the city of edinburgh council · 2011-12-20 · edinburgh. i have a bsc in civil engineering. i am...

GROUP 35 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA C

LEAD OBJECTORS 30 – JOHN AND WENDY BARKESS 96 – GARSCUBE TERRACE RESIDENTS 174 - KATHY AND LES KINGSTONE 180 – RICHARD VANHAGAN OBJECTOR REBUTTAL OF GARY TURNER – ACCESS TO GARAGES ANDY AITKEN

Comments relating to the Access witness statement are added in blue bold in the attached text. Comments made herein in relation to the compulsory purchase or use of land that has multiple owners should not be taken to reflect the view of all the owners.

Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Access to garages at Garscube Terrace

4. Conclusions

1. Resume 1.1 I am Gary Turner and I am a Divisional Director with Mott MacDonald

Edinburgh. I have a BSc in Civil Engineering. I am a Chartered Engineer and a Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Highways and Transportation. I have been in my present post for 2 years. Prior to that I was a Divisional Director with Mott MacDonald Newcastle and have a total of 17 years working in the Highway and Transportation field. I have built up an expertise in tram schemes through projects in Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Tees Valley as well as Edinburgh.

1.2 The projects I have been instrumental in include highway schemes,

heavy rail schemes and light rail. Within the Edinburgh Tram Line 1 (ETL1) scheme I have taken the role of Stakeholder Manager for the technical support team. I have been actively involved with liaison groups aimed at informing the community and stakeholders on the process and progress of the proposed tram scheme currently before the Scottish Parliament.

2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses Access to garages at Garscube Terrace (i) Existing access routes being retained (ii) Provision during construction 3. Access to garages at Garscube Terrace Existing access routes being retained 31 The entrance to the lane at the rear Garscube Terrace has been

included within the Limits of Deviation shown on the Parliamentary Plans as plot 236. The purpose of these limits is to permit works to be undertaken to St Georges School bridge, should such works be required. The plot also allows works to be undertaken to tie in any road level differences to the adjacent highway following any potential bridge works. The Promoter does not intend to purchase or permanently stop up this access as part of the works and is prepared to give an undertaking to this effect if required.

3.2 The exact form of any structural alterations to this bridge will be established during the detailed design process.

Provision during construction

3.3 The residents are also concerned that access will be impacted upon by the construction works for the tram.

3.4 Disruption during construction works, including the issue of accesses to

properties and businesses, including footways, is addressed by the promoter by the establishment of suitable Codes and contractual requirements. The promoter recognises that the carrying out of a large construction project such as the Edinburgh Tram has the potential for causing disruption to residents and businesses. It is the promoter's contention that the long-term benefits of the scheme will far outweigh any short term inconvenience, nevertheless the promoter has sought to minimise inconvenience and to mitigate problems by creating a Code of Construction Practice [CoCP].

3.5 The CoCP is based on experience of other large construction projects,

particularly the tram schemes built in Croydon, Manchester, Nottingham and planned for Liverpool (the CoCP for Merseytram (Liverpool) was considered during the Public Inquiry of the Merseytram Draft Order deposited under the Transport and Works Act 1992 procedure. The inspector subsequently reported that the draft order, including the CoCP, should be confirmed and the Secretary of State subsequently followed the inspectors advice).

3.6 The CoCP has been subject to rigorous appraisal by all the parties involved in developing the project including tie, the City of Edinburgh Council, the Consultants and professional advisors to the scheme.

3.7 The CoCP requires that the Contractor shall comply with the CoCP and with all relevant Legislation, Codes, Standards and guidance from the Health and Safety Executive and HM Railway Inspectorate.

3.8 The CoCP sets strict requirements on the Contractor in relation to Roads, Footpaths and Cycleways. S.5.2 of the code states ‘Pedestrian access to properties shall be maintained at all times where practicable unless otherwise agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council and the owners and tenants of affected properties’ . It goes on to state ‘Wherever…works interfere with…ways over which the public have a right of way… the Contractor shall construct diversion ways as necessary’.

3.9 Diversions will have to be ‘suitable in all respects for the…traffic using the existing ways’ and ‘the widths of the diversions shall not be less than that of the existing way’

3.10 Diversions to footways that are currently suitable accessible to wheelchairs and pushchairs shall continue to be useable by such users where reasonably practicable [s 5.4 (a)]. Other footways shall be of standards equal to current best standards.

3.11 All diversions will be lit and signed to standards set by the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 5.1/5.4 (f)]

”If the access is blocked to the end of the lane, it is not currently possible for a diversion route for larger vehicles as the other end of the lane has restricted. Therefore it would seem difficult to provide “adequate provision for traffic flows” if it becomes necessary to block off this access. For this reason it will be necessary to consult and advise with the Residents group as well as the Emergency Services.

3.12 At the end of diversions the roads and footways will be restored to a standard agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 5.5]

3.13 The Contractor will provide an Information Centre and Website to provide information on diversions. They will also publish a weekly newsletter, in hard copy and electronically ‘detailing works to be undertaken in the forthcoming week and outlining, with appropriate maps and diagrams, any alterations to road traffic circulation patterns required by the coming week’s work’ [s. 2.1/2.2]. Yes this is good but we require a Residents Liasion Group to be kept consulted on the potential disturbance and access blockage.

3.14 Additionally s. 4.4 (b) requires the setting up of a complaints Hotline to ensure that any problems are quickly attended to [ s. 2.3].

3.15 My colleague Scott McIntosh can provide further information on measures taken to address potential impacts during construction, if required.

3.16 Compliance with the CoCP will be a requirement of the construction

contracts 4. Conclusion 4.1 The promoter is prepared to give an undertaking that the land will not

be permanently acquired. Good - we ask for this undertaking to be provided assuming status quo on the property conditions and conveyancing issues. Any costs whatsoever associated with the compulsory purchase and land value whether temporary or permanent must be at the promoters expense.

4.2 The Promoter does not intend to permanently stop up access and is

prepared to give an undertaking to that effect. Again we would ask for this undertaking to be provided.

The real issue is around how long the “non-permanent” stop up of access is to last for as there is no alternative diversion route for large vehicles. A day here and there is acceptable provided there is sufficient notice and emergency access is provided.

If access is blocked for some considerable time there must be compensation to reflect disturbance. (eg resulting from loss of use of garages and forecourts or additional maintenance to the rear lane) See Group 35 RRAP Amendment document Section 7,Section 8, Section 17, Section 25, Sub Section 6

4.2 It is believed that the measures in the CoCP, taken as a package, will

reduce interference to an absolute minimum and will enable access during construction to be maintained at all times, as far as is reasonably practical, and arrangements will be made in consultation with the residents concerned.

Gary Turner Divisional Director Mott MacDonald 4 July 2005


LEAD OBJECTORS 30 – JOHN AND WENDY BARKESS 96 – GARSCUBE TERRACE RESIDENTS 174 - KATHY AND LES KINGSTONE 180 – RICHARD VANHAGAN OBJECTOR REBUTTAL OF SCOTT MCINTOSH – EMERGENCY VEHICLES ANDY AITKEN Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Emergency vehicles

1

4. Conclusions

1. Resume 1.1 I am Scott McIntosh. I am a Senior Consultant in Light Rail with Mott

MacDonald the Technical Consultants for the Edinburgh Tram. I hold a degree of Master of Arts from the University of Cambridge and various post graduate qualifications, I am a Member of the Permanent Way Institution. I have around 20 years experience in Light Rail, dealing with the planning, promotion, specification, design and commissioning of systems.

1.2 I have been Project Manager for a number of projects, including Croydon Tramlink and was a member of the Board of the public/private Tramlink Project Development Group. I was a member of the UITP [International Public Transport Association] Light Rail Commission and co-author of the UITP ‘Guidelines for the Design and development of Light Rail Schemes’.

1.3 I am currently a Board member of the UK Tram consortium [the objects of which are ‘to encourage the effective development and use of light rapid transit systems in the UK…by… the development of national guidelines, codes of practice and standards based upon experience in the UK and overseas’]. I have advised on tramways in Europe and the Middle East and I am currently advising on tramways and light rail schemes in Blackpool, Glasgow, Manchester and Newcastle, as well as Edinburgh. .

2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses:- Emergency vehicles(the objection was also raised not only in

relation to emergency vehicles but also for the use of larger vehicles involved with skips, scaffolding, bulky delivery, household moving, recreational use …approx 50 garages and 25 households use the access lane)

(i) Existing access points to be retained (ii) Access available at all times (iii) Links with tram control and protocols 3. Emergency vehicles

2

3.1 The objectors seek reassurance that Emergency (and other large vehicles) vehicles will not be hindered by the tramway works. This point is addressed by section 5 of the CoCP. The beginning of the section states that “The Contractor shall submit to tie, The City of Edinburgh Council, Lothian and Borders Police and the Emergency Services a statement setting out the proposed measures (including

specified traffic routes) to be taken with respect to traffic and highway safety for the duration of the contract, for approval before the relevant work commences.”

3.2 Section 5.2 of the CoCP requires that “Before breaking up, closing or

otherwise interfering with any street or footpath to which the public has access, the Contractor shall make such arrangements with The City of Edinburgh Council as may be reasonably necessary to cause as little interference with the traffic in that street or footpath during the construction works as shall be reasonably practicable.” Additionally “Wherever the Edinburgh Tram works interfere with the existing public or private roads or other ways over which there is a public or private right of way for any traffic, the Contractor shall construct diversion ways as necessary. The standard of construction and lighting shall be suitable in all respects for the class or classes of traffic using the existing ways ( …we read this to mean that the width of the diversion shall in no way restrict larger vehicle access such as Fire trucks or skip lorries even though they do not use the lane on an everyday basis ……please advise if this is not the case)and the widths of the diversions shall not be less than that of the existing way unless otherwise agreed with The City of Edinburgh Council or the owner of the private road.

3.3 Diversion routes shall; be constructed in advance of any interference

with the existing ways, be kept as short as reasonably practicable and be maintained to provide adequately for the traffic flows and volume.”If the access is blocked to the end of the lane, it is not currently possible for a diversion route for larger vehicles as the other end of the lane has restricted. Therefore it would seem difficult to provide “adequate provision for traffic flows” if it becomes necessary to block off this access to the lane. For this reason it will be necessary to consult and advise with the Residents group as well as the Emergency Services.

3.4 These requirements should set the objectors’ minds at rest as to the continued ability of the Emergency Services to access areas affected by the tramway works, however for the avoidance of all doubt the promoters also require in section 5.11 of the CoCP that “Routes for emergency service vehicles and personnel to gain access to work sites, the construction corridor and neighbouring sites along the route shall be agreed with the emergency services and The City of Edinburgh Council prior to the start of construction.(needs modified to accommodate other large vehicles other than emergency vehicles)

4. Conclusion

3

4.1 The promoter recognises that the construction of a tramway in an already built up area will cause some temporary disruption, but it is

their contention that the requirements in the CoCP and the active involvement of the emergency services in the production of diversionary routes will reduce disruption and risk to negligible proportions. (the objection was raised not only on emergency access but also functional access to garages in every day use for larger vehicles. It is clear therefore that for best practice purposes there should be active involvement not only from the emergency services but also with a Residents Group (refer BS 5228))

Scott McIntosh Expert Witness Mott MacDonald 9 May 2005

4


LEAD OBJECTORS 30 – JOHN AND WENDY BARKESS 96 – GARSCUBE TERRACE RESIDENTS 174 - KATHY AND LES KINGSTONE 180 – RICHARD VANHAGAN OBJECTOR REBUTTAL OF ANDY COATES ALAN JONES Impacts on Wildlife and Habitats and measures to mitigate these Rebuttal by Alan Jones Issue 1 In the Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan (EBAP) 2004-2009 the section “wildlife corridors” has been removed, in the 2000-2004 section on “wildlife corridors” part of the role of transport corridors is recorded “Additionally transport routes present a significant danger to several species of animal, many mammals being killed on Edinburgh’s roads and railways.

Threats All these impacts continue to threaten the mosaic of habitats associated with the terrestrial wildlife corridors. In addition to the likelihood that in many cases public expenditure reductions will increasingly limit maintenance activities, it is possible that this will coincide with a decline in public and political support for the maintenance of such areas caused by the perception that unmanaged, litter-strewn vegetation has little merit. Inappropriately located urban development could fragment the network and thereby reduce its function as a wildlife corridor. “

1. The wild life corridor has been made wider than the boundaries of the former railway line and the designated Urban Wildlife Site because the Council has failed to carry out its duty to manage and carry out improvements to the area.

2. Large quantities of trees are going to be removed or cut back so

they don’t interfere with the overhead line equipment. This action will remove large areas where insects and flies inhabit, to the detriment of the birds and the pipistrelle bats. It will adversely effect the leaf fall so that the ground below will not receive its yearly covering of leaves. Less food and cover for “creepy crawlies”, worms and such like means less foraging for the badger.

3. Leaving approximately 80% of the habitat will mean nothing if the 20% removed is the percentage which provides the wildlife corridor area with all its nutritional value and shelter. IE the trees

4. It is more important to note that the area ceased to be a disused

railway line when it became the Roseburn footpath and cycleway As such it remains part of the network of wildlife corridors of which I have had the pleasure of using for the last thirty three years.

Issue 2 Impacts to Badgers

5. Not being on the distribution list for the Badger Mitigation Plan I do not know what it contains so I will raise the point. When does an outlying sett become classified as a main sett?

6. Badgers working on “a sett” at Ravelston are working away as

badgers do what is the classification of this sett? 7. Was the change of location of the ramp onto the Ravelston tram

stop from the south side of the bridge to the north side part of the Badger Mitigation Plan? Alterations to plans should be agreed by all parties (Haymarket). Who agreed to this major alteration? This very late alteration to the layout of the station plan puts the above sett in a very open and noisy position.

8. Tunnels are being proposed at the base of a cutting to allow access to both sides of the embankment. Between Ravelston and St George’s we have stone walls at the bridges and at the top of the embankment another stone wall. To plan a tunnel under the track here will only result in one thing a flood area which will be dangerous or unusable for the badgers to gain access to forage on the east side of the cutting. Failure to provide the correct access will result in the whole of the east side of the cutting being removed as a foraging area.


LEAD OBJECTORS 30 – JOHN AND WENDY BARKESS 96 – GARSCUBE TERRACE RESIDENTS 174 - KATHY AND LES KINGSTONE 180 – RICHARD VANHAGAN OBJECTOR REBUTTAL OF LES BUCKMAN – STOP LOCATIONS ALAN JONES Issues for Stop Location

1. We have no issue with the position of the stop as it is impracticable to put it anywhere else.

Issues for Roseburn Corridor

2. The choice of stop locations within the Roseburn Corridor was always going to be one heavily influenced by the option of choosing a route that’s on embankments or in cutting. In Tie’s quest for fast journey times the passenger has not been taken into account and now has an incline to overcome each and every return journey no matter which stop they choose to board at.

The Roseburn Stop

3. As it is planned to remove the majority of trees in the vicinity of the tram stop. What measures will be put in place to prevent noise pollution reaching the occupants of houses in Coltbridge Terrace, Coltbridge Vale and Upper Coltbridge Terrace which will all be in line of sight when the operational requirements for broadcasts and warnings start on a daily basis?


LEAD OBJECTORS 30 – JOHN AND WENDY BARKESS 96 – GARSCUBE TERRACE RESIDENTS 174 - KATHY AND LES KINGSTONE 180 – RICHARD VANHAGAN OBJECTOR REBUTTAL OF TIM BLOWER ALAN JONES Existing conditions

1 I will raise no issue with the results of the Preliminary and Exploratory Investigation.

Outline of future geotechnical works

2 As a more extensive programme on the “Main Investigation” and “Supplementary Investigation” in BS10175:2001 has still to be undertaken as part of the detail design process leaves me with nothing to rebut.

3 As the detailed geotechnical design will concentrate on features like low

retaining structures how will these affect the ability of the badgers to forage on areas above the features?

4 As the promoter has designated tunnels for movements across the track

what special arrangements will be put in place to prevent flooding of tunnels situated at the bottom of the cutting for east / west travel?

5 Will any areas of the cutting be kept in a “wet” condition for plantings of

bog plants and to accommodate the amphibians that are ever present in the cutting?


LEAD OBJECTORS 30 – JOHN AND WENDY BARKESS 96 – GARSCUBE TERRACE RESIDENTS 174 - KATHY AND LES KINGSTONE 180 – RICHARD VANHAGAN OBJECTOR REBUTTAL OF SCOTT MCINTOSH AND IAN KENDALL FRAZOR MURPHY SLIPSTREAMING by expert witness Scott McIntosh 3.7 ….The aerodynamic assessment is that a tram will only generate wind speeds of 3-5 m/s, which is more than 200% below the proposed European safety limits

Rebuttal to 3.7 Which European aerodynamicists came up with these figures, who are they? Are the PROPOSED (i.e. not actually agreed) European safety limits based on a train/tram in open landscape, station, railway cutting or tunnel? Do all these very different environments produce exactly the same set of results? 4.1 (whole statement) Rebuttal to 4.1 By examining the illustrations supplied within 4.1 it is clear that an adult pedestrian, within those environments, may not suffer discomfort from wind speeds, purely because the illustrations show trams operating in an open environment, which would allow turbulence to escape. The Roseburn Corridor, which runs through a cutting and under bridges, would add to the positive and negative pressures causing increased turbulence/slipstreaming. In addition, the illustrations show trams running next to roads where there is a constant source of noise; the sudden noise of a tram combined with road traffic lessens the impact of that noise. The Roseburn Corridor has very little background noise; this means that the sudden noise of a passing tram or trams combined with turbulence/slipstream could cause great discomfort to an adult pedestrian (even more so to a child) within a cutting or under a bridge. Rebuttal to Witness Statement 21 Damage to Property in Construction by expert witness Ian Kendall Rebuttal to 3.5 Contractor should repair damage to a property to the complete satisfaction of the property owner not just reasonable satisfaction.


LEAD OBJECTORS 30 – JOHN AND WENDY BARKESS 96 – GARSCUBE TERRACE RESIDENTS 174 - KATHY AND LES KINGSTONE 180 – RICHARD VANHAGAN OBJECTOR REBUTTAL OF GARY TURNER, JIM HARRIES, DICK DAPRE AND SCOTT MCINTOSH – HEALTH AND SAFETY

MARK HALLAM

4 Loss of Cycleway/Walkway (Gary Turner) 3.1 The 3m proposed width is at odds with the City of Edinburgh Council Cycle Friendly Design Guide (1997) that states that the desirable minimum width for this type of path is 4m plus 0.5m if the path is bounded on both sides (0.25m if bounded on one side). 4.1 As per the rebuttal of 3.1 above 5 Safety/Tram Speed (Jim Harries) 2. The promoter notes that “it is recognised that the speed of the tram is an important factor in the system’s safety”. This appears to fly in the face of the promoters desire to achieve as high a speed as possible along the Roseburn Corridor, see 9.1 “A slow tram system is not attractive to passengers and a slow system will fail to meet its goals from the perspective of passengers, the public, funders and the City Council”. 2: Comment on Summary: There is reference to trams being considered as “inherently safe”. This use of this term in this application is misleading in terms of safety assessment and is the wrong use of a recognised engineering safety category. Definitions: “A technical system is called inherently safe if it functions safely by its own means, i.e. without auxiliary media, auxiliary energy and active components. For example, a cooling-water system provides inherently safe cooling if heat is removed via sufficiently large heat exchangers with gravity circulation of the cooling water (natural convection), since gravity is always available.” OR:

“Many traditional routes to safer processes add complex layers - systems that must actively intervene, or that require special operating procedures, to avert a catastrophe. Inherently safer concepts provide risk reduction as a built-in characteristic of the process. “

source AIChE There appears to be a fundamental conflict of interest here between the viability and the safety of the system on the part of the promoter. There are a number of references to a “speed limit” in this paper, specifically in section 7 relating to incidents of tram driver speeding, although there appears to have been no establishment of a maximum speed limit at any stage. This is unhelpful and clouds a serious issue. 7.2 Monitoring does not appear to be covered by legislation and is therefore open to abuse. Section 7 does not explain what appropriate action is in relation to disciplining speeding drivers. We also feel the terminology “random basis” when referring to the checking of incident recorder records is insufficiently clear. 5 Safety/Tram Speed ( Dick Dapre) 3.3 Layout and signing. We would argue that the use of grass proposed for the

tramway in the Roseburn Corridor makes the distinction of the tramway from the pathway less obvious than in other systems and therefore a lower speed limit should apply.

3.4 The statement that the concern regarding vehicle speeds does not apply

where there is no carriageway parallel to the tramway completely ignores the potential effects of slipstreaming. This is particularly relevant due to the relatively confined nature of the Roseburn Corridor and the proximity of the tramway to the pathway.

4 The assumed operating speed makes no allowances for local issues such

as the recreational nature of the existing facility or the proximity to schools and the safety issues that arise from this. As such, safety should take precedence.

5.2 There is no evidence in the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan for The Roseburn Corridor (LHMPRC) of the establishment of a distinct difference between the footway/cycleway and the tramway in terms of surfacing, levels and appearance. As such we reserve the right to rebut this issue should more information be forthcoming. Examples of Parallel Operation Drawing any conclusions from the photographs provided is meaningless, as no specifications have been provided in the examples given. We believe this is deliberately misleading.

Allowing for this, our observations on the photographs would be:

a) All the figures except for Figure 1., which is at a pinch point due to a

bridge, appear to show a much less confined area than the Roseburn Corridor.

b) Figures 2. & 3. Would appear to provide evidence that the margin between

the tram track and the cycle path for this section of the Midland Metro is significantly larger than the 0.9m indicated in the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan for The Roseburn Corridor. The pictures also provide evidence of very clear definition between the tramway and the pathway.

c) Figure 4. Is particularly misleading, as it appears to show a point at which

a pathway is running parallel to a tramway for only a very short distance, and in a wide-open space. We fail to see any relevance in this figure.

7 We would hope that the study into the safety problems of this type of

operation would extend further than the “knowledge” of Mr Dapre. We would hope that there would be statistics available to provide a clearer idea of the risks associated with parallel running.

We believe that given lives are potentially at stake, appraisal of the risks of the scheme, in particular in relation to the running speed of the tram, should be carried out on a case by case basis with sensitivity to local issues. 6 Lack of Security Due to increased use of Corridor (Gary Turner) 3.1 We would argue that the level of footfall is likely to decrease through a fall in recreational use. Refer the Walkway & Cyclepath Usage Survey carried out by the Blackhall Community Association & FRUWCA that showed that nearly 70% of respondents indicated that the scheme in its current form would negatively affect their usage of the corridor. We would also point out that there is currently little existing anti social behaviour in the Group 35 section of the Roseburn Corridor. Our concern is that the isolated nature of the area, and in particular the cutting behind Garscube Terrace could make it a target for those wishing to perpetrate vandalism of or sabotage of the tram infrastructure. 3.4 The presence of CCTV at the stops and on the trams would not help. Acts of vandalism or sabotage would be likely to occur away from stops and at times the trams are not in operation i.e. at night.

18 Health & Safety Due To Infrastructure (Scott Macintosh) The Committee will appreciate that as lay people we are not sufficiently qualified to debate this subject. However, our understanding is that evidence is accumulating relating to the negative effect on health caused by the build up and proximity to Electro Magnetic Fields and we would like to highlight our concerns.


LEAD OBJECTORS 30 – JOHN AND WENDY BARKESS 96 – GARSCUBE TERRACE RESIDENTS 174 - KATHY AND LES KINGSTONE 180 – RICHARD VANHAGAN OBJECTOR REBUTTAL OF BARRY CROSS, ANDREW OLDFIELD, LES BUCKMAN (2), STUART TURNBULL, MARK BAIN, NEIL HARPER, KAREN RAYMOND AND AILEEN GRANT – ROUTE SELECTION RICHARD VANHAGAN

We welcome the opportunity to cross examine the promoter on his route selection process. 1. It is a shock to find out that the future quality of life for some 125,000

Edinburgh residents living within 800m of the Roseburn corridor (R.C) is being endangered because the promoter has chosen as the basis for his appraisal a draft consultation document as yet unpublished going under the name of S.T.A.G (See Barry Cross paragraph 3.7.) This is completely unacceptable and casts serious doubts upon all of the published outcomes herewith. We would like to know why this draft document was chosen against other available criteria and why the document has not yet been ratified?

2. We are told that since 1978 the disused railway corridor has been safeguarded for a new road or more recently, for light rail use, (see Barry Cross paragraph 4.4.) and that all those residents along the R.C who have bought or developed property in the meantime should have taken this fact into account. Before you rap our knuckles on this perhaps you will produce the public consultation document and the written notification sent to every affected household at the time because we don’t remember receiving any such advice?

3. Over the last 25 years the planners have tried and failed on several occasions to come up with a viable transport scheme for the R.C ( see Barry Cross paragraphs 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3.) With each failure the credibility of the planners to produce an adequate solution has been seriously questioned to t he extent that many now believe that even with 375M on the table the present plans will come to nothing and that the cycle/walkway is secure for the future. The recent article in the Scotsman of 15th June 05 has only further served to convince the public that the corridor is still as safe from exploitation as ever. As there has been no official pronouncement from TIE on this are we to assume that the loop using the R.C is still a live issue and if so when will we receive notification to this effect?

4. It is hard to believe that the enormous and costly tramways package which could have so many far reaching and damaging consequences to the environment for so many people, not only the R.C but elsewhere in Edinburgh was commissioned by a Granton Foreshore Developer called Waterfront

Edinburgh LTD (WEL). ( see Barry Cross paragraph 3.3 & 3.6.) Surely this is a totally inappropriate way to plan and finance a public transport scheme considering the vested interests of WEL. What satisfactory explanation can be given for this unethical code of conduct?

5. Attention is drawn to the little use being made of the R.C cycle/walkway during the hours of darkness even though it is lit at night. (see Barry Cross paragraph 4.5.) He further states that the introduction of trams on the route would benefit residents by deterring anti-social activity (the biggest anti-social culprit is surely to be trams running 7 days a week, 365 days a year. This must be one of the weakest arguments for the justification for the trams in any of the promoter’s documents and one can only marvel at the audacity of Mr.Cross’ in making such a fatuous statement. This just shows how biased TIE’s reporting is on the R.C being the preferred route.

6. Only Karren Raymond on page 4 of her report makes mention of the Coltbridge/ WesterCoates conservation area (so we know TIE has the document) and limits her comments to impact on the landscape of the corridor and noise impacts on the properties but no one else raises the issue. Which isn’t really surprising because trams don’t conserve but destroy the R.C and it’s environs. Does this new found status not affect any of the parameters used in the tram design? Or are the different planners just ignoring each other?

7. Andrew Oldfield paragraph 5 top of page 3 states “The route is geometrically and spatially suitable for use as a tram road.” Les Buckman in his paper on “accessibility of stop locations” paragraph 5.1 says “ the route is a narrow linear corridor with the back gardens of residential developments on both sides, access to the corridor is effectively limited to the locations where roads cross this alignment” This is why there are only 3 stops on a 2 mile stretch of line. Mr.Buckman is the most accurate in his assessment and it is fair to say that the promoter in trying to accommodate a twin-track tram with a cycleway and a walkway is literally squeezing a quart into a pint pot. This inaccessibility limits the use of the trams in the R.C to nearby residents so how can Andrew Oldfield state “that the R.C is expected to carry the highest passenger loading for the scheme particularly during the a.m peak”? Where are the passengers coming from? - not the R.c residents as this area, we are told, is one of high car ownership. This same argument of high usage is used elsewhere to show that the WGH loop will carry less passengers than R.C. This calls in question 2 points; one: should such a close-knit high density community be subjected to a noisy tram scheme and Two: when they derive so little benefit from it?

8. The LHMP for Russell Road shows a junction which isn’t discussed anywhere in these papers. We have always been led to believe that line 1 is a closed loop. Is this junction in fact a breakout point and does this mean extra traffic coming onto the loop from other sources?


LEAD OBJECTORS 30 – JOHN AND WENDY BARKESS 96 – GARSCUBE TERRACE RESIDENTS 174 - KATHY AND LES KINGSTONE 180 – RICHARD VANHAGAN OBJECTOR REBUTTAL OF SCOTT MCINTOSH - CONSTRUCTION RICHARD VANHAGAN

Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Construction 4. Rate of Construction 5. Experience from other systems

6. Conclusions

1. Resume 1.1 I am Scott McIntosh. I am a Senior Consultant in Light Rail with Mott

MacDonald the Technical Consultants for the Edinburgh Tram. I hold a degree of Master of Arts from the University of Cambridge and various post graduate qualifications, I am a Member of the Permanent Way Institution. I have around 20 years experience in Light Rail, dealing with the planning, promotion, specification, design and commissioning of systems.

1.2 I have been Project Manager for a number of projects, including Croydon Tramlink and was a member of the Board of the public/private Tramlink Project Development Group. I was a member of the UITP [International Public Transport Association] Light Rail Commission and co-author of the UITP ‘Guidelines for the Design and development of Light Rail Schemes’.

1.3 I am currently a Board member of the UK Tram consortium [the objects of which are ‘to encourage the effective development and use of light rapid transit systems in the UK…by… the development of national guidelines, codes of practice and standards based upon experience in the UK and overseas’]. I have advised on tramways in Europe and the Middle East and I am currently advising on tramways and light rail schemes in Blackpool, Glasgow, Manchester and Newcastle, as well as Edinburgh.

. 2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 My evidence will cover the construction impacts on public and tenant

access and servicing of properties.

The evidence addresses: Construction

(i) Construction Impacts & Disturbance (ii) Mitigation to preserve Pedestrian and Vehicle

access (iii) Rate of Construction (iv) Information Centre & Website (v) Impact on Businesses (vi) Experience from Other Systems

3 Construction

3.1 Construction Impacts & Disturbance 3.1.1 The promoter recognises that the carrying out of a large construction

project such as the Edinburgh Tram has the potential for causing disruption to residents and businesses. It is the promoter’s contention that the long-term benefits of the scheme will far outweigh any short term inconvenience, nevertheless the promoter has sought to minimise inconvenience and to mitigate problems by creating a Code of Construction Practice [CoCP]. This document has been created by the promoters using current industry best practice. It is my understanding that a copy of the CoCP has been passed to the objector. The promoters contend that the CoCP will answer all the questions raised in section 1.6 of the objection

3.1.2 The CoCP is based on experience of other large construction projects,

particularly the tram schemes built in Croydon (Tramlink), Manchester (Metrolink), Nottingham (Nottingham Express Transit) and planned for Liverpool (Merseytram). The CoCP for Merseytram was recently considered during the Public Inquiry into the Merseytram Draft Order deposited in 2004, under the Transport and Works Act 1992 procedure. At the conclusion of the Inquiry the presiding Inspector reported that the Draft Order, including the CoCP, should be confirmed and the Secretary of State has subsequently followed the Inspector’s advice. The CoCP has been subject to consultation with all the parties involved in developing the project including tie, the City of Edinburgh Council, and the technical advisors to the scheme. The Construction Contract will require that the Contractor shall comply with the CoCP and with all relevant Legislation, Codes, Standards and guidance from the Health and Safety Executive and HM Railway Inspectorate.

3.2 Mitigation during construction 3.2.1 Maintenance of accesses

• The CoCP sets strict requirements on the Contractor in relation to Roads, Footpaths and Cycleways. S.5.2 of the code states ‘Pedestrian access to properties shall be maintained at all times where practicable unless otherwise agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council and the owners and tenants of affected properties’ . It goes on to state ‘Wherever…works interfere with…ways over which the public have a right of way… the Contractor shall construct diversion ways as necessary’.

• Diversions will have to be ‘suitable in all respects for the…traffic using the existing ways’ and ‘the widths of the diversions shall not be less than that of the existing way’

• Diversions to footways that are currently suitable accessible to wheelchairs and pushchairs shall continue to be useable by such users where reasonably practicable [s 5.4 (a)]. Other footways shall be of standards equal to current best standards.

• All diversions will be lit and signed to standards set by the City of

Edinburgh Council [s. 5.1/5.4 (f)] At the end of diversions the roads and footways will be restored to a standard agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 5.5]

• The Contractor will provide an Information Centre and Website to provide information on diversions. They will also publish a weekly newsletter, in hard copy and electronically ‘detailing works to be undertaken in the forthcoming week and outlining, with appropriate maps and diagrams, any alterations to road traffic circulation patterns required by the coming week’s work’ [s. 2.1/2.2].

3.2.2 Working Hours

Working hours are defined in section 3 of the CoCP; ‘Normal hours of working for construction of Edinburgh Tram Lines One and Two shall be: Monday – Saturday 0700 – 1900 hours’ . Exceptional work outwith these hours may only be undertaken with the prior approval of tie and The City of Edinburgh Council. Furthermore ‘Where Sunday or evening/night working has the potential to disturb nearby land users and occupiers they shall be notified seven days in advance, providing a description of the work to be carried out, measures that will be taken to control noise or other disturbance and the proposed hours of working.’ In the past Edinburgh Council has supported “inaudibility” for construction projects outwith standard working hours. Why is it not being adopted here?

3.2.3 Site housekeeping

Section 4 of the CoCP sets out particular standards for maintaining cleanliness and order within work sites and the minimisation of visual impact on the surrounding areas;

• All work sites will be surrounded by fences or hoardings which will painted in a colour and style to be approved by the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 4.2 (d)].

• The Contractor shall clear and clean all working areas and accesses as work proceeds and when no longer required for the carrying out of the works.

3.2.4 Noise Control

Strict standards of noise control are set out in section 6 of the CoCP; ‘The Contractor shall have a general duty to take all practicable measures to minimise nuisance from noise. The noise limits specified … shall not be regarded as a licence to make noise up to the stated limit.’ An effective monitoring regime is established at s.6.1 (c) ; ‘In order to ensure that the best practicable means are used to meet the levels set out above, a programme of on-site monitoring by a suitably qualified practitioner shall be agreed between the Contractor, tie and The City of Edinburgh Council. This monitoring programme shall include the location and frequency of readings and will define to whom the results shall be made available. Monitoring will be undertaken at locations identified in the Environmental Statements as those where mitigation measures may be necessary to avoid significant noise disturbance.’ And strict requirements are laid down to ensure that these requirements are adhered to ; ‘In the event that measurements indicate noise has exceeded the limits … the Contractor shall stop the operation in a safe manner and take all practicable measures to prevent recurrence’ .Require residents liaison group during construction …refer to Group 35 – Garscube Terrace Residents and Roseburn to Ravelston Association of Proprietors Witness Statement and also associated Hamilton + McGregor Technical Report section 3.15 (BS 5228)

3.2.5 Other emissions

Vibration and dust emission are covered by strict standards in CoCP sections 7 and 8. Vibration levels strongly disagreed: refer to Group 35 – Garscube Terrace Residents and Roseburn to Ravelston Association of Proprietors vibration statement and associated A.W.Irwin Associates technical report for acceptable levels of vibration. A requirement to assist frontagers by cleaning parts of their property affected by dust is included at s. 8.1 ( c ) ; ‘Where dust generating works (e.g. excavation, demolition) are undertaken close to buildings such that there is a potential for soiling of windows and ledges with dust the contractors shall clean those windows and ledges as necessary – and at least weekly - during periods of dust generating work and on completion of works.’

3.2.6 Effects of these mitigation measures

It is the promoter’s contention that these measures, taken as a package, will reduce interference to adjoining frontagers and businesses to an absolute minimum

4. Rate of construction 4.1 The rate of construction will depend upon a number of issues,

including;

• any particular construction problems encountered within the corridor

• constraints on construction imposed for environmental or wildlife considerations

• weather conditions .

4.2 However what can be said is that the contractors will be required to keep the public fully informed of the progress of the work. Section 2 of the CoCP requires that; ‘The Contractor shall appoint a liaison officer to manage all public relations, information and press related matters, who shall liaise with tie, The City of Edinburgh Council, other statutory bodies, members of the public, press and the media on all matters relating to the works’.

4.3 This is ensured by the requirements set out in the rest of the section;

2.1 Information Centre and Website

The Contractor shall provide and maintain an Information Centre at a location to be agreed with tie and the City of Edinburgh Council. The Information Centre shall be accessible to stakeholders, frontagers, interested third parties and the general public, between the hours of 0900 and 1700, Monday to Friday (excluding local and national Public Holidays). Up to date information on the progress of the works and the current areas affected by construction shall be freely available at the Information Centre. The Contractor shall also provide and maintain a website which shall provide the same information. Require residents liaison group during construction …refer to Group 35 – Garscube Terrace Residents and Roseburn to Ravelston Association of Proprietors Witness Statement and also associated Hamilton + McGregor Technical Report section 3.15 (BS 5228)

2.2 Weekly newsletter

The Contractor shall publish a weekly newsletter every Wednesday, detailing works to be undertaken in the forthcoming week and outlining, with appropriate maps and diagrams, any alterations to road traffic circulation patterns required by the coming week’s works. This newsletter will be published;

• on the Website, • by Fax and email to; local and national newspapers and other

news media, The City of Edinburgh Council, Lothian and Borders Police, the emergency services and to any other persons or organisations that have requested receipt of the newsletter.

Sufficient free-distribution, take-away hard copies of the newsletter shall be placed in the Information Centre by 0800 every Thursday morning. No charge will be made for this service.

2.2.1 Complaints Hotline

The Contractor shall also provide and maintain a Freephone Hotline to deal with any complaints, comments or queries received in connection with the Edinburgh Tram Works. The Hotline will be answered by the Liaison Officer, a deputy or by another designated competent operator between the hours of 0700 and one hour after work terminates for the day, on every day when construction work is being undertaken. Outwith these hours an automated call recording service will be provided. The telephone number, fax number and website address of the hotline shall be publicised through the press and the Weekly newsletter and clearly displayed on hoardings around every worksite and at other suitable locations within and in the vicinity of every worksite.

2.2.2 Contacts Log

All complaints, comments and queries received shall be registered in a suitable Log and appropriate action in response instigated within 24 hours by the Contractor. A record of remedial action shall be logged, in the event of a complaint a follow up letter or electronic communication shall be passed to the complainant within 48 hours of the initial complaint, outlining their complaint and the remedial action being undertaken by the Contractor. All comments, questions and complaints shall be logged in writing together with any response and a record of any actions taken, including a record of the time when that action is completed. An up to date copy of the Contacts Log shall be compiled daily, together with a report on the progress of any actions. The Contacts Log shall be inspected and signed daily by a nominated senior representative of the Contractor and shall be counter signed by the Contractor’s Project Director at least once per week. and the Weekly newsletter

A copy of each week’s Contacts Log shall be placed every Friday in the Information Centre, where it will remain until completion of all construction works. All deposited copies of the Contacts Log may be freely inspected by any person during the normal opening hours of the Information Centre. An additional copy of the Contacts Log shall be forwarded to tie once per week and the master register shall be available for tie to inspect at any other time during normal working hours.

3.4.4 Communications Regarding Noise

(a) The Contractor shall give seven days notice to local residents who may be adversely affected by noise from the proposed programme of work, providing a description of the work to be carried out, measures that will be taken to control noise or other disturbance, and the proposed hours of working. Refer to above comment on inaudibility.

(b) The Contractor shall provide the City of Edinburgh Council

Department of Environmental and Consumer Services with a list of contacts who will be responsible for investigating and resolving noise issues during the construction phase of the project.

5. Experience from other systems 5.1 The promoters accept that the introduction of a major public work such

as the Edinburgh Tram will cause some disruption and would point out that Edinburgh has coped with a number of major disruptions over the last few years as major new buildings, such as the Conference Centre, the Scottish Parliament etc are added to our city. The promoters accept that some of the earlier tramway schemes – such as Sheffield -caused unacceptable disruption. The promoters of schemes have learned from these experiences and the 1997-2000 construction of Croydon Tramlink and the 2001 – 2004 construction of the first line of Nottingham Express Transit have benefited from the tighter controls on construction now incorporated in the Edinburgh Codes of Construction Practice.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The Edinburgh CoCP builds upon the positive experience of the development of appropriate Codes on other tramway schemes. It seeks to identify all likely risks of nuisance and to control them before they occur. If, notwithstanding the best endeavours of the promoter, such nuisance does occur then the CoCP established a way by which aggrieved parties can seek alleviation of the nuisance. The promoters contend that it will minimise disturbance and result in a major public

work of lasting benefit to the city. re lasting benefit - one would hope so but on the basis of the N+V policy it is unlikely especially since limits are not statutory.

Scott McIntosh Expert Witness Mott MacDonald 4 July 2005


LEAD OBJECTORS 30 – JOHN AND WENDY BARKESS 96 – GARSCUBE TERRACE RESIDENTS 174 - KATHY AND LES KINGSTONE 180 – RICHARD VANHAGAN OBJECTOR REBUTTAL OF A RINTOULL AND SCOTT MCINTOSH A CUTHBERT OR S CRAIG

A RINTOULL STATEMENT A: COMPENSATION FOR REDUCED MARKET VALUES OF AFFECTED PROPERTIES

Following further investigations it is now our understanding that any loss in market value(s) to properties and property owners not having land or buildings acquired by the developer - whether temporarily or permanently - but nonetheless suffering depreciation in market value by reason of i) noise ii) vibration iii) artificial light iv) smoke smell or fumes or v) the discharge of solid or liquid substances . . . may be wholly provided for within the current Land Compensation Scotland Act 1973 - and subject to formal confirmation and clarification that this is so for each of the under-noted clauses, the Amendments already described in our Witness Statement dated 4th July 2005 for inclusion into the Private Bill may be considered as superflous, but this to be conditional upon appropriate formal clarification to be provided by the promoters and/or the District Valuer on the four points in question - failing which the Amendments requested in our Witness Statement of 4th July 05 should be included in the Bill: i.e Amendment A (after completion) - to include: . . . that the Edinburgh Tram (Line 1) Bill be amended to include a clause to provide written procedure whereby following commissioning and operation of Tramline 1, the owner of any property at/near or adjacent to the Tramline 1 is entitled to automatic compensation for loss of property value(s) where such owner (and/or his/her appointed agent) can demonstrate that the subjects in question have incurred an identifiable depreciation in market value due to the scheme by reason of any or all of the following: i) noise ii) vibration iii) artificial light iv) smoke smell or fumes

. . . . . . such substantiation of loss to be by way of written report(s) incorporating valuation(s) to be carried out by a registered Chartered Surveyor (General Practice) and/or other suitably-qualified person(s) - AND

. . . that such written procedures shall provide for any submissions for loss of market value which the Tramline 1 promoters choose to contest - and agreement between the two parties cannot be reached - there shall be a requirement for referral to the Scottish Lands Tribunal or to an independent Arbiter to be appointed by the Chairman of the Royal Institute of Chartered

Surveyors (RICS) . .AND . . that a time limit shall be incorporated into said procedures prior to said referral of six calendar months after which period any settlement subsequently reached shall be subject to the addition of interest at commercial bank rate(s) ruling over the period in question: e.g. Royal Bank of Scotland base rate plus 2%). Amendment B (during construction) - to include: . . that the Edinburgh Tram (Line 1) Bill be amended to include a clause to provide written procedure whereby any owner who sells his/her property at any time during the period from letting the first contract and/or sub-contract for any part of the physical construction of said Tramline 1 until commissioning of the whole length of said Tram (Line 1) - i.e. the construction phase - is entitled to automatic compensation for loss of property value(s) where such owner (and/or his/her appointed agent) can demonstrate that the subjects in question have incurred an identifiable loss in market value over the appropriate period by reason of the ongoing construction works for Tram( Lline 1) with specific reference to any of the following: i) noise ii) vibration iii) artificial light iv) smoke smell or fumes and/or v)

loss of land, privacy and/or amenity . . . Amendment B

. . . such substantiation of loss to be by way of written report(s) incorporating valuation(s) to be carried out by a registered Chartered Surveyor (General Practice) and/or other suitably-qualified person(s) - AND . . . . that such written procedures shall provide for any submissions for loss of market value which the Tramline 1 promoters choose to contest - and agreement between the two parties cannot be reached - there shall be a requirement for referral to the Scottish Lands Tribunal or to an independent Arbiter to be appointed by the Chairman of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) . .AND . . that a time limit of six calendar months shall be incorporated into said procedures prior to said referral after which period any settlement subsequently reached shall be subject to the addition of interest at commercial bank rate(s) ruling over the period in question: e.g. Royal Bank of Scotland base rate plus 2%).

Amendment C (before, during & after construction) - to include: . . . . . .that the Edinburgh Tram (Line 1) Bill be amended to include a clause whereby any owner unable to sell his/her property before, during or following subsequent operation of Tram (Line 1) shall require the promoter to purchase said property at a market value equal to that which would have pertained had Tram (Line1) not been proposed and/or commissioned AND . . . . such substantiation of loss shall to be by way of written report(s) incorporating valuation(s) to be carried out by a registered Chartered Surveyor (General Practice) and/or other suitably-qualified person(s) - AND

COMPENSATION FOR REDUCED MARKET VALUES OF AFFECTED PROPERTIES . . . . ..that such written procedures shall provide for any submissions in respect of establishing said market value of a property which an owner is unable to sell and which the Tramline 1 promoters choose to contest, and where agreement between the two parties cannot be reached - there shall be a requirement for referral to the Scottish Lands Tribunal or to an independent Arbiter to be appointed by the Chairman of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) . .AND . that a time limit of six calendar months shall be incorporated into said procedures prior to said referral after which period any settlement subsequently reached shall be subject to the addition of interest at commercial bank rate(s) ruling over the period in question: e.g. Royal Bank of Scotland base rate plus 2%).

Amendment D (re-imbursement for associated costs incurred) to include: This clause shall include a sub-clause requiring the Promoters of Tram

(Line 1) to pay all reasonable costs, including professional fees, incurred by affected property owners by reason of the application of this clause.

Ref: Witness Statement by Scott McIntosh (Mott McDonald) dated 4th July 05

B: VALUES OF AFFECTED PROPERTIES 1. Background & resume: The author describes himself as a “Senior Consultant in Light Rail with Mott McDonald, Technical Consultants” but from his Witness Statement he appears to hold no technical qualifications: e.g. as a chartered engineer in structural, civil or transport engineering or other equivalent qualification. The author also describes himself as having been a “project manager” for “a number of projects and also as having been a member of various commissions, boards and/or similar promotional bodies; and presently a board member sitting of the UK Tram Consortium.

2. Scope of evidence: The author maintains that “the effect that trams have on image and perception

of an area make the schemes important for generating growth and investment” . . . adding that “ Marginal businesses dislodged by construction are replaced with dynamic enterprises” which may well be true when considering commercial and/or industrial activity in an area.

In general terms this argument is inappropriate to Tramline 1 and in specific terms it is utterly inappropriate to the Roseburn Corridor by reason of the following: i) TramLine 1 as presently proposed will bypass the existing major employers

downline (i.e. north) of the Roseburn Corridor (see footnote 1)

ii) Roseburn Corridor: the overwhelming majority of properties affected by the proposals in the Bill under consideration is domestic/residential - not commercial or industrial.

The Private Bills Unit is invited to consider the relevance of the assertions made by the author. Tramlink Impact Study Amongst other issues the author quotes Ingleton’s of Mitcham : “The new tram has seen prices increase by about 10% above the national trend.” . . . .but what does this mean ? Over what period: a month a year or the five year notional period during which the tramline referred to was being constructed ? By the very nature of statistics some areas will increase at a rate above the national average whilst others will correspondingly rise at a rate lower than the national average.

3-5 Quoted tramlines The author states that “estate agents used Tramlink as part of their marketing. Surely it is fair to say well they would. wouldn’t they ? Is it not the case that estate agents will use anything and everything in their power to sell a property ? After all that is what they are paid to do isn’ it - to sell properties ! If estate agents are to be realistically quoted as sources of honest and objective information - the appropriateness of which I would contest - should they not also be stressing the noise, vibration and general nuisance associated with those properties which are within close proximity of or immediately adjacent to the Tramlines in question: i.e. those properties most adversely affected by the Tramline noise. Are we really to believe that estate these estate agents are unique in the country in that they are objective enough to correspondingly advertise other affected domestic properties as being “subject to heavy intermittent tramline noise and occasional vibration ?” The author also quotes that “demand for the area has gone up and prices have risen by up to 10%. Again I must ask what this means ? Over a month; a year or 5 years perhaps ? If it is over a year what on earth does this prove ? 6. Conclusion:

Citing his argument(s) - presumably believed by him to be based on objective “evidence” - the author goes on to conclude that his statements and quotations of evidence are such that we the readers must reasonably conclude that “such developments have had a beneficial effect on house prices” in the areas quoted

and that “there is no reason to believe that Edinburgh should be any different to these other successful cities.” ________________________________________________________________________________________________ REBUTTAL SUMMARY: the reader is invited to consider the following: 1. The author’s claims are of little relevance to the circumstances pertaining to

the Roseburn Corridor and completely ignore the promoter’s proposal to bypass major employers & key passenger generators en route to Granton.

2. The author’s assertions on Tramlines being beneficial to house prices in areas served by a new line ignores (whether subconsciously or otherwise) the detrimental effects - in some cases devastatingly so - suffered by those property owners either immediately adjacent or within close proximity of, a new tramline by reason of noise.

3. The author quotes selectively from small estate agents only - not from Chartered Surveyors specialising in valuation and who are members of a regulated chartered profession (RICS). The reader is invited to ask why ?

EDINBURGH TRAM (LINE ONE)

REBUTTAL SUMMARY 4. Notwithstanding 3 above the author quotes percentage rises but fails to

mention the periods over which these quoted rises took place. Are these not meaningless ?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Footnotes: 1. TRAMLINE 1: major employers & key passenger generators which could be served by route re-alignment. Western General Hospital: 7,500 staff (approx) BAe; 3,000 staff “ State Street (formerly The WM Co): 1,500 staff “ Lothians & Borders Police HQ 800 staff “ Fettes College: 720 staff “ Napier University Nursing Faculty: 500 persons (approx)


LEAD OBJECTORS 30 – JOHN AND WENDY BARKESS 96 – GARSCUBE TERRACE RESIDENTS 174 - KATHY AND LES KINGSTONE 180 – RICHARD VANHAGAN OBJECTOR REBUTTAL OF STEVEN MITCHELL – NOISE AND VIBRATION

BERNADETTE MCKELL – NOISE REBUTTAL

ANDY IRWIN – VIBRATION REBUTTAL

Background: We have considered that for best clarity it is in this case appropriate to comment directly on the text contained in the following witness statement. Comments are highlighted in italicised bold text Reference in our comments is made to the submissions already made by the above group that relate to this document. These are: References: 1) Witness Statement entitled “ Noise” (noise_overview.doc) 2) Hamilton + McGregor Technical Report BMcK/JN228/R1 3) Roseburn Corridor Area C(34) - above Group -Amendments for the

Edinburgh Tram (line one) Bill document. 4) Witness Statement entitled “vibration” (Group35RRAP Statement

Vibration 1705.doc) and including A.W.Irwin Associates Technical Report on Vibration

Rebuttal Summary:

• Noise: In terms of Tram System operational noise levels the attached Witness Statement and the original Environmental Statement draw guidance from PAN 56, however throughout PAN 56 there is consistent and repeated mention that the noise levels proposed by the ES: “apply only where consideration is being given to introducing new housing development into an area with an existing transport noise source and not in the reverse situation”….and again “ The differing attitude and sensitivity towards noise between those who choose to live in a relatively noisy environment and those who are subjected to new noise sources also prohibits the use of the NEC method in reverse.” The ES and Witness Statement uses the above NEC limits as a trigger point for determining if noise mitigation is to be considered. We reject the limits and subsequent mitigation determining steps are relevant to the Roseburn Corridor area:

• the proposed PAN 56 NEC limits are too high, • the mitigation determining step is flawed(elsewhere referred to as

the basis for evaluation of significance) particularly for existing low noise areas,

• more detail required on predicted tram noise • night time predicted tram noise has unrepresentative units • mitigation is only being “considered”

In light of the existing low ambient noise levels, we refer to the need to set absolute levels for the Roseburn Corridor based on World Health Organisational standards. These are applicable, and practical noise limits which must be introduced as a statutory requirement both to protect the intended initial good design standard (as per the Tram Design Manual) but also to ensure that noise levels are maintained properly throughout the life of the tram.

• Vibration: No new evidence is presented here to alter our previously established limits detailed in ref 4). The limits proposed by this statement and the ES are insufficient in scope and excessive in value as detailed in ref 4).

• Peer Review: The Peer Review of noise and vibration is mentioned several times in this statement. Its obvious omissions categorise it as insufficient to be considered competent as a N+V verification document – see 3.14 below for details of why.

• Statutory Limits: We reiterate the necessity of having statutory limits to protect noise and vibration levels for the tram. A specification is the time proven method of ensuring the required and agreed quality. In the special circumstances of this Project that relate the Tram Line promoter to the local authority these limits must be statutory. WITNESS STATEMENT – STEVEN MITCHELL

CONTENTS

PART 1- OVERVIEW

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 ACOUSTIC TERMINOLOGY 2

3 BACKGROUND 4

4 EFFECTS OF THE SCHEME DURING CONSTRUCTION 10

5 EFFECTS OF THE SCHEME DURING OPERATION 12

6 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 15

PART 2 - SPECIFIC ISSUES RAISED BY GROUP 35 OBJECTORS

7 RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS 16

APPENDICES 1 What is “Noise” ? 2 The Edinburgh Tram Lines 1 and 2 Noise and Vibration Policy

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Qualifications

1.1 My name is Steve Mitchell. I hold an Honours Degree in Physics with Modern Acoustics. I am a Member of the Institute of Acoustics and I serve on the committee of the Institute’s Environmental Noise Group. I have worked in the field of environmental noise for 17 years specialising in the effects of transportation noise and vibration. I have published 10 academic papers on various aspects of transportation noise. I have lectured on the effects of transport noise at South Bank University, London. I have also managed major community noise research projects for the UK government.

1.2 I am a Principal Consultant with Environmental Resources Management

(ERM). In that capacity I am responsible for a team of acousticians assessing environmental noise impacts from a wide range of developments. I have assessed noise impacts from over 30 railway systems including 8 new light rail or tram proposals for the Docklands Light Railway in London, Centro in Birmingham, Merseytravel in Liverpool, and Nottingham Express Transit in Nottingham. Scope of Evidence

1.3 My evidence covers potential environmental noise and vibration affects associated with the construction and operation of the scheme.

1.4 My evidence is divided into two parts, as follows:

Part 1 Gives an overview of the noise and vibration effects I have

predicted, including the terminology used, the assessment methods and the overall results.

Part 2 Provides responses to the specific queries raised in the Witness Summary for objector Group 35.

1.5 In my evidence I refer to the following parts of the Environmental Statement

(ES): Chapter 13 Noise and Vibration; and Annex I Details of the Noise and Vibration Assessment.

1.6 Before discussing these issues, I briefly explain some of the acoustic terminology that is used to describe the effects of noise and vibration.

2

2. ACOUSTIC TERMINOLOGY

2.1 In my assessments of noise and vibration I have quantified expected levels, (we consider these are not transparent to objectors and the unit used are flawed…ref H+M report 3.9,4.2) I have compared them against recognised standards ……a noise standard that is specifically stated as to be not suitable for introduction of noise into an existing environment? ..(ref H+M report 3.12) and I have recommended mitigation measures where necessary to meet those standards where possible. Where adequate mitigation is not likely to be available I have reported residual effects. To discuss the expected effects of noise and vibration I must refer to the noise and vibration numerically. This chapter outlines the key terminology and metrics that are required.

2.2 In November 2004, at the request of the West End Community Liaison

Group (CLG) I produced a note entitled “What is Noise”. This is included as Appendix 1 to this evidence. It explains the two main metric I have used to assess noise, LAeq, period and LAmax, with particular reference to the assessment of tram noise along the Roseburn Corridor. Some objectors have queried the use of the LAeq, period metric because it gives a noise levels representing the level ‘averaged’ over a long period. My assessment has used LAeq, period because it is the recommended metric for assessing railway noise, as I explain in Appendix 1. But the periods that have been selected are flawed as they seriously misrepresent the noise during the period 23:00 to 0700 by averaging any night time noise across a period when no trams are running. in my tram noise assessment I have considered LAeq levels over three periods as follows:

o 0700-2300 hours (day);

o 2300-0700 hours (night); and (a flawed period as it seriously misrepresents night time noise levels by averaging the noise generated in 3.5 hours over an 8 hour period)

o 1 hour during the night. This level appears to have been

used in calculations and then compared erroneously with periods averaged over 8 hours

2.3 I have also considered the peak in the noise levels as the tram passes using the LAmax metric.

2.4 I explain how these three noise metrics are used to assess tram noise

impacts in Chapter 5.

2.5 To explain my assessment of vibration effects I have used the following two metrics. For tram system operation we can find only reference to a VDV

3

limit and none to the second metric …PPV 2.6 Vibration Dose Value (VDV) is a measure of the accumulated level of

ground vibration over a stated time period and, through the application of British Standard BS6472 ( )1 , is the standard metric for predicting the likelihood of adverse comments from affected building occupants. I describe the application of this standard in Chapter 5. We do not think discretion is applied – ref 4) A.W.Irwin report

2.7 Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) is a measure of peak vibration often used to

assess the potential for damage to building structures.

(1) BS6472: 1992 Guide to evaluation and measurements of human exposure to vibration in buildings (1 Hz to 80 Hz)

4

3 BACKGROUND

Sensitive Receptors and Baseline Conditions

3.1 The majority of the ETL1 route runs along existing streets with approximately 3km of the route running along the Roseburn Rail Corridor. There are neighbouring properties along the majority of its route. In the Leith and city centre areas many of these properties are commercial with some residential areas too. In other areas the route passes through mainly residential areas which are more sensitive to noise effects, particularly at night.

3.2 The effect of tram noise will depend to some extent on the existing noise

levels; tram noise will be more noticeable in currently quiet areas and less obtrusive in already noisy areas. The ES reports baseline noise surveys at 26 representative receptors long the route. The existing noise environment along the route can be considered as two distinct types; sections in the city along streets, and the off-street Roseburn Corridor section. Along the street running sections ambient noise levels are generally high with noise levels mostly in the range of 60 to 70 dB LAeq, period during the day and 55 to 65 LAeq, period in the night-time hours when the tram will operate.

3.3 Along the Roseburn Corridor the corresponding noise levels are mostly in

the range of 45 to 50 dB LAeq, period during the day and 35 to 40 LAeq, period at night, except near to road crossings where levels are higher. The potential for noise impacts is therefore substantially greater along the Roseburn Corridor than elsewhere.

Tram Noise Policy and Legislation

3.4 There are no statutory limits on noise from railways or from tramways in

Scotland. Planning Advice Note 56 Planning and Noise primarily gives guidance on planning new housing development, and specifically states that the noise levels proposed within “apply only where consideration is being given to introducing new housing development into an area with an existing transport noise source and not in the reverse situation” but in paragraph 17, under the heading Noisy Development, it gives the following guidance:

Planning Authorities should generally aim to ensure that development does not cause unacceptable noise disturbance. They should also make appropriate provision for development necessary for the creation of jobs and the construction and improvement of essential infrastructure even though it may generate noise. The intent of the paragraph is not to limit progress where it relates to essential infrastructure …but it clearly points out also that different levels are acceptable depending on existing conditions and it has already excluded its own referenced noise levels as not applicable to the situation under debate. Areas vary

5

in character and level of noise that area acceptable in one location may not be acceptable in another.

3.5 Tie has recognised that in planning, designing and operating ETL1 and 2

there will be opportunities to incorporate noise and vibration mitigation measures to help avoid unnecessary disturbance. Tie’s committed approach to noise control is presented in two documents; the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) covering the construction phase, and the Edinburgh Tram Lines 1 and 2 Noise and Vibration Policy covering the operational phase. The commitments to noise and vibration control made in these are summarised below. The Edinburgh Tram Code of Construction Practice

3.6 The Control of Pollution Act 1974 recognises that noise disturbance cannot be used as a reason to prevent necessary construction projects by advocating the use of ‘Best Practicable Means’ for reducing construction noise. The promoter has adopted this approach as a means of minimising noise and vibration disturbance during the necessary construction works. Accordingly, a Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) has been prepared as a means of enforcing the use of best practicable means through contractual requirements. The CoCP takes the commitments made in the ES and summarises them into a form that will be contractually binding on the contractor who constructs the tramway. The main elements of the CoCP that will control noise and vibration affects are summarised as follows:

3.7 The CoCP limits normal hours of working to 0700-1900 hours. This is an important form of site noise management. Construction work at night is required to be kept to a minimum and requires the consent of the Council.

3.8 It lists a series of noise control measures aimed as minimising noise

emission at source and making use of noise screening.

3.9 The CoCP includes a series of noise limits and requirements to monitor noise.

3.10 The CoCP also includes vibration limits to protect residents from

disturbance due to ground vibration It is clear the limits will not protect residents but are rather more applicable to limit damage to non sensitive property ….the need to protect residents is covered by the limits suggested in ref 4) and to protect buildings from structural damage, and requires monitoring of vibration where needed.

3.11 The CoCP requires the Contractor to have a general duty to take all practicable measures to minimise disturbance from noise and to comply with the recommendations of BS5228 Noise Control on Construction and Open Sites. As such, the CoCP does not give a permit to make noise levels up to the stated limits, but rather to minimise noise as far as practicable. However absolute limits are still required and those in ref 4 are applicable. The overriding requirement is to adopt the ‘Best Practicable

6

Means’ to control noise and vibration levels. The term ‘Best Practicable Means’ is defined in Section 72 of the Control of Pollution Act where‘…practicable’ means reasonably practicable having regard among other things to local conditions and circumstances, to the current state of technical knowledge and to the financial implications’. The test of Best Practicable Means has been tested in a substantial body of case law relating to statutory nuisance from construction works. It is for this reason that it provides a clear and appropriate test against which to ensure that adequate noise and vibration measures are adopted during the construction phase. The Edinburgh Tram Lines 1 and 2 Noise and Vibration Policy

3.12 During the preparation of the ES it became clear that there was potential for noise impacts, mainly along the Roseburn Corridor, and discussions took place to consider what mitigation measures should be developed given the absence of any statutory requirement to control tram noise. It was also recognised that although noise impacts may not be predicted in other areas, where there are noise control measures that can make the whole system quieter, the promoter should take them. Our insertion of an amendment to stipulate noise levels within the Bill (Section Y) is to cover this exact issue ….that since it is not feasible to control whether the promoter should do this work or not the time proven practical method is to put a compulsory specification in place. Tie committed to an approach where noise mitigation would be developed wherever significant noise impacts were predicted (the assessment of significance is flawed ref 2) section 4.2 ) and the measures were reasonably practicable and not unacceptable to affected parties.(ref 2) section 5.6) This approach was adopted in the ES and led to the set of mitigation measures reported therein.

3.13 Since lodging of the Bill, with the accompanying ES, various objectors to the

scheme have questioned tie’s commitment to noise mitigation and sought clarification as to the measures to be adopted. In response to this tie has produced The Edinburgh Tram Lines One and Two Noise and Vibration Policy (the N&V Policy) which was first published in March 2005, and is included as Appendix 2 to this Witness Statement. The policy seeks to strike a balance between the need to limit noise levels in some areas and the objective of providing a safe and efficient tram service. these points are not in balance … there is usually little relationship between high noise levels and safety and efficiency of any system …in fact usually a safe and efficient system is of low noise …… City of Edinburgh Council Environmental and Consumer Services department assisted in the development of the N&V Policy and endorse it. But are they aware of and do they endorse the shortcomings?...

3.14 The N&V Policy commits to a hierarchy of noise mitigation measures

starting with the tram vehicles design, through the track design, to noise screening structures, and as a last resort noise insulation. These mitigation

7

measures are to be applied above certain threshold levels.(The value and units of which are not correct for this case ref 2) section 4.2) (methodology is: if predicted value is > NEC absolute threshold, then consider the difference between present and predicted summation and if the difference is greater than 3dB consider applying mitigation) These threshold levels are the same as those used on the ES to assess significant noise impacts, and are discussed below in Section 5.1. (5.4?) The peer review of the ES, by Casella Stanger, accepted these thresholds as appropriate for assessing tram noise. The peer review contains so many omissions that it should not be referred to as if it produced a genuine verification. Was the subject too complex for the authors or were there other limitations placed upon them? There would appear to be an overuse of the phrase “best practice”. On the thresholds that are mentioned in the para above it manages to misquote the values stating that the severe condition is >20dB rather than >= 10dB (page 6). It also fails to :

• Point out that PAN 56 specifically excludes itself from being applied to existing residential areas.

• Point out that the PAN 56 levels should be reduced in tranquil areas

• Point out that the proposal for night time noise levels is based on the flawed LAeq 8 hour period …..despite the assertion (page 2) that it would expect the EIA to adopt “the use of best practice in quantifying the baseline noise level and /or vibration level over the correct time scales/averaging periods “

• Discuss the use of LAeq for background level • Point out there were no baseline measurement taken for

vibration • Point out there is no PPV vibration level limit for tram operation Etc,etc,etc.

3.15 Other tram promoters in the UK have produced Noise and Vibration Policies in recent years; Centro in Birmingham and Nottingham Express Transit in Nottingham have policies produced in the last two years for the proposed extensions to their tram systems. The ETL1 N&V Policy adopts equivalent standard to these policies, consistent with best practice. We debate the these standards are best practice …rather they may be referenced as other practice …but the fact that they don’t comply with World Health Organisation guidance, are clearly using the wrong units and refer to excluding guidance clearly indicates that they are not “best practice”.

3.16 Consequently, I believe the N&V Policy adopts appropriate thresholds

above which to consider noise mitigation, within the practicable constraints of an operating tramway. We think these thresholds are not recognising

8

certain circumstances ref…..H+M report Summary and A.W.Irwin Associates report Conclusions

3.17 It is important to appreciate that these are non-statutory noise threshold

levels, and there may be cases where they cannot be achieved, for practical reasons, for example due to the presence of road traffic on street running section of the tramway. As it happens there tends not to be noise impacts on street running sections of the tramway because of the relatively small additional noise the tram adds to road traffic noise, as I shall explain in Chapter 5. It is quite feasible using an appropriate measurement strategy to distinguish operational tram noise from road traffic noise and thereby determine the tram noise itself. If the mitigation cannot be achieved for specific design reasons then the tram may reduce in speed or frequency. This is after all, a deliberate choice of steel wheeled vehicular transport and the consequence of this may be the cost of mitigation in whatever form. A statutory noise specification is the only way of ensuring that there is a suitable quality tram system introduced and that it continues to be properly maintained. Significant increases in noise levels are a form of pollution that has a direct effect on peoples lives. Even if there were an issue with road traffic, setting a statutory specification for sections of the tram such as the Roseburn Corridor with no road traffic noise remains a requirement. The Edinburgh Tram Lines 1 and 2 Noise Insulation Scheme

3.18 The Line 1 and 2 Bills make provision for a noise insulation scheme. Following detailed consultation with the City of Edinburgh Environmental and consumer Services Department, it has been agreed to adopt the same noise insulation scheme as the statutory requirements for England and Wales. ( )1 These regulations are referred to in Planning Advice Note 56. They have been used on light rail schemes in England and are considered appropriate. The trigger levels for noise insulation in residential properties can be summarised as follows:

• LAeq, 0600 to midnight 68 dB at 1m from the façade; • LAeq, midnight to 0600 hours 63 dB at 1m from the façade; and • Noise levels must be at least 1dB above prevailing noise levels.

As detailed in this document we have been advised that noise insulation (windows etc) will not be required as other mitigation will be employed. In consideration of the special circumstances of Roseburn corridor these levels would obviously be unacceptable…and limits set in Ammendments Section Y ref. 3) and report ref. 1) must not be

(1) The Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996 No 428).

9

exceeded for the Roseburn Corridor.

3.19 Noise insulation usually requires the installation of secondary glazing (ie an additional sheet of glass supported independently behind the existing glazing).(double glazing is also allowed) This can present practical difficulties in houses with shallow window sills, but because it has little affect on the external of the building is not hindered by listed building or conservation considerations. In some cases additional ventilation is also required, and this can take the form of a small mechanical ventilator in the building façade.

3.20 Whilst noise insulation is effective at avoiding noise intrusion into properties, it has several disadvantages over noise control at source; it does nothing for external areas, it can prevent opening windows, and it may cause inconvenience to the building occupant. For these reasons it is considered a low priority mitigation measure in the mitigation hierarchy of the N&V Policy In fact, as I shall explain later, the levels of noise expected from tram operations are unlikely to exceed the trigger levels for noise insulation, so it is not considered a major element of the overall noise mitigation strategy for the tram.

3.21 In response to concerns expressed over the possibility of wheel squeal on tight bends, it is proposed that the Noise Insulation Scheme will be extended to include special provisions in case this particularly characteristic form of noise should occur as trams traverse bends. Wheel squeal is a complex phenomenon, and whilst it is expected that a series of good design and operating practices can avoid its occurrence, it is discussed further in my evidence in relation to those objectors who have raised it as specific concerns in their area.

10

4 EFFECTS OF THE SCHEME DURING CONSTRUCTION

Assessment Methodology

4.1 Section 13.3 of the ES reports predictions of noise at 50 representative noise-sensitive receptors, resulting from the 4 main phases of work required to construct the tramway. These predictions are necessarily based on appropriate assumptions. They are based on lists of generic groups of plant that are expected to be in operation during the noisiest phases of construction work. In each case they represent the worst case predicted noise level when the group of plant is at its closest approach to each receiver. The predicted noise levels are assessed against the LAeq, daytime 75 dB standard widely adopted for assessing construction noise impacts. This is far too high a level and is not acceptable. Please explain …..has this level been agreed with Edinburgh District Council and if so who? The assessment methodology was judged as appropriate by the committee’s peer reviewers, Casella Stanger. See comment 3.14 above re the lack of competence in the CS peer review.

Construction Noise Effects

4.2 Whilst the noise control measures in the CoCP will reduce construction

noise levels, some noise disturbance is inevitable for any construction project of this type. Enabling works will produce some of the highest localised noise levels affecting the nearest receptors along much of the route, but it will be of relatively short duration compared to the overall construction programme. Stop construction will also affect nearby receptors. Each Stop will typically take two to three months to construct, but noise will affect receptors for only part of this period, mainly when the foundations are being constructed. Tracklaying and other activities will generally not produce noise levels above the LAeq, daytime 75 dB criterion, and whilst this may be noticeable, I do not expect it to have significant impacts on users of neighbouring buildings. Why not ?...it is an extremely high level…..please explain further.

4.3 Some night work may be required at a small number of locations, for

example, at busy road junctions. Ambient noise levels tend to be high in these locations lessening the effect of night-time construction work, but even after mitigation, some residual noise impacts are expected, albeit over brief periods.

4.4 It can be concluded that whilst there may be some disturbance from construction noise, these would result only in short term annoyance over limited areas and, given appropriate control through the CoCP procedures and Council involvement, I do not consider these unacceptable in the context of the overall tramway project.

11

Residents liaison group required ….ref 2) 3.15 Construction Vibration Effects

4.5 Vibration annoyance and damage from construction work is most typically associated with driven piling (such as drop hammer piling or sheet piling where piles are struck to drive them into the ground). This type of piling is not expected and other construction work will give rise to lower levels. At the closest receptors ground vibration may be perceptible from time to time when the works are in the immediate vicinity. However, for general construction works annoyance standards should not be exceeded, and vibration levels are not expected to be high enough to risk damage to buildings. ..in this case the proposed limits are excessive and should be limited to those proposed in report 4). We believe that no competent contractor would expect to get away with the high magnitudes of vibration proposed.

12

5 EFFECTS OF THE SCHEME DURING OPERATION

Assessment Methodology

5.1 In the ES tram noise has been predicted at 41 representative noise-sensitive receptors along the route based on noise source level data from other comparable systems. Train speeds will be up to about 48kph on street running sections and up to 70 kph on the sections of segregated track along the Roseburn Railway Corridor. The frequency of the train service is also important in predicting overall noise levels, and the following service pattern is assumed: • Monday to Friday – 0500-0700 4 trams per hour

0700-1900 8 trams per hour 1900-0030 4 trams per hour • Saturday - 0600-0900 4trams per hour

0900-0000 8 trams per hour • Sunday – 0600--0030 4 trams per hour

5.2 This means in a peak daytime hour (apart from Sundays) there will be one tram pass-by every 3 ¾ minutes, and at other times there will be a tram pass-by every 7 ½ minutes.

5.3 The predictions of tram noise levels were carried out using established

methods, (these are not transparent and not available to objectors ref 2 section 3.9) but some objectors have questioned whether these predictions can be accurate since full details of the tram system are not yet known. ……the effect of mitigation cannot be fully evaluated until the vertical and horizontal alignments are known I have measured noise levels from tram systems throughout the UK and across Europe, and I have been advised of those design parameters for the Edinburgh Tram that influence noise emission; vehicle length, number of wheels, floor level, track guage etc. For modern tram vehicles that fall within these parameters, I have found that the divergence in noise emission levels is small, so I am confident I have used a realistic noise emission level in my predictions (as advised elsewhere the ES figures are not transparent and calculations and assumptions must be submitted in order for objectors to make effective comment on the works of the proposed tramline. This is especially true since errors are apparent in the data that has been provided.) Other stages in the noise prediction process involving predicting propagation losses, summing noise from tram vehicles etc, have all followed the standard Calculation of Railway Noise (CRN) methodology as published by the Department of Transport in 1995. (not transparent in the documentation …ref 2) section 3.9) I have had the opportunity to

13

validate such predictions on numerous occasions. (request validation report) I am therefore confident that I have predicted tram noise levels to an accuracy suitable for assessing potential noise impacts from the Edinburgh Tram.

5.4 A noise assessment methodology was adopted that considered both

absolute thresholds of tram noise impact and also the extent to which tram noise would increase existing ambient levels (however, the approach is flawed where the existing ambient levels are low.) The threshold values, below which no impact? ,(actually PAN 56 states that “the noise at the high end of the category(A) should not be regarded as desirable”!....…where exactly does the reference to “no impact” come from in PAN 56?) is expected were taken from Planning Advice Note 56, by adopting the noise levels at the top end of Noise Exposure Category A, as follows:free field • For daytime noise, LAeq, 0700-2300 hours 55 dB. • For night-time noise LAeq, 0700-2300 hours 45 dB. ..if the use of PAN 56 NEC were valid in this case (and as already explained PAN 56 excludes itself) then “a reduction of up to 3dB(A) may be justified; particularly in tranquil areas.” Also PAN 56 NEC note 1 “noise levels (expressed in Laeq) should be representative of typical conditions.” …..hardly the case for an 8 hour night time average. Refer to ref 1) section 3.1 for our requirement …a recognised drop for intermittent noise …this would be best practice. These represent the noise levels given in the Planning Advice Note below which noise need not be considered a determining factor in granting planning permission for new housing adjacent to existing noise sources. Although these are stated in PAN 56 NEC as undesirable levels. This guidance is for the planning of new houses next to existing noise sources, rather than the reverse, which is the case here. However, the basis of these levels is a large body of research that has found that at levels below these, few people are annoyed by noise. This however does not justify the reversal of the PAN NEC guidance i.e. PAN specifically states it is not relevant to this situation … for the record PAN 56 states that “The statutory planning system can be used to impose conditions to protect incoming residential development from an existing transport noise source. However, planning conditions cannot normally be applied to ensure transport operators offer noise protection measures to existing dwellings that will be affected by a proposed noise source. The differing attitude and sensitivity towards noise between those who choose to live in a relatively noisy environment and those who are subjected to new noise sources also prohibits the use of the NEC method in reverse.” “ Prohibits” states a clear intention.

14

The National Noise Incidence Study 2000 found that 55±3% of the population of England and Wales live in dwellings exposed to day-time noise levels above 55 dB LAeq,day and 68±3% of the population of England and Wales live in dwellings exposed to night-time noise levels above 45 dB LAeq,night. ….then 32% of the pop of E+W do not live within the night time noise level proposed (and 45% do not live within the daytime limit) and it is reasonable that residents adjacent to an Environmental Corridor should expect to fall within these limits of 32% and 45%….especially in the light of existing extremely low noise levels, the stated adoption of best practice, and a Tram Design Manual whose intent of design philosophy is “Good is not good enough”

5.5 It is for these reasons that I consider these threshold levels to be stringent

assessment criterion (we do not agree ..ref 1) and ref 2) to adopt and criteria that should not be applied in isolation without consideration of pre-existing ambient noise levels. (it is clear that pre existing noise levels have not been properly considered in the Roseburn Corridor….ref 2) Also this approach seems to be contradicted by section 7.6 of this report which states that “ the baseline noise levels do not need to be known in detail in order to specify the required mitigation in these areas.”(Roseburn Corridor)

5.6 In the ES changes in noise were considered over one hour periods, ie LAeq 1

hour, during the peak daytime hour and the night-time hours when trams will run. The test that was applied to assess the significance of the predicted noise change was the commonly used 3dB threshold of perception for change in environmental noise, so that changes in LAeq, 1 hour of less than 3dB were judged to be ‘slight’ and insignificant. (this test omits to consider that the existing ambient and the future tram noise have a different temporal and spectral characteristic and therefore the simple 3dB rule may not apply) Greater noise changes, when at least 3dB above the noise impact thresholds, were reported in the ES as giving greater levels of potential impact (3-5 dB moderate, 5-10 dB substantial, and 10 dB or more severe). Impacts predicted to be greater that slight were considered significant and mitigation was considered. What is important to appreciate is that following the methodology set out in Section 13.5.2 that with an existing level of 35dB(A) and a predicted tram level of 44dB(A) there would be “”no impact”, but with a predicted level of 46dB(A) (only 1dB above 45dB(A) and therefore using the “3dB” rule should be not a noticeable difference) the impact would be “severe”. Accordingly we have no confidence in the evaluation of significance of impact used.

15

5.7 Maximum (LAmax) levels of tram noise were also assessed against the 82 dB noise criterion for potential sleep disturbance contained in PAN56 in order to consider if individual tram noise events are likely to cause significant sleep disturbance. PAN 56 states that if there is 82dB more than twice in one hour then planning permission should be refused! This is thus hardly an appropriate LAmax level to select!

Not surprisingly (in view of the way PAN 56 treats this number) it considerably exceeds the WHO derived figure of 60dB LAmax (ref 2)4.2 ) which is our considered practical requirement.

5.8 The ETL1 committee appointed Casella Stanger to carry out a peer review of the noise and vibration assessment reported in the ES. This review report (September 2004) supported the methodology used to assess tram noise, and included the following comments in its conclusions:See 3.14 comment about the extraordinary lack of comment in the peer review report thereby calling into question its verification competence. o ‘Appropriate standards have been used as a basis for the

assessment and the correct conclusions have been drawn.’ o ‘There are no recommendations for improving the chapter except to

ensure that the supplementary work suggested is actually carried out. Most of the supplementary work suggested cannot be carried out until further development of the detailed design of the scheme.’…exactly ...this was the point made in our amendment to have an additional permission stage. Ref. 3)

5.9 Since publication of the ES engineering design work has advanced and in

response to objections from residents with houses backing on to the Roseburn Railway Corridor further detailed noise modelling has been carried out in this area. This has allowed mitigation measures to be progressed in more detail in this area, as discussed in Part 2 of this Witness Statement.

5.10 In the ES estimates of levels of ground vibration were made based on

measurements taken adjacent to comparable systems that included detailed measurements of vibration levels from Phase 1 of the Manchester Metro in 1996. (Of course measurements of Manchester cannot be compared with the Edinburgh case without understanding of the difference in soil conditions etc ref 4). There is some bad press from the noise levels and vibration levels in Manchester) The estimated levels were compared to the Vibration Dose Values (VDVs) given in BS6472 below which the probability of adverse comment is low. The standard includes the following guidance on adverse comments from vibration.

Table 2 BS6472 Table 7: Vibration Dose Values (m/s-1.75) above which

16

various degrees of adverse comment may be expected in residential buildings Place Low probability

of adverse comment

Adverse comment possible

Adverse comment probable

Residential buildings 16 hour day

0.2 to 0.4 0.4 to 0.8 0.8 to 1.6

Residential buildings 8 hour night

0.13 0.26 0.51

5.11 The design standard adopted in Section 5 of the Noise and Vibration Policy is set at the levels where there is a ‘low probability of adverse’ comment. These levels are half those at which ‘adverse comments are possible’, and are a quarter of those at which ‘adverse comments are probable’. The standard has been widely used to assess the impacts of tram and railway vibration. It has been widely adopted as the design standard for other tram and light rail systems in the UK. (These levels from BS 6472 are to be applied with discrimination…which does not appear to be the case here. They should take into account the existing vibration levels and since none have been measured …they cannot be taken into account. In addition to averaged levels upper limits are required. Advice indicates the promoter proposed levels to be excessive for the Roseburn Corridor and we do not accept them. Ref 4) A.W.Irwin and Associates report.) Noise Effects During Operation

5.12 Outside the Roseburn Corridor noise impacts no greater than slight are predicted, except at one location, West Pilton March on West Granton Approach Road where a 5 dB exceedance of the assessment criteria is predicted. A noise barrier will probably be appropriate here to mitigate this impact in accordance with the N&V Policy. So, outside the Roseburn Corridor I do not expect there to be any significant noise impacts from the operation of trams. This is largely a result of the relatively high ambient noise levels along the route, as discussed in Section 3.1.

5.13 The ES predicted noise impacts at about 200 properties along the

Roseburn Corridor and suggested that approximately 2.5km of noise barrier would be required to mitigate these affects. It also noted the need to develop the barrier design so that it can be accommodated into the complex corridor setting as the detailed design of the scheme progresses. It also noted that residents’ views would be important in determining the appropriateness of barriers in particular locations. Much work has been done since the ES to develop noise mitigation along the Roseburn corridor and views have been expressed by many of the affected community. Where necessary noise barriers will be constructed to reduce tram noise to acceptable levels (based on flawed levels of significance etc refer to acceptable levels in ref 3) Section Y. for the Roseburn Corrridor)

17

Alternatively an innovative low level ‘noise plenum’ system may be possible to provide the necessary level of mitigation without the need for such high screening structures. I describe the further work that has been carried out to develop the mitigation measures here in more detail in response to the relevant objectors in Part 2 of this Witness Statement.

5.14 Some objectors have expressed concern that there will be high level of

noise from tram stops. Unlike railway stations the tram stops will not make use of a public address system to inform passengers to tram schedules. This will be done by visual display units, and audible announcements will be made inside the tram vehicles except in emergencies or periods of service disruption when external announcements will be necessary. The N&V Policy requires the levels of external announcements to be agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council Environmental and Consumer Services Department in any case where neighbours have concerns over noise disturbance. Ref 1) we are calling particularly for Tannoy systems at the Roseburn corridor station to be subject to final agreement with our experts in the final design stage ref 1) 3.2 Vibration Effects During Operation

5.15 The tram tracks will be embedded in a resilient sleeve. Vibration levels due to tram operations are expected to be perceptible at various sensitive receptors, but not at levels that exceed the BS6472 VDV standard for a low probability of adverse comment. (Refer to ref 4) for our requirement. We understand the above levels to be excessive for the Roseburn Corridor.)

5.16 Where the tracks run very close to noise sensitive buildings, and other conditions prevail (such as high tram speed and unfavourable ground conditions) a trackform offering greater vibration isolation, such as Isolated Track Slab may be required to achieve the VDV levels that the promoter has committed to in the Noise and Vibration Policy. This illustrates the necessity to have a statutory vibration limit applied ….otherwise there is no guarantee that these aspects of the system design will be considered in enough detail during design and build. Retrospective vibration mitigation is both impractical and unlikely.

Isolated Track Slab designs mount the concrete slab that supports that track in a resilient layer that further reduces vibration transfer into the ground. Isolated Track Slab used on other comparable tram systems has achieved these limits. With these measures in place, vibration impacts are not expected.

5.17 It is not uncommon in my experience for owners to properties close to proposed tram routes to fear that vibration from the trams could damage their homes. This is a misconception (not helped by setting specification figures such as 15mm/sec (see below) where one can expect the plaster to be coming off the ceiling of its own accord) as demonstrated

18

by considering the fact that there are very many street running tram systems around the world that run in close proximity to buildings without damaging them. A technical assessment of this issue is provided in Section 13.7 of the ES which provides measured vibration data showing Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) levels of up to 1.5mm/s as close as 3m from the tracks, (is this being stated as an upper limit for Edinburgh Tram line 1? As far as we are aware no upper limit for tram operation has been proposed by the promoter) whereas a safe threshold for damage to structures is 15mm/s. Ref 4) emphasises that 15mm/s is well above the damage thresholds set out in USBM reports and other publications. There is also some structure dependence…for listed or potentially sensitive buildings it is 3mm/s and some quarries are limited to 3mm/s ppv blasting. There is no reason why this cannot be an absolute special case maximum limit for construction of the tram line ref 4) So, even as close as 3m tram vibration is a factor of 10 below the safe level. Further measured data in the ES shows that at approximately 15m from the tram tracks the vibration levels are a factor of 100 below this safe threshold. Monitoring and Maintenance

5.18 Section 6 of the N&V Policy requires the tram system to be maintained, and

in particular the wheel and rail surfaces, so as to minimise noise and vibration at sensitive receptors. Maintenance of the wheel and rail surfaces is an important means of avoiding tram noise increasing over the years of operation. Much of the maintenance work on the track will be undertaken at night when the tramway is not in use, and some objectors have expressed concern that this will be noisy and could disturb them. Most maintenance activities are not particularly noisy, but rail grinding may (will) cause some disturbance.(residents liaison group required …see Ref 1) comment re the Nottingham tram system) Rail grinding is likely to be required at a frequency measured in years rather than weeks or months and will deliver long term noise and vibration benefits. Rail grinding in the vicinity of a particular receptor will take only a few hours and would generally be completed over a single night shift. Ref 1) section 3.3 Section 6 of the N&V Policy also requires the operator to give due notice to City of Edinburgh Council’s Environmental and Consumer Services Department and to local residents of rail grinding.

5.19 In accordance with section 6 of the N&V Policy noise and vibration levels

will be monitored throughout the operation of the scheme, to a schedule to be agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council’s Environmental and Consumer Services Department. The results of this monitoring will be used to inform maintenance programmes so as to avoid unnecessary increases in noise or vibration levels. Ref 3) Section C c) Residents Group and also Ref 2) 3.15. “Best practice” would involve a regular maintenance program rather than minimum maintenance program only initiated once significant defects flagged up by measures noise and vibration increases.

19

5.20 Overall, I consider the N&V Policy provides a good level of protection

against noise and vibration impacts. The policy goes well beyond statutory requirements, (there are no statutory requirements for noise and it is selective in the use of certain standards (no ref to WHO for instance )) iand in my opinion will ensure that an appropriate level of mitigation is applied and unacceptable impacts are avoided. Clearly for the many reasons that have been outlined above and in the references we have included this group of objectors from Group 35 do not consider the N+V policy represents a good level of protection against noise and vibration in the Roseburn Corridor.

20

6 CONCLUSIONS Effects During Construction

6.1 The promoter will put in place a series of procedures that will ensure that the proposed tramway is built using the ‘best practicable means’ as defined by the Control of Pollution Act to reduce noise and vibration to a practicable minimum. We do not agree that these are practical minimum levels ..ref 2) and ref 4) These include; a Code of Construction Practice placing contractual requirements to control noise on the contractor; noise limits; and noise and vibration monitoring to identify potential shortfalls in noise control performance.

6.2 Even with the use of the best practicable means to reduce noise, some

noise disturbance cannot be ruled out during unavoidably noisy activities. In the overall context of the tramway scheme, and with the mitigation measure I have described in this evidence, I do not consider these residual impacts to be unacceptable. (75dB over 12hours is clearly unacceptable) Effects During Operation

6.3 The Edinburgh tram system will operate short, light vehicles at modest speeds, and as such it is fundamentally less noisy than traditional railway systems. There are no statutory limits on tramway noise in Scotland.(see statement in para. 5.20 referring to statutory limits?) Nonetheless tie has developed a N&V Policy to ensure that noise and vibration levels are controlled wherever necessary and practicable.

6.4 Levels of tram noise have been predicted and compared to both noise

impact threshold criteria and existing ambient noise levels. The only area of potential widespread noise impact is within the Roseburn Railway Corridor where ambient noise levels are currently much lower than elsewhere along the route. Here various mitigation measures will be developed in the detailed design stage in accordance with the N&V Policy. Detailed modelling work has already been completed to demonstrate that these measures will be affective. This data is not transparent ref 2) 3.9 If necessary noise barriers will be constructed to reduce tram noise to acceptable levels, or alternatively a low level ‘noise plenum’ system will provide the necessary level of mitigation without the need for such high screening structures. Along the corridor, tram noise will be audible as a new type of noise, not heard there for over 30 years. Although some increases in ambient noise levels are predicted, because currently some areas adjacent to the corridor are quiet, mitigated noise levels will not give rise to unacceptable noise impacts. Disagree as per ref. 1) + 2)

6.5 Ground vibration from trams is likely to be perceptible at various receptors

but not at levels that would be expected to give rise to adverse comments. No significant impacts from vibration are predicted to occur. Disagree as per ref 4). Clearly there would be adverse comment and impact from trams causing vibration within the limits proposed by the promoter.

21

PART 2 - SPECIFIC ISSUES RAISED BY GROUP 35 OBJECTORS

7 RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS

Approach To Objections

7.1 Over 150 objectors raise noise and/or vibration concerns, with the majority living in along the Roseburn Corridor. I have attended several of the Community Liaison Group meetings to try to explain how I have assessed noise and vibration impacts from the tram, what measures the promoter will be taking to address these, and what the result will be.

7.2 In Part 1 of this Witness Statement I have tried to respond to the common

concerns raised in the objection letters of this and other Objector Groups. In this chapter I respond to any other specific points of objection that are raised in the individual objection letters and the Objector Group 35 Witness Summary. selective …for instance, there is no reference to the use of objections raised over the averaging of night time noise. Noise Mitigation Measures for Roseburn Corridor Area C

7.3 Roseburn Corridor Area C runs from Ravelston Dykes and Ravelston Dykes tram stop in the north to the Water of Leith on the south. The majority of the route is bounded by residential property and it runs from cutting in the north through to elevated structure in the south.

7.4 The extent of noise mitigation measures in this area has been developed

through detailed noise modelling as reported in the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (LHMP). The LHMP is a developing document that has been published in stages since April 2005. Prior to that, in October 2004, noise mitigation measures were illustrated for sample sections of the corridor in ERM‘s report Development of Environmental Mitigation Measures in the Roseburn Corridor. We presume this plan adopts the thresholds set out in the N+V policy. We do not consider the levels in the N+V policy to be acceptable and therefore presume the plan requires revision. Ref to levels in ref1)

7.5 The N&V Policy sets target levels for noise mitigation. The policy commits

the promoter to adopting the best practicable means to achieve these noise targets through a hierarchy of measures from selection of a quiet tram, through track design and screening to noise insulation as a last resort. Along the Roseburn Corridor, unlike street-running sections of the route where options are more limited, the track design can be modified and screening provided to provide noise mitigation. This is the focus of noise mitigation throughout the corridor, and it is not envisaged that noise insulation will be required.

7.6 Along the Roseburn Corridor ambient noise levels are generally below the

22

threshold levels described above, so the baseline noise levels do not need to be known in detail in order to specify the required mitigation in these areas. The earlier statement that any impact more than slight would be considered for mitigation (5.6) appears to be contradicted by this statement which is only going to adopt mitigation in many cases when the impact is severe relative to a background noise of 35dB! Also section 5.5 “these threshold levels to be stringent assessment criterion to adopt and criteria that should not be applied in isolation without consideration of pre-existing ambient noise levels.

7.7 Much work has been done since the first issue of the LHMP on April 1 to develop this mitigation as an integral part of the design. Modelling work on requirements for noise mitigation has been refined and progress has been made in developing a low level screening structure, referred to as the ‘acoustic plenum’. This differs from the more conventional form of noise barriers, in that it allows the noise propagation path from the tram wheel/rail interface to the receptor to be interrupted close to the track and at a low level, so it is less visually obtrusive. The current concept has dimensions similar to a tram stop platform, although narrower, ie very close to the trams but below tram floor level. It comprises a hollow box that absorbs the noise that reverberates under the bodies of the passing tram vehicles. A form of acoustic plenum has been used to great success in Hong Kong. I expect a similar system would provide adequate mitigation along the Roseburn Corridor.

7.8 There are a series of design challenges to overcome before the form of the acoustic plenum can be finalised, and it is possible that any of these could jeopardise its feasibility. Safety considerations pose the greatest challenge, and space across the tram solum is at a premium in some areas. However, preliminary discussions have been held with Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate, and it appears likely that the acoustic plenum is a feasible option for noise mitigation.

7.9 If it should transpire that the noise plenum is not the best solution in certain areas, then conventional noise barriers will be pursued. Will these work at upper floor level? These would generally have the appearance of solid wooden fences varying in height from approximately 1 to 2.5m. 2.5m is considered a practicable maximum. Where high barriers are required in sensitive areas semi-transparent materials may be used for the upper portion of the barrier to reduce the possible enclosing effect on the corridor. Final design of the track, its geometry and relationship to the noise barriers will progress in the future. Further baseline noise surveys and refined modelling will be needed to check compliance with the Noise and Vibration Policy as the design progresses. These factors could affect noise barrier requirements in some areas, so their dimensions can only be indicative at this stage. Provisional locations of noise barriers in this area are as follows:

23

• On the west side of the tramway – a noise barrier approximately 80m

long and 2.5m high from the bridge to the north of 11 Upper Coltbridge Terrace to approximately 20m south of 8 Upper Coltbridge Terrace.

Total mitigation must limit noise to that detailed in Ref 3) section Y for the Roseburn Corridor

7.10 The location of this barrier is illustrated in Figure C7-2 of the LHMP. 7.11 This noise barrier would provide useful mitigation. However, Number 11

Upper Coltbridge Terrace looks down onto the tramway which is in a cutting with a road bridge over, but the ambient noise levels are low since the road is only an access road. As a result of this unusual combination of circumstances there may be a residual noise impact of approximately 5dB here with this noise barrier configuration. Alternative noise barrier configurations will be investigated in accordance with the N&V Policy to improve the level of mitigation if practicable. The preferred level of mitigation required is 8 dB, and I would expect the noise plenum option to achieve this, if it proves practicable.

Total mitigation must limit noise to that detailed in Ref 3) section Y for the Roseburn corridor

7.12 I understand 11 Upper Coltbridge Terrace has planning permission to extend further towards the tramway. If appropriate, this will be accounted for in developing the final noise mitigation measures in this area. Removal of Vegetation Affecting Noise

7.13 Several objectors along the Roseburn Corridor suggest that vegetation will be removed that would otherwise reduce tram noise. Vegetation as found in this area does not reduce noise levels significantly, regardless of the season and whether or not trees and hedges are in leaf. Even in dense forest long distances are required to produce noticeable noise attenuation. The vegetation in this case is not of that order. Absorptive cuttings will prevent potential canyon effects.

7.14 There can be a subjective effect, whereby there is a psychological benefit of

not seeing the noise source. The LHMP describes in detail how vegetation will be replaced in those areas where it is necessary to remove it. So, where it applies, this benefit will not be lost. Noise Increases will be Noticeable Even with Mitigation

7.15 Some objectors have noted that the N&V Policy does not commit to ‘no increase in noise’ and in currently quiet areas the N&V Policy will allow noise levels to be increased substantially even though the required

24

threshold levels will be achieved through mitigation. 7.16 In currently quiet areas ambient noise level will be increased when the trlam

begins operation. In the short term after opening this noise increase will be noticeable to many residents, and given the concern expressed by such residents at this stage, it may be that some find the noise objectionable. This recognises our objections as valid. It is for these valid reasons that we are demanding lower limits as objectors. It is certain that the levels proposed will generate persistent sleep disturbance. However, a wide range of social surveys have shown that at noise level equal to or below the threshold noise levels committed to in the N&V Policy the proportion of a population that is annoyed by the noise is low. But this is a population that live adjacent to a quiet environmental corridor and the levels proposed are not suitably differentiating between this and a city centre level. It is certain that with these levels sleep disturbance will be persistent. Moreover the proposals exceed WHO for sleep disturbance which also quote wide social surveys. Moreover the levels proposed are flawed Ref 2) . Therefore, I would expect that in the longer term only a low proportion of residents would report tram noise as annoying if asked. This opinion seems highly unlikely to be the case given the current low noise levels of the Roseburn corridor and the excessive levels being put forward. It is for this reason that the planning system (ref PAN56) does not consider noise a determining factor if a new dwelling is proposed at a location where noise levels are at the N&V Policy threshold levels. but PAN 56 NEC specifically prohibits itself for this case and states it is not relevant to our situation …quote … “It is important to consider that the Noise Exposure Categories apply only where consideration is being given to introducing new housing development into an area with an existing transport noise source and not in the reverse situation”. Therefore if you were looking to use PAN 56 as a reference the document goes to such lengths to point out that it is not applicable in this case that it is clear that the intent from the document would be for you to use lower threshold levels than those quoted. Technical Comments in Witness Summary

7.17 Table 1, item 1, of Objector Group 35’s Witness Summary makes several technical comments relating to the noise assessment suggesting it was erroneous in various ways. I have attempted to liaise directly with the objector group’s expert to discuss these points, but at this stage I have been unsuccessful. Lead objectors for the group should be consulted first. Under the extraordinary circumstances of private funding of specialists in order for objectors to “effectively engage in the process of consultation on the Bill”, it should be understandable that it is not

25

acceptable for the promoter to be contacting objectors specialists without prior consultation. I would refer the objector to the Peer Review undertaken by Casella Stanger that addressed similar technical matters and, as I have noted above, found the assessment methods and conclusions acceptable. Refer to point 3.14 for the comments on the lack of validity of the “peer” report. Proposed Amendments to the Bill

7.18 The Group 35 Witness Summary includes two proposed amendments to the Bill that relate to noise and vibration.

7.19 Suggested amendment 2 proposes that the noise and vibration targets that

the promoter has committed to in the N&V Policy should be specified in the Bill. The promoter’s position is to adopt noise and vibration mitigation measures at source to achieve these noise and vibration target levels through the use of Best Practicable Means, as defined in the Control of Pollution Act, 1974. Best Practicable Means is well defined disagree and tested under noise nuisance law, as I have discussed in Chapter 3 of this Witness Statement.It has only been discussed in relation to construction noise. The promoter cannot accept mandatory limits in case, for some reason there is no practicable way that the targets can be met in a given case which would render operation of the tram illegal. A rather flawed piece of logic…... This is a key and fundamental point about the mass transport system ….a low noise system must be a fundamental requirement. If the tram cannot operate when introduced into an area without causing undue disturbance to residents sleep then it should not be introduced. …if agreed levels are exceeded then operational times must be amended, speeds cut or other restrictions imposed. Eg lack of night flights at Heathrow.

It is the residents objective that the noise levels be limited in law: to safeguard our environment now, and against future operational changes (eg speed ,frequency),and against degredation of the system. Residents cannot accept open ended specifications that may or may not be met and mitigation that is just “considered”. It is misleading to suggest that there may not be means of meeting the noise levels; there will be practical means of meeting these targets. Moreover the adoption of a steel/steel wheeled system is the deliberate choice of the promoter and the cost of subsequent extra mitigation must be accepted as part of the cost rather than the imposition of poorer noise levels when quieter transport alternatives are available. Therefore the design must be adopted to meet specific mandatory targets.

26

7.20 The planning system recognises that transportation creates noise. In Chapter 3 I have explained how planning advice on noise notes that local planning authorities ‘should also make appropriate provision for development necessary for the creation of jobs and the construction and improvement of essential infrastructure even though it may generate noise. The objectors’ proposal is contrary to this planning policy. What objector proposal is contrary to this policy? Is it contrary to planning policy that residents should have undisturbed sleep?

7.21 Amendment 3 Does this relate to a RRAP or Garscube Terrace Residents Amendment?proposes that all noise and vibration mitigation measures should be within the limits of deviation and if necessary should include lower tram speed.

7.22 As noted above, the N&V Policy aims to take mitigation measures at source (ie within the Limits of Deviation) to achieve the noise target levels that the proposed amendment appears to endorse. Noise insulation, although included in the N&V Policy, is not a preferred option, and as explained in Chapter 3, is intended only as a last resort, and I do not expect the noise levels will be high enough anywhere in this area to require noise insulation. No comment on the vibration issues raise by objectors comments or proposed amendments? Refer to references 1 to 4 listed that the beginning of this document for the remainder of our concerns.

Witness Statement

Edinburgh Tram (Line One)

Group Number 35 - Roseburn to Ravelston Association of Proprietors

Vibration

Table of contents: 1 Summary 2 Background 3 Use of BS 6472 and suitable tram operating vibration dose levels. 4 Requirement for maximum velocity vibration levels 5 Construction vibration 6 Compulsory specification requirement 7 Non compliance 8 Contacts 9 Appendix:

Proposed Tram line 1 - Vibration Report for Roseburn-Ravelston Association of Proprietors: A.W.Irwin Associates.

Grp 35 - OBJ Rebuttal Vibration - acc doc.doc 1/17

1 Summary:

• Wide range of tolerance to vibration dependent on people and circumstance

• Environmental Statement (ES) includes no vibration measurements • Our measurements at Upper Coltbridge site show no noticeable vibration • ES refers to discriminatory BS 6472 figures without apparently applying

discrimination • ES should include “maximum” velocity levels as well as “averaged”

velocity • Revised vibration specification figures put forward for Operation,

Maintenance and Construction • Specification must be introduced to the Bill that is statutory/compulsory

and apply to ongoing tram operation • A method to prove and police imposed vibration limits included

2 Background: The Environmental Statement and associated documentation presents the use of vibration levels for the operation and construction phases of the proposed tram system. As the objectors are commenting on the “works necessary for the construction of the tramline”, the Roseburn to Ravelston Association Group 35 have felt the only way in which they are able to fully engage themselves in this process has been to seek specialist expertise to review the use of BS 6472 and the other referenced standards in this application. This approach has been proven as we have gone through the discussion phase with our experts where it has become very clear that the understanding of suitable vibration levels that may be introduced into a quiet residential area requires reasonable levels of practical working experience in the specialist field and an understanding of the intent of the Standards. The following sections and specialist report summarise our understanding of the vibration proposal that has been discussed in the Environmental Statement. We have felt it necessary to present new and more comprehensive levels of vibration for the tram system as specialist advice has indicated that those proposed are considered inadequate for our particular environment.


3 Use of BS 6472 and suitable tram operating Vibration Dose Levels: BS 6472 Appendix A (Evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings – 1 Hz to 80Hz) suggests guidelines for vibration levels which have been quoted in the Environmental Statement and associated documentation. Technically the figures in the Appendix are discriminatory i.e. they are supplied for guidance only and require judgement (usually gained from experience) based on the special circumstances that may apply in different applications. The variation in human tolerance level to vibration can be large depending on the circumstance. The designers attention is drawn to this fact in the BS 6472 Appendix which states that:” Within residential areas people exhibit wide variations of vibration tolerance. Specific values are dependent upon social and cultural factors, psychological attitudes and expected degree of intrusion.” In the case of the introduction of a tram line to an environmental corridor there clearly could be a significant degree of intrusion and there will also be a negative psychological effect. (i.e. if the vibration is from a source that is not to your benefit or agreement the effect is psychologically worse). Measurements recently taken at an Upper Coltbridge site confirm the potential for significant intrusion as these showed no noticeable vibration present in the typical current day environment. In circumstances where there is no current noticeable vibration and the surrounding environment is residential then the deliberate introduction of a vibration source that is easily avoided by good design e.g. steel wheeled vehicular transport instead of rubber wheeled transport, must be deliberately corrected by other means of mitigation such that the overall effect is one of no noticeable additional source of vibration. For these reasons an appropriate level to take for tram operational vibration dose levels in the Roseburn/Ravelston Corridor would be 0.1mm/s 1.75 VDV day and night. Support and use of this figure comes from STAG 2 Appraisal – Appendices for night time. The requirement as described above for no noticeable additional source of vibration during tram operation means this figure is also required for daytime. Note that we have not selected to use 0.13mm/s 1.75 VDV because this represents clearly perceptible vibration during tram passes. Note: It may be the case that the vibration dose levels proposed in the ES documentation are applicable in certain city centre sections of the tram line route where vibration from many other sources is already high. The area under discussion here is the Ravelston/Roseburn corridor which is currently a place of peace and tranquillity and where there is no noticeable vibration.


4 Requirement for maximum velocity vibration levels for tram operation: It is insufficient to include only VDV levels for a tram system vibration specification as the VDV can mask a single unacceptably high event…and a single event can be the most significant in terms of disturbance. There appear to be no ppv levels included for the Edinburgh tram system operation in the promotion documentation. (There is some discussion about the use of figures from the Manchester tram system but no mention of ppv in the Noise and Vibration policy of March 2005.) In addition it is difficult to fully comprehend the background to the proposed VDV levels without having the information of the time base used, frequency of occurrence and the time interval for the transient period of vibration. These should be provided by the promoter. The STAG 2 Appraisal – Appendices and the Details of the Noise and Vibration Assessment (Appendix 1), includes some discussion on the subject stating that human perception can start from 0.15mm/s ppv upwards. Since a maximum should be included to more comprehensively cover single events we have selected to adopt a realistic level of 4 times the base level for the Z axis i.e 0.6mm/s ppv resultant for tram operation. 5 Construction Vibration: There are some unbelievable ppv numbers (50mm/s) tabled in the Environmental Statement for construction vibration. As quarry blasting is often now being run to levels of 3mm/s ppv at nearest residential dwelling we see no reason why there should be any requirement to exceed this level. Moreover this is the level in BS 7385 for listed or potentially sensitive buildings and is in itself a level at which people often express serious concerns about structural safety. (at this level there can be uncontrolled tripping of fire alarms, security systems etc) Technically there is also no reason why piling cannot be conducted at levels below 3mm/s provided the proper equipment and techniques are used. For this reason we would be prepared to provide acceptance of a maximum 3mm/s but only under special notified and agreed circumstances and timings, agreed with a residents construction working liaison group. At all other times the level of construction vibration should be minimally intrusive at below a maximum of 0.13mm/s 1.75 VDV. As previously discussed we intend to set up a residents noise and vibration construction group and also propose that prior to piling there is a monitored and witnessed trial for determination of the vibration effect of piling.


6 Compulsory Specification Requirement: In much the same way as a design and build contract sets out the basic requirements for the client to follow it is felt that the best way for the objectors to have their basic issues protected is for a mandatory vibration specification to be adopted. This is especially true in the instance where the promoter is not wholly independent of the local planning and environmental health authority and also where there is a risk that the promoter will refuse to implement or enforce mitigation works because there may be a potential shortage of available funds.(see recent press articles). Moreover this is a time tested method for efficient delivery of engineering needs. It avoids detailed discussion about the suitability of mitigation ,detailed design etc and also provides a future framework for the system to ensure that it remains well maintained as originally intended. The proposals put forward by the promoter only provides VDV levels for guidance. VDV and maximum velocity values must be mandatory or compulsory for the Line One Tram System otherwise it is clear that they will not be complied with…..either in operation or during construction. 7 Specification Non compliance: A simple performance penalty clause must be incorporated into the operators contract which includes exceeding the agreed operational noise and vibration levels. This is industry standard practice for even the simplest project management let alone a project of this magnitude where it is already anticipated that standards will slip. There is considerable scope for increase in vibration (and noise) from poorly maintained track and running stock of metal wheeled trams (see case of tram in manchester) and the best way to ensure the system is maintained correctly is to apply performance penalties to the tram operator based on excesses of noise or vibration. This increase in vibration and noise is inherently true of tram systems ….as opposed to rubber wheeled vehicles, and therefore its reduction by proper maintenance must be an expected part of the cost of operation of such a deliberately chosen system. Penalties for exceeding noise and vibration levels shall be imposed that require the tram operator to immediately cease or reduce operation until the noise levels are within the normal operating limits. Monitoring of the vibration and noise levels must be done by the promoter and the residents working liaison group. 8: Contacts: Lead objector: Mr Richard Vanhagen Group 35: The Roseburn to Ravelston Association of Proprietor covers Roseburn,Coltbridge,Garscube Terrace and part of Ravelston.


9: Appendix: Proposed Tramline 1 – Vibration Report A W Irwin Associates

- 1 - TRANSPORT INITIATIVE EDINBURGH

PROPOSED TRAMLINE 1 VIBRATION

Report For

ROSEBURN-RAVELSTON ASSOCIATION OF PROPRIETORS

By

A W IRWIN BSc(Eng) PhD Ceng MICE MIStructE MASA

{CEng} JUNE 2005

A W IRWIN ASSOCIATES Riselaw House 53 Pentland Terrace Edinburgh EH10 6HH 044 (0)131 447 3881


- 2 – CONTENTS Page SUMMARY 3 1. INTRODUCTION 4 2. AMBIENT VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT 4 3. TRAMWAY PROMOTER - PROPOSED VIBRATION POLICY 4 3.1 PROPOSED TRAMWAY VIBRATION TRANSMISSION LIMITS 5 3.2 PEER REVIEW 7 3.3 PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE TRAMWAY VIBRATION 7 3.4 VIBRATION LIMITS 8 4. MINIMISATION OF VIBRATION TRANSMISSION FROM TRAMS 9 5. POLICING VIBRATION TRANSMISSION FROM TRAMS 9 6. CONCLUSIONS 10 7. DOCUMENT REFERENCES 11 8. REFERENCES 11


- 3 – SUMMARY The route for the proposed Edinburgh Tramline 1 would pass through areas, which can currently be described as tranquil and vibration free. The promoters of the tramway have put forward documents with tentative proposals for limitation of vibration transmission to properties close to the route. Doubt exists regarding these vibration proposals for peak magnitudes during construction and operation phases for the tracks and also about the suggested averaged vibration dose values for operation of the tramway. The following sections of this document contain: information on the existing vibration environment for properties close to the proposed tramway route in the Roseburn and Ravelston areas; an appraisal of the vibration limits proposed by the tramway promoters; comments on the peer review of these vibration limits; proposals for more appropriate limits for vibration should permission be given for the tramway; methods to minimise vibration transmission from a tramway; and requirements for practical policing of vibration limits.


- 4 – 1. INTRODUCTION There is a proposal to construct a tramway through the western precincts of Edinburgh. Sections of the tramway route would follow historic railway cuttings, which are currently enjoyed as quiet pedestrian paths and cycleways. Many of the proprietors of the properties along the proposed Tramline 1 currently share these tranquil vibration free conditions. Among the documents lodged by the promoters of the tramway are papers described as "Noise and Vibration Policy" and sections entitled "Noise and Vibration" and also "Vibration". Another document includes a "Peer Review of Noise & Vibration ……". The following sections of this report contain comments on the submitted documents relating to vibration, an appraisal of the peer review, and proposals for more appropriate vibration limits, should planning permission be granted for the tramway route. Also included are methods to minimise vibration from a tramway and requirements for policing imposed vibration limits. 2. AMBIENT VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT Although the promoters have presented some background noise measurements taken along the route of Proposed Tramline 1, there is a conspicuous absence of measurements of the existing vibration environment. To provide baseline data vibration was measured on 6th June 2005 at properties in the Coltbridge area. Monitoring was carried out using two digital seismographs, each equipped with triaxial geophones. The digital seismographs were first set up on the garden terrace at 8/2 Upper Coltbridge Terrace at 15m from the fence to the proposed tramway route. No vibration greater than 0.2mm/s ppv was detected from any source, including cars and pedestrian traffic, except for one incident when a cat jumped very close to the geophones of one instrument. The second vibration monitoring station was on the flat top of a wall adjacent to the viaduct at Coltbridge Avenue. No vibration greater than 0.2mm/s ppv occurred during monitoring at this station from cars, pedestrians, or any other source. 3. TRAMWAY PROMOTER – PROPOSED VIBRATION POLICY In their document (Document Reference a.) the promoters of the tramway almost exclusively discuss noise issues but then pluck day and night vibration dose values from an appendix in BS6472 to supposedly cover vibration issues. There is no reference to existing vibration magnitudes in the vacinity of the Proposed Tramline 1, or to limits for vibration amplitudes during single passes of trams at any time. Further comment is made, on these proposals for permissible vibration magnitudes, in Section 3.1 below.


- 5 - 3.1 PROPOSED TRAMWAY VIBRATION TRANSMISSION LIMITS It is noted that, in the documents submitted by the tramway promoters, it is not stated whether the vibration limits they propose are for resultant vibration magnitudes. Document References a. and b. contain vibration dose limits proposed by the Tramline 1 promoters. Document Reference b. also contains tentative peak vibration velocity magnitudes for thresholds of human perception. No reference is made to current vibration magnitudes in properties along the proposed tramline route or to limits on instantaneous vibration magnitudes. Document Reference b. includes extremely high vibration magnitudes related to possible structural damage but no mention is made in this document regarding possible cosmetic damage in properties. It is interesting to note that the vibration dose value used in the daytime assessment for Line 2 in Document Reference f. is only 50% of the dose value proposed in Document References a. and b for Line 1. Document Reference c. does include some mention of vibration magnitudes which can cause cosmetic damage to buildings but this is in the very annoying and alarming range for occupants of buildings. It is a matter of conjecture as to which planning authorities permit vibration magnitudes of up to 50mm/s ppv for construction works, which is an order of magnitude greater than that generally permitted for single events involving transmission of quarry blast vibration to the closest dwellings. It is also worth noting that for a range of vibration sensitive production and inspection systems the 0.1mm/s rms criterion would cause definite interference. Again no peak particle velocity limits are provided for human response to single vibration events. The writers of Document Reference c. wrongly state that vibration dose "is the normal parameter used for assessing the impact of vibration on people". Single events of higher magnitude can be diluted in the dose over a period although such single events can be the most significant in the human response to vibration. They would be correct in stating that it represents a convenient single number vibration parameter for developers. The writers also state that "BS6472 sets out acceptable magnitudes of vibration…". In fact BS6472 only offers guidance to the evaluation of vibration to arrive at magnitudes which might be found satisfactory by human subjects in buildings. Document Reference d. is similar to reference c. regarding vibration but contains data for the trams and ground conditions related to Manchester, with no comment on differences in ambient vibration magnitudes between these districts in Manchester and quiet areas in west Edinburgh. Neither is any attempt made to compare vibration


-6- influences between the Manchester locations and those in Edinburgh, such as relative elevations, water table conditions, or ground and rock conditions. It is not stated whether the rolling stock for Edinburgh is to be the same design as that used in Manchester and an unqualified assumption is made regarding the probable similarity of rail mountings. No instantaneous vibration magnitudes, tram speeds, or maximum permissible vibration magnitudes for single tram passes are quoted. Basically the daytime operational vibration transmission to properties, as proposed by the promoters of the tramway at a 0.4m/s1.75 VDV dose value, would equate to over 7 times the perception threshold of sensitive humans to vertical vibration at about 10 Hz. This calculation is based on the average vibration transmitted to a property for 10 seconds at each tram pass and 150 trams in a day. The maximum vibration during each tram pass would of course be greater than the average magnitude and would be greater still when two trams pass outside a property. In the assessment of this vibration it must be remembered that the human subject may be sitting, standing or lying down such that the axis for greatest human sensitivity applies. In a location where vibration is currently below perceptible the introduction of vibration at these magnitudes would represent a very significant change and would undoubtedly give rise to considerable adverse comment from the householders. This assessment also ignores the probability that certain trams will generate significantly greater vibration than the as new average. Table 13.10 in Document Reference d. includes the same extreme vibration magnitudes for "protection" of building structures as in the other documents. These are inappropriate for reasons already stated above. This table also states that 0.4m/s1.75 VDV is a criterion for prevention of daytime annoyance in dwellings. This would in fact create considerable annoyance in the presently tranquil area of Roseburn – Ravelston and is twice the dose values proposed for Line 2, as already stated. The results given in Table 13.11, in Document Reference d. contradict the subsequent statement regarding vibration dose magnitude. The table informs us that a dose magnitude of up to 0.5m/s1.75 VDV was measured at locations up to 5m from the nearest rail but it is subsequently stated that the "VDV levels are not expected to exceed 0.4m/s1.75 VDV at 4m from the tracks".


- 7 – 3.2 PEER REVIEW The peer review (Document Reference e) appears to be very weak, especially in relation to vibration. Mention is made in Section 3.1 to impact assessments for Noise and Vibration but no vibration impact assessment can be detected in the documents for Edinburgh. They also mention survey results but vibration data for the proposed Edinburgh scheme cannot be detected in the documents. One sentence glosses over the construction phase vibration impact with regard to human response and possible damage to buildings. In a section entitled "Vibration from Tram Operation" statements are made regarding the application of an appendix in BS6472 for human response to vibration. BS7385 and BS5228 are cited for the assessment of building damage. They do not mention that the vibration magnitudes selected by the promoters are at the top end of the guidance for operational conditions and in the extreme category for construction operations, with no reference to the existing conditions along the route of the proposed tramway. The reviewers state that "there are no reliable prediction methods for vibration". In fact tests can be carried out to determine vibration transmission for the different elevations, ground conditions and proposed track alignments along the route. Such tests have been carried out for a wide range of situations (See References). The comparison with Manchester appears to be very "loose", as already stated. It is admitted that tram generated vibration will be perceived by some occupants of buildings along the route of the tramway. No mention is made that at present many of the buildings, where perceptible vibration will occur, have no perceptible vibration from any external transport systems at this present time. The change in vibration environment will affect the occupants and may result in a decrease in the values of the properties. No mention is made in the peer review regarding the absence of any measurements of vibration in or at properties along the route of the proposed tramway. The "Conclusions on Noise & Vibration" in Section 3.2 seem to be in the form of rubber stamping 3.3 PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE TRAMWAY VIBRATION Properties on sections of the Proposed Tramline 1 route currently experience no perceptible vibration from any road or rail source. This applies to a significant length of the route through the Roseburn – Ravelston area. Since this is the case then any perceptible vibration caused to these properties, by the introduction of a tramway, represents a significant change in the environment. This would considerably affect the residents enjoyment of their properties and would probably result in a reduction in property values.


- 8 – At present the proposed tramway route is used for recreation and commuting by bicycle, and for walking. The introduction of trams on the route will largely destroy the route as a recreational corridor. This might be described as anti-social behaviour on the part of the promoters of the tramway. 3.4 VIBRATION LIMITS The basis for the setting of vibration limits for the Proposed Tramline 1 is to design the system such that there is no increase in the present magnitudes of vibration, or at least no directly perceptible vibration in the adjacent properties. This basically means that, should the tramway promoters obtain planning permission for their scheme, then vibration transmitted to properties along the route from the trams should be below perception magnitudes, where there is currently no perceptible vibration from external sources. Great care must be exercised when applying vibration criteria from a British Standard appendix, derived from data from situations where there has been long term exposure to vibration from rail traffic, to a situation where a new vibration source may be introduced. Similar comments, as above, can be made regarding short term construction works although, in such circumstances some low level vibration intrusion may be acceptable after due consultation with the householders whose properties would be subject to the vibration. To protect the environment for the householders in the Roseburn – Ravelston area the proposed tramway operational vibration limits should be set at their present magnitudes, or at no greater than the average perception magnitudes for human subjects. The limits would include maximum permissible peak vibration magnitudes for any tram pass, and this could be supplemented with dose criteria as appropriate. A dose criterion must not be used to mask the possibility of higher magnitude events through averaging. The appropriate dose value for 150 at 10 second tram passes per day would be a maximum of 0.13, which would still relate to an average acceleration during each tram pass of 2.4 times the perception threshold for vibration sensitive humans at 10 Hz. The maximum peak instantaneous vibration velocity should never exceed 4 times the base curves in BS6472. {At faster parts of the route the effective duration of each tram pass may be very short such that the vibration magnitudes for a 0.13 dose would be significantly greater.} In the construction phase the aim of the contractors should be to maintain ambient conditions as regards vibration. In some instances, such as piling or rock excavation, this may not be possible. In such circumstances the methods of working and choice of equipment are critical. Even in cases of piling and rock excavation it is possible to maintain vibration at magnitudes below 3mm/s ppv at adjacent properties. Relaxation to 3mm/s ppv for particular operations in which transient vibration pulses are generated, should not be used as an excuse to use this as the permissible vibration magnitude for general working and for continuous vibration.


- 9 – 4. MINIMISATION OF VIBRATION TRANSMISSION FROM TRAMS A number of simple procedures can be implemented to minimise vibration generation and transmission from tramway systems. The following represent only a few of these procedures. Generally the greater the speed of trams the greater the vibration generation and transmission to surrounding properties. If perceptible magnitudes of vibration are exceeded then there is a trade off between the magnitude of the vibration and the duration of each tram pass. The maximum permissible tram speed is also a function of several of the following points. Optimum rail alignment is essential to avoid crabbing of the wheelsets, rapid wear of the rails and increase in vibration generation. It would be expected that semi-continuous rails with long mitred joints would be used for tram tracks for low vibration operation. Vibration transmission from a tramway track can be significantly damped by the provision of suitable resilient mountings for the rails. This is an essential requirement for any tramway to be routed through tranquil areas and to avoid increase of vibration at other locations. Such resilient mounting systems require a programme of inspection to ensure that creep of the materials has not occurred and that there is no bridging of the vibration isolation by metal or stones. Programmes for regular maintenance of rolling stock and the tracks represent major features in minimising tramway vibration. Regular periodic machining of wheels to maintain their balance and to prevent the development of flats is fundamental, as demonstrated in other rapid transit systems such as that in Washington DC. Balancing of motors has a lesser but important influence. Suspensions designed to reflect changing loading conditions can prevent "bounce" of tramsets and assist to maintain vibration at minimum magnitudes. Time tabling and operational procedures can be designed to prevent the "bunching" of trams and to reduce the probability of trams from different directions passing at locations where properties are close to the tracks. 5. POLICING VIBRATION TRANSMISSION FROM TRAMS Should planning permission for the Proposed Edinburgh Tramline 1 be approved then the vibration limits set for this operation would require to be policed. To achieve this triaxial digital seismographs would be required at regular intervals along the route at properties closest to the tracks, for an initial period to prove the magnitudes. After the vibration has been proven for this period, digital seismographs would be retained to monitor the vibration at selected locations, on a permanent basis, to provide an in-


place alert to any deterioration in vibration performance of particular units or of the rolling stock or of the track in general. - 10 – 6. CONCLUSIONS The route of the Edinburgh Proposed Tramline 1 through the Roseburn – Ravelston area has significant sections which currently have no vibration of buildings, from external sources, greater than perception thresholds for human beings. In the documents, submitted by the promoters of the Edinburgh Proposed Tramline 1, the sections on noise and vibration mostly concentrate on noise issues. The promoters of the tramway have not carried out any vibration surveys, or vibration tests, along the Roseburn – Ravelston sections of the route and have not attempted to relate vibration from other situations to the conditions along this part of the route. The vibration limits for properties put forward for construction phases for the proposed tramway are excessively high. These vibration limits include peak velocity levels up to an order of magnitude greater than those normally passed by planning authorities for vibration of dwellings from single blast events. Upper bound vibration magnitudes for transient vibration have been put forward for the construction phase, should be scheme be permitted to proceed. General vibration during the construction phase should be kept within the operational limits, unless agreed with the householders for specific operations. The operational vibration limits for human response of occupants of dwellings along the route of Proposed Tramline 1 put forward by the promoters are excessively high for the present tranquil nature of the Roseburn – Ravelston area. The limits do not contain upper bounds for instantaneous vibration during any pass of a tram. Scrutiny of the documents revealed that for Proposed Tramline 2 the vibration dose value set by the promoters is 0.2m/s1.75 VDV, {which would still be too great to maintain a quality environment in the Roseburn-Ravelston area}. Vibration limits for operation of a tramway in the tranquil conditions of the Roseburn – Ravelston area have been presented. A number of measures to minimise vibration transmission from trams and to maintain vibration at these minimum magnitudes have been put forward. A method to prove and police imposed vibration limits has been outlined. The proposed construction phase and operational vibration limits proposed by the promoters of Edinburgh Proposed Tramline 1 would seriously change the existing conditions, cause annoyance to the householders, generate very significant complaint levels, and would probably reduce the property values in the Roseburn – Ravelston area.


- 11 - 7. DOCUMENT REFERENCES a. EDINBURGH TRAM LINES ONE AND TWO, "Noise and Vibration Policy", March 2005. b. STAG 2 Appraisal – Appendices. c. Private Bill: Edinburgh Tram (Line One), The Environmental Statement, Appendix 1 – "Details of the Noise and Vibration Assessment". d. Private Bill: Edinburgh Tram (Line One), The Environmental Statement, Chapter 13 – "Noise and Vibration". e. Peer Review of Noise & Vibration and Air Quality Chapters of the Environmental Statement: Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill. f. Line 2, Impacts of Vibration, Section 13.3, "Vibration". 8. REFERENCES 1. BS6472 Evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings (1 Hz to 80 Hz). 2. BS7385 Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings:

Part 1. Guide for measurement of vibrations and evaluation of their effects on buildings.

Part 2. Guide to damage levels from groundborne vibration. 2. ISO 10137 Bases for design of structures – Serviceability of buildings against vibration. 3. ISO2631 Part 2 Guide to the evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings (1

Hz to 80 Hz). 4. ISO4866 Building vibration – methods of measurement and evaluation of the effects of

vibration on buildings. 5. ISO6897 Guidelines for the evaluation of the response of occupants of fixed structures,

especially buildings and off-shore structures, to low-frequency horizontal motion (0.063 Hz to 1 Hz).

6. AISC Design guide No 11 American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois 7. Irwin, A.W. Human response to dynamic motion of structures, The Structural Engineer, V56A, 1978. 8. Irwin, A.W. Motion in tall buildings, Second Century of the Skyscraper, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1988.


- 12 – 9. Irwin, A.W. Relative influence of noise and whole body vibration on the response of humans, Proceedings Inter-Noise 83, 1983. 10. Irwin, A.W. Design of Shear Wall Buildings, CIRIA Report 102, 1984. 11. Irwin, A.W. Case studies of vibration environments for human response and sub-perception criteria, Seminar on Vibration Control, Eger, Hungary, 1988. 12. Irwin, A.W. Human response to vibration of structures, Seminar on Vibration Control, Eger, Hungary, 1988.


the city of edinburgh council · 2011-12-20 · edinburgh. i have a bsc in civil engineering. i am...

Documents