CRL Noise Evidence of Craig Fitzgerald

65 Pages·2013·2.83 MB·English

by  Auckland Council

Under the Resource Management Act 1991
In the matter of Notices of Requirement to enable the construction, operation and
maintenance of the City Rail Link

Between
Auckland Transport
Requiring Authority

and
Auckland Council
Consent Authority

Statement of Evidence of Craig Michael Fitzgerald
Qualifications and Experience
1. My full name is Craig Michael Fitzgerald.
2. I graduated in 2004 with a Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from
the University of Auckland. I worked as a mechanical engineer in a
design and project management capacity prior to joining Marshall Day
Acoustics (MDA) as an acoustician in 2007. More recently, I worked as
an acoustician for Capita Symonds in the UK, gaining my Chartered
Engineer (CEng) status in 2011 through the Engineering Council (UK).
Upon returning to New Zealand in 2011, I rejoined MDA as an
acoustician. I am a member of the Acoustical Society of New Zealand
and Institute of Acoustics (UK).
3. I have experience in environmental acoustics for large rail infrastructure
projects, including Crossrail (UK) and the Wellington Regional Rail
Programme. Crossrail is a new east-west underground railway line
which passes under central London. I prepared environmental impact
assessments addressing construction noise for two tunnel portal sites
located in London’s eastern residential suburbs. Construction noise
was also the focus of my assessment for the Wellington Regional Rail
Programme, which addressed electrification, track layout and signalling
system upgrades between Kaiwharawhara Station and Wellington
Station.
4. I have presented expert evidence on the subject of environmental noise
for Council Hearings on two previous occasions. I also have experience
in architectural acoustics, providing advice on sound insulation, room
acoustics and mechanical services noise control.
Background and role
5. The City Rail Link (CRL) project 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. CRL also requires an
additional 850m of track modifications within the NAL. The stations
included in the CRL Notices of Requirement (NoR) have been
15274196_1 1
Statement of Evidence of Craig Fitzgerald
temporarily named Aotea Station, Karangahape Station and Newton
Station.
6. MDA was engaged by Auckland Transport’s Principal Advisor (PA)
team in support of the NoR work stream. The PA is led by Aurecon NZ
Ltd and comprises the principal partners of Aurecon NZ Ltd, Mott
MacDonald, Jasmax and Grimshaw. The PA reports directly to
Auckland Transport’s Infrastructure Delivery work stream which is
responsible for delivery of the CRL project. The PA is also supporting
the NoR and Property work streams.
7. MDA was specifically engaged to provide an independent assessment
of the noise and vibration effects associated with the proposed CRL. I
co-authored the technical expert assessment, which was submitted as
part of the NoR application: ‘Volume 3, Part 1, Appendix 2 – Marshall
Day Acoustics report’.
8. Subsequently, I co-authored a letter (dated 9 November 2012) in
response to a ‘pre-notification’ request for further information received
from Auckland Council (dated 23 October 2012).
9. My evidence focuses on the noise effects of the CRL project. My
colleague, Mr James Whitlock, provides separate evidence focused on
vibration and subsequent reradiated noise effects of the CRL.
10. I am familiar with the project area and have also undertaken many site
visits to measure the existing noise and vibration environment to inform
the NoR.
11. I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses as contained in
the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note (2011), and I agree
to comply with it as if this hearing was before the Environment Court.
My qualifications as an expert are set out above. I confirm that the
issues addressed in this brief of evidence are within my area of
expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me
that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed.
15274196_1 2
Statement of Evidence of Craig Fitzgerald
Scope of Evidence
12. My evidence will address the following:
(a) Assessment of environmental noise effects;
(i) Existing noise environment,
(ii) Noise performance standards,
(iii) Assessment of noise effects for the construction phase,
(iv) Assessment of noise effects for the operational phase,
(v) Response to ‘pre-notification’ request for further
information,
(b) Proposed mitigation;
(c) Response to submissions;
(d) Response to Planner’s Report; and
(e) Proposed conditions.
Summary of Evidence
13. I have undertaken measurements of the existing acoustic environment
at key positions along the route. In conjunction with a literature review
of relevant noise performance standards and case studies, I have
recommended appropriate Project Criteria for the noise effects
assessment. For construction noise, the Project Criteria largely reflect
the provisions in the Auckland District Plan (Central Area Section)1.
This is discussed further in paragraph 27.
14. My assessment of noise from the construction phase is based on a
review of the typical machinery likely to be utilised, the timeframe it is
likely to be used for, an understanding of the existing noise

1 Refer Auckland District Plan (Central Area Section) rule 7.6.4 (c)
15274196_1 3
Statement of Evidence of Craig Fitzgerald
environment and receivers, predicted construction noise levels, and an
overall assessment against the Project Criteria.
15. CRL construction noise emissions are likely to be comparable with
those associated with a typical inner city building site or road works
activity. Construction is expected to occur in close proximity to the
façades of buildings. As a result, in some instances during the daytime,
noise emissions are expected to exceed the Project Criteria for short
durations. For most large scale construction projects, exceedances of
the construction noise limits for short durations are common. Provided
these exceedances are of short duration and the ‘Best Practicable
Option’ (BPO) is implemented to avoid, remedy and mitigate
construction noise, I consider the construction noise levels would be
reasonable and acceptable.
16. Once operational, I expect that the principal noise effects would be
caused by mechanical ventilation at each station. The operational noise
Project Criteria aligns with the District Plan permitted activity noise
limits, except that in accordance with best practice it uses the L
Aeq
measurement descriptor in place of L . With appropriate design, I
A10
consider that the operational noise effects can be managed to achieve
the Project Criteria.
17. Overall, with the incorporation of the recommended mitigation
measures, I consider the noise effects of the CRL construction and
operational phases can be managed to an acceptable level. In
particular, I am satisfied that the proposed noise management
measures would require Auckland Transport to implement the BPO to
avoid unreasonable noise.
18. Further targeted assessments of both individual and collective noise
issues are presented in my response to submissions. My opinions on
the changes made by Council as part of the section 42A report are
included in my response to the Planner’s Report.
15274196_1 4
Statement of Evidence of Craig Fitzgerald
Assessment of environmental noise effects
Existing noise environment
19. At the start of my involvement in the Project, I identified ten
measurement locations which I assessed as being sufficient to
ascertain the existing ambient acoustic environment in the Central
Area, the Mixed Use Zone in Newton and the Residential area near the
NAL. Surveys were undertaken at nine of those sites between March
and June 2012, of which I was in attendance at eight (a tenth site at 23
Dundonald Street was approached but access was not obtained). I did
not consider that it was necessary to find an alternative location as we
had sufficient locations to understand the existing noise environment.
The measurements enable the assessment of noise effects by
providing a base level with which predicted construction and future
operational noise levels can be compared.
20. The overall results of the survey show a high ambient and background
acoustic environment. Sky City Grand Hotel on Albert Street was the
noisiest survey location, while a residential property at 27 Brentwood
Avenue was the quietest.
21. A summary table of noise measurements representing the existing
ambient environment is presented below. The full results of the noise
survey are presented in the noise and vibration assessment2.
Location Period3 Measured Noise Levels4
dB L dB L
Aeq A90
DFS Galleria Day 59-72 55-64
Night 54-68 53-64
Sky City Grand Hotel Day 64-80 62-76
Night 61-77 60-74
Aotea Centre ASB Theatre (Inside) Day 29 26

2 Refer Volume 3, Part 1, Appendix 2 – Marshall Day Acoustics report at Section 5.1 and
Appendix E
3 Proposed Project Criteria Periods (Day: 0700 – 2300 and Night: 2300 – 0700)
4 15 minute measurement intervals
15274196_1 5
Statement of Evidence of Craig Fitzgerald
Location Period3 Measured Noise Levels4
dB L dB L
Aeq A90
(Outside) Day 57 54
The Beresford (apartments) Day 54-67 50-58
Night 48-64 44-56
Mercury Theatre Day 60-77 53-66
Night 55-80 46-66
The French Café Day 65-81 51-70
Night 54-75 41-64
1 Akiraho Street (apartments) Day 51-70 40-55
Night 43-70 35-51
10 Ruru Street (apartments) Day 50-71 44-55
Night 43-53 42-44
27 Brentwood Avenue (dwelling) Day 40-61 40-53
Night 40-64 40-52

Noise performance standards
22. Under the provisions of the Resource Management Act (sections 16
and 17) there is a duty to adopt the ‘Best Practicable Option’ (BPO) to
ensure that noise does not exceed a reasonable level, and that any
adverse effects shall be avoided, remedied or mitigated. With an
understanding of the existing noise environment, relevant noise
performance standards5 and case studies6 that I consider to be
pertinent, I have proposed Project Criteria for the control of noise
effects from construction and operational phases, reproduced below in
Paragraphs 27 and 29 respectively.
23. Construction Noise Standard NZS 6803: 1999, Section 7 – “Guidelines
for setting Construction Noise Limits” recommends; “desirable upper
limits for construction noise received by the community for reasonable
protection of health and amenity. The desirable limits vary according to

5 Resource Management Act, Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus and Central Area
Sections, and NZS 6803: 1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise
6 Auckland Electrification Project, Waterview Connection, and Crossrail UK
15274196_1 6
Statement of Evidence of Craig Fitzgerald
the type of land use, time of day and anticipated duration of the
construction work”. It recommends more relaxed noise limits (than
would otherwise be permitted) to enable construction activity to take
place.
24. The Auckland City District Plan (Central Area Section) references the
Construction Noise Standard, but also recognises it is a high noise
environment. At night, the primary acoustic objective is to ensure that
any noisy activities do not give rise to sleep disturbance. Auckland City
District Plan includes minimum sound insulation requirements for new
dwellings in the Central Area and Isthmus Mixed Use Zone to alleviate
the high noise environment and ensure reasonable amenity is
maintained. Consequently, the high noise environment and higher level
of sound insulation is reflected in higher District Plan noise limits for
Sundays and Public Holidays than are otherwise recommended by
NZS 6803:1999.
25. Aligned with this, I consider that construction activities would be
deemed acceptable if the noise generated in the bedrooms of dwellings
did not exceed 35 dB L 7. Sound insulation studies of facades of New
Aeq
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
is, therefore, considered acceptable where the noise level at 1m from
the façade of a habitable room does not exceed 60 – 65 dB L .
Aeq
26. I consider that in special cases, in order to enable efficient construction,
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 the BPO.

7 In accordance with Auckland Council District Plan (Central Area Section)
Rule 7.6.3 (c), WHO Guidelines For Community Noise and NZS 6802:2008
15274196_1 7
Statement of Evidence of Craig Fitzgerald
27. Project Criteria – Construction Noise8
Description All days (dB L )1
Aeq
Day time2 Night-time3
(0700 to 2300) (2300 to 0700)
Commercial and industrial buildings 75 80
Noise sensitive activity (e.g. dwelling) 75 604
Notes:
1. Construction noise shall 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 L measured inside a bedroom
Aeq

Airblast noise from blasting activities shall comply with 120 dB L ,
Cpeak
measured and assessed in accordance with the provisions of New
Zealand Standard NZS 6803:1999 “Acoustics - Construction Noise”.
28. Operational noise Project Criteria should be adopted for the
assessment of mechanical plant and ancillary infrastructure servicing
the underground areas of CRL. The Project Criteria essentially align
with the District Plan permitted activity noise limits. The only difference
is that the proposed criteria use the L descriptor in place of L . I
Aeq A10
have recommended the use of the L noise index as this reflects the
eq
approach adopted by the most recent New Zealand Noise Standards9. I
note that for a continuous noise source such as mechanical services
noise, the measurement descriptors can be considered essentially
equivalent.
29. Project Criteria – Operational Noise (excluding rail movements) 10

8 Refer Volume 3, Part 1, Appendix 2 – Marshall Day Acoustics report at Appendix A
9
New Zealand Standards NZS 6801:2008 and NZS 6802:2008
10 Refer Volume 3, Part 1, Appendix 2 – Marshall Day Acoustics report at Appendix B
15274196_1 8
Statement of Evidence of Craig Fitzgerald
Location Period dB L dB L
Aeq AFmax
Auckland Central Area 7.00am to 11:00pm 65
11:00pm to 7:00am 60 75
70 @ 63 Hz
65 @ 125 Hz
Auckland Isthmus Area 7.00am to 10:00pm 60
10:00pm to 7:00am 55 75

30. Above-ground CRL rail movements would be within the existing
Auckland Line (NAL) KiwiRail designation that currently provides for rail
purposes. As such, District Plan noise rules do not apply for the control
of noise emissions within the NAL designation. However I consider it
appropriate to assess the indicative change in noise level due to, for
example, realigned NAL tracks being moved closer to existing noise
sensitive receivers to accommodate CRL. My indicative calculations
predict this would result in an increase of less than 1 decibel for nearby
noise sensitive receivers. To put this into context, a change in noise
level of 1-2 decibels is generally considered to be indiscernible, while 3-
4 decibels is considered just noticeable. On this basis, I consider the
noise effect arising from realigning the NAL, where this is required, to
be negligible.
31. It is important to note that NAL electrification will give rise to a reduction
in overall noise from train movements. Even with realignment and an
increase in future movements, with electrification future noise levels
would be less than existing.
32. Vibration from underground train movements may be received in a
building as reradiated noise. This matter is addressed as part of Mr
Whitlock’s evidence on vibration effects.
Assessment of noise effects for the construction phase
33. The most significant construction noise emissions are predicted to be
as a result of piling and excavation activities above ground level. As
stated in paragraph 15, CRL construction noise emissions are likely to
be comparable with activities from a typical inner city building site or
road works. I have predicted noise levels from anticipated construction
15274196_1 9
Statement of Evidence of Craig Fitzgerald