levels at the logger’s limit of sensitivity, with the mean PPV below the threshold of human perception for a residential receiver.

Measured Ambient Vibration Levels - Quay West Suites 15 - 19 June 2012 Maximum Measured PPV in any Axis (mm/s)

2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

0

Time of Day

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.8 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix F December 2012 (clean).docx

Page F3 of F12

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

F5

Sky City Grand Hotel

Address:

109 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 123 Albert Street

Date:

2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 6 March 2012

Maximum PPV:

0.79 mm/s

Mean PPV:

0.14 mm/s

Setup: The geophone was located on the bare concrete ground floor of the Sky City Grand Hotel under an infrequently used stair well.

The location is immediately adjacent to Albert Street and a vehicle entrance to the hotel.

Comments: It should be noted that daytime construction was taken place across the street from the measurement position. This construction work was considered low vibration and gives an indication of typical construction activity that the inner city experiences regularly.

Recorded vibration levels show reasonably high activity levels during the daytime and lower levels during the night-time. The mean PPV was 0.14 mm/s which is below the threshold of human perception of 0.3 mm/s PPV for a residential receiver.

Measured Ambient Vibration Levels - Sky City 2 - 6 March 2012 Maximum Measured PPV in any Axis (mm/s)

2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0

Time of Day

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.8 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix F December 2012 (clean).docx

Page F4 of F12

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

F6

Aotea Centre

Address:

50 Mayoral Drive

Date:

16 April 2012

Maximum PPV:

0.10 mm/s

Mean PPV:

0.10 mm/s

Setup: The geophone was located on the timber floor of the Aotea Centre seating area, in front on the venueâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s stage.

Comments: Access restrictions at the Aotea Centre limited the vibration measurement to approximately 30 minutes at this location. The measurement was undertaken in the ASB theatre, a top performance venue with a consistent vibration level. Thus, the measurement is considered suitable to capture typical ambient levels.

The time trace below shows vibration levels were extremely consistent throughout the measurement period.

Measured Ambient Vibration Levels - Aotea Centre 16 April 2012 Maximum Measured PPV in any Axis (mm/s)

2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

14:00

13:55

13:50

13:45

13:40

13:35

13:30

13:25

0

Time of Day

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.8 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix F December 2012 (clean).docx

Page F5 of F12

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

F7

Rendezvous Hotel

Address:

71 Mayoral Drive

Date:

8 – 13 March 2012

Maximum PPV:

0.28 mm/s

Mean PPV:

0.10 mm/s

Setup: The geophone was located on the carpeted floor at the façade of a second floor guest room in the Rendezvous Hotel. The façade location is immediately adjacent to Vincent Street under which the CRL running tunnels will be located.

Comments: The geophone largely recorded low vibrations levels at the logger’s limit of sensitivity, i.e. the mean uncontaminated PPV was 0.10 mm/s, which is below the threshold of human perception of 0.3 mm/s PPV for a residential receiver.

Measured Ambient Vibration Levels - Rendezvous Hotel 8 - 13 March 2012 Maximum Measured PPV in any Axis (mm/s)

2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

0

Time of Day

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.8 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix F December 2012 (clean).docx

Page F6 of F12

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

F8

The Beresford

Address:

22 Beresford Square

Date:

19 – 24 April 2012

Maximum PPV:

0.21 mm/s

Mean PPV:

0.10 mm/s

Setup: The geophone was located on the tiled fifth floor balcony along the building’s Beresford Square façade. The fifth floor is the buildings first residential floor.

Comments: The geophone largely recorded low vibrations levels at the logger’s limit of sensitivity, i.e. the mean uncontaminated PPV was 0.10 mm/s, which is below the threshold of human perception of 0.3 mm/s PPV for a residential receiver.

Measured Ambient Vibration Levels - The Beresford 19 - 24 April 2012 Maximum Measured PPV in any Axis (mm/s)

2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0

Time of Day

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.8 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix F December 2012 (clean).docx

Page F7 of F12

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

F9

George Apartments

Address:

2 Mercury Lane

Date:

11 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 15 May 2012

Maximum PPV:

0.63 mm/s

Mean PPV:

0.13 mm/s

Setup: The geophone was located on the timber floor at the front stair well of the George Apartments. The location was on the second buildings second floor; the first residential floor.

The façade of the building faces Mercury Lane.

Comments: Recorded vibration levels show variable vibration levels. The mean PPV was 0.14 mm/s which is below the threshold of human perception of 0.3 mm/s PPV for a residential receiver.

Measured Ambient Vibration Levels - George Apartments 11 - 15 May 2012 Maximum Measured PPV in any Axis (mm/s)

2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

0

Time of Day

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.8 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix F December 2012 (clean).docx

Page F8 of F12

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

F10

Cittá Apartments

Address:

184 Symonds Street

Date:

22 – 27 March 2012

Maximum PPV:

0.55 mm/s

Mean PPV:

0.09 mm/s

Setup: The geophone was located on the carpeted floor at the façade of an empty ground floor office space in the Cittá Apartments. The façade faces Symonds Street.

Comments: The geophone recorded relatively low vibration levels, with the levels dropping over the night-time periods. The mean uncontaminated PPV was 0.09 mm/s which is below the threshold of human perception of 0.3 mm/s PPV for a residential receiver.

Measured Ambient Vibration Levels - Citta Apartments 22 - 27 March 2012 Maximum Measured PPV in any Axis (mm/s)

2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

0

Time of Day

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.8 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix F December 2012 (clean).docx

Page F9 of F12

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

F11

TV3 Building

Address:

3 Flower Street

Date:

8 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 13 March 2012

Maximum PPV:

0.88 mm/s

Mean PPV:

0.09 mm/s

Setup: The geophone was located on the bare concrete floor in the southeast corner of studio 1 (the main TV3 studio), on level 1. The location is the lowest and most vibration sensitive receiver location in the building.

Comments: The geophone largely recorded low vibrations levels at the loggerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s limit of sensitivity, i.e. the mean uncontaminated PPV was 0.09 mm/s which is below the threshold of human perception of 0.3 mm/s PPV for a residential receiver.

Measured Ambient Vibration Levels - TV3 Building 8 - 13 March 2012 Maximum Measured PPV in any Axis (mm/s)

2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0

Time of Day

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.8 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix F December 2012 (clean).docx

Page F10 of F12

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

F12

10 Flower Street

Address:

10 Flower Street

Date:

19 – 24 April 2012

Maximum PPV:

2.46 mm/s

Mean PPV:

0.20 mm/s

Setup: The geophone was located on the tiled second story balcony along the building’s Flower street façade.

Comment: Recorded vibration levels show high activity levels during the daytime and lower levels during the night-time. The mean PPV was 0.20 mm/s which is below the threshold of human perception of 0.3 mm/s PPV for a residential receiver.

Occupant activity is the likely cause of high vibration levels during the daytime.

Measured Ambient Vibration Levels - 10 Flower Street 19 - 24 April 2012 Maximum Measured PPV in any Axis (mm/s)

2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0

Time of Day

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.8 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix F December 2012 (clean).docx

Page F11 of F12

Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Noise and Vibration Assessment

F13

27 Brentwood Avenue

Address:

27 Brentwood Avenue

Date:

7 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 13 June 2012

Maximum PPV:

1.51 mm/s

Mean PPV:

0.14 mm/s

Setup: The geophone was located on the timber floor along the dwellings rear façade facing the Western rail line.

Comment: Recorded vibration levels show high activity levels during the daytime and lower levels during the night-time. The mean PPV was 0.14 mm/s which is below the threshold of human perception of 0.3 mm/s PPV for a residential receiver.

Measured Ambient Vibration Levels - 27 Brentwood Avenue 7 - 13 June 2012 Maximum Measured PPV in any Axis (mm/s)

2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0:00

12:00

0

Time of Day

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited C:\Users\GeorgiaS1\Desktop\Print\Volume 3.1 Technical reports\3.1.8 CRL NoR Noise and Vibration Appendix F December 2012 (clean).docx

Page F12 of F12