3.1
Potential noise impacts likely to arise from the proposed
Project during both the construction and operation phases have been evaluated
and the results are presented in this section.
3.2
The following potential noise impacts were assessed and the predicted noise levels and necessary noise
mitigation measures, are presented in this section:
§
Construction noise
§
Operational phase project-induced
traffic noise
§
Operational phase fixed plant
noise
§
Operational phase entertainment
noise
Environmental Legislation, Standards and Guidelines
3.3
The Noise Control Ordinance (NCO) and Environmental Impact
Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) provide the statutory framework for noise
control. Assessment procedures and
standards are set out in the five Technical Memoranda (TMs) listed below:
§
TM on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM)
§
TM on Noise from Construction Work other than Percussive
Piling (GW-TM)
§
TM on Noise from Percussive Piling (PP-TM)
§
TM on Noise form Construction Work in Designated Areas
(DA-TM)
§
TM on Noise from Places other than Domestic Premises, Public
Places or Construction Sites (IND-TM)
3.4
Potential construction noise,
project-induced traffic noise, fixed plant and entertainment noise impacts arising from the Project have been assessed in
accordance with the criteria and methodology given in the TMs made under the
NCO and the EIAO.
3.5
Daytime construction noise (excluding percussive piling) between the hours 0700 – 1900 on weekdays, is controlled
under the EIAO. Annex 5 of the EIAO-TM
sets out the construction noise limits, which are Leq(30 min) 75dB(A) for
domestic premises and Leq(30 min) 70dB(A) for schools during normal hours
(65dB(A) during examination periods) and all other places where unaided voice
communication is required.
3.6
Construction activities other than percussive piling using
powered mechanical equipment (PME) undertaken at other times (i.e. during restricted
hours) are under the control of the NCO.
3.7
According to the construction programme, all the proposed
construction works except
for tunnelling would be carried out
during non-restricted hours. In case of any construction activities during
restricted hours, it is the Contractor’s responsibility to ensure compliance
with the NCO and the relevant TMs. The Contractor will be required to submit
CNP application to the Noise Control Authority and abide by any conditions
stated in the CNP, should one be issued. There are some factors affecting the assessment results of a CNP
application, such as the assigning of Area Sensitivity Rating. As the
situations/conditions around the sites may change from time to time, the Noise
Control Authority would decide these at the time assessment of such an
application based on the contemporary situations/conditions. Nothing in the EIA
study shall bind the Noise Control Authority in the context of CNP application.
3.8
Percussive piling would not be adopted for the proposed
Project. Therefore, criteria as set out
in the PP-TM would not be applicable to this Project.
Project-induced Traffic Noise
3.9
The proposed redevelopment would generate additional traffic on nearby roads such as
3.10
The criteria for assessment of road traffic noise at various
NSRs (in terms of L10 (1 hour)) are defined in Annex 5 of the
EIAO-TM: Criteria for Evaluating Noise Impact:
§
70 dB(A) at the façades of dwellings, hotels, and offices.
§
65 dB(A) at the façades of schools, places of public
worship, courts of law, and places where unaided voice communication is
required.
§
55 dB(A) at the façades of a hospital.
3.11
According to the EIA Study Brief, where the predicted
traffic noise levels exceed the criteria set in Table
§
The predicted overall noise level from the Project (i.e. the
proposed redevelopment), together with other traffic noise in the vicinity
exceed the noise level specified in the EIAO-TM (for example, 70 dB(A) for
domestic premises and 65 dB(A) for educational institutions, all in L10 (1
hour)) by 1dB(A); and
§
The contribution to the increase in the predicted overall
noise level from the Project must be at least 1.0 dB(A).
3.12
The NCO and IND-TM control noise from fixed noise sources. For
this Project, key fixed noise sources associated with the operational phase of
the Project include the following:
§
Fixed plant noise -
noise from equipment/installations
such as ventilation fan, rides, chiller, air conditioning unit (A/C) and
parkwide public address (PA) system.
§
Entertainment noise -
noise from loudspeakers for nightly shows at the lagoon area at
3.13
For the assessment of impacts from fixed noise sources, the area sensitivity rating (ASR) of the noise sensitive
receivers
must be determined in accordance with the IND-TM,
and based on the ASR, the appropriate acceptable noise levels (ANL) can be
determined. ANL is shown in Table 3.1. For this assessment, the ASRs assumed for each NSR and the associated ANL are shown in Appendix 3.1.
Table 3.1 Acceptable Noise Level for Fixed Plant Noise
Time Period |
NCO criteria |
TM-EIA |
||||
ASR ‘A’ |
ASR ‘B’ |
ASR ‘C’ |
ASR ‘A’ |
ASR ‘B’ |
ASR ‘C’ |
|
Daytime and Evening
(0700-2300 hours) |
60 |
65 |
70 |
55 |
60 |
65 |
Night-time (2300-0700
hours) |
50 |
55 |
60 |
45 |
50 |
55 |
Source: IND-TM
3.14
In any event, the Area Sensitivity Rating assumed in the EIA
Report is only indicative and it is used for assessment only. It should be noted that the fixed noise
sources are controlled under section 13 of the NCO. Therefore, the Noise Control Authority shall
determine noise impact from concerned fixed noise sources on the basis of
prevailing legislation and practices being in force, and taking account of
contemporary conditions/ situations of adjoining land uses. Nothing in the EIA study shall bind the Noise
Control Authority in the context of law enforcement against any of the fixed
noise sources being assessed.
3.15
More stringent criteria for
assessing noise impacts of fixed plant are recommended in the EIAO-TM for
planning purposes. The recommended
assessment criteria are as follows:
§
5dB(A) below the appropriate Acceptable Noise Levels (ANL)
set out in the IND-TM, or
§
The prevailing background noise level where the prevailing
background noise level is 5dB(A) below the appropriate ANL.
3.16
The noise assessment criteria as
described in EIAO-TM have been adopted for the assessment of fixed noise source
impact in relation to the Park operation.
3.17
Representative NSRs within
3.18
According to Annex 13 of the EIAO-TM, NSRs include the
following:
§
Residential uses – all domestic premises including temporary
housing
§
Institutional uses – including educational institutions
§
Other uses such as hostels and country parks
3.19
In order to evaluate the
construction and operational noise impacts likely to arise from the Project, representative
NSRs (both existing and planned NSRs)
were selected within
the study area (i.e. those at the most critical locations) according to the
criteria set out in the EIAO-TM, through site visits and a review of relevant land use plans including the Outline Zoning
Plan (Plan No. S/H15/21 and S/H17/9).
3.20
In general, NSRs located closest
to the subject noise sources, i.e. the first layer of NSR, would be considered
as the most critical locations and thus selected for noise assessment. In some cases however, in addition to the
first layer of NSRs, noise assessment at the second layer or layers of NSRs
further away from the subject noise sources would be necessary as these NSRs
would be subject to more stringent noise control requirements. Note that the assessment criteria for fixed
noise source impact could be determined by the prevailing background noise
level where the prevailing background noise level at the NSRs is 5dB(A) below
the appropriate the ANL.
3.21
Noise monitoring results (refer
to Table 3.4) revealed that the prevailing traffic noise at the second layer or
layers of NSRs further back would be lower than the first layer of NSRs located
in the immediate vicinity of Wong Chuk Hang Road. Hence, to ensure the assessment has covered all
potentially worst impacted NSRs, NSRs OR and HY representing the second and
third layer of NSRs at the Shouson Hill area were selected for operational
fixed noise source impact assessment.
3.22
The NSRs located closest to the
3.23
At the time of reporting, the
Project Proponent had no plan to use the
3.24
Table 3.2 presents
a summary of representative NSRs included in the assessment. Locations of representative NSRs
are shown in Figures 3.1-3.3. Photographs of the existing NSRs are provided
in Appendix 3.2.
Table 3.2 Representative Noise Sensitive Receivers
NSR |
Description |
Land Use |
Existing / Planned NSR |
No of storey |
Construction Noise Assessment |
Project-induced Traffic Noise Assessment |
Fixed Plant and Entertainment Noise Assessment |
PTS1 |
Old Teaching Block, |
Government/ Institution
/ Community |
Existing |
4 |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
PTS2 |
Block J, Recruit
Constable Quarters |
Government/ Institution
/ Community |
Existing |
4 |
|
Ö |
|
WCHC(1) |
Wong Chuk Hang Complex
for the Elderly |
Government/ Institution
/ Community |
Existing |
6 |
|
|
|
GH(1) |
|
Government/ Institution
/ Community |
Existing |
7 |
|
|
|
SW1 |
Wong Chuk Hang San Wai |
Residential |
Existing |
1 |
|
Ö |
|
SW2 |
Wong Chuk Hang San Wai |
Residential |
Existing |
1 |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
CV1 |
Country Villa, |
Residential |
Existing |
3 |
|
Ö |
|
CV2 |
Country Villa, |
Residential |
Existing |
3 |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
HA |
The Hazelton |
Residential |
Existing |
3 |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
XC |
Xanadu Courts |
Residential |
Existing |
3 |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
IV1 |
Island View |
Residential |
Existing |
2 |
Ö |
|
Ö |
IV2 |
Island View |
Residential |
Existing |
2 |
|
Ö |
|
MV |
Manly Villa |
Residential |
Existing |
3 |
Ö |
|
Ö |
OR |
|
Residential |
Existing |
3 |
|
|
Ö |
HY |
Hau Yuen |
Residential |
Existing |
3 |
|
|
Ö |
PS1/ PS2(2) |
Planned school at |
Educational institute |
Planned |
7 |
Ö |
Ö |
|
BC1/ BC2(2) |
|
Residential |
Existing |
39 |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Note:
(1) NSR is centrally air-conditioned.
(2) NSR located outside the Study Area (i.e. more than
Description of the Environment
3.25
3.26
Site visits conducted from April
to November 2005 revealed that NSRs identified within the Study Area were
exposed to noise from the existing
Table 3.3 Key Noise Sources to the existing NSRs
NSR |
Description |
Existing Noise
Sources affecting NSR |
PTS1 |
Old Teaching Block ( |
Traffic noise from Operational noise from the existing |
PTS2 |
Block J, Recruit
Constable Quarters |
Traffic noise from |
WCHC |
Wong Chuk Hang Complex for the Elderly |
Traffic noise from |
GH |
|
Traffic noise from |
SW1 |
Wong Chuk Hang San Wai |
Traffic noise from |
SW2 |
Wong Chuk Hang San Wai |
Traffic noise from Operational noise from the existing |
CV1 HA CV2 XC |
Country Villa The Hazelton Country Villa |
Traffic noise from Operational noise from the existing |
IV1 |
Island View |
Operational noise from the existing Country Club and |
IV2 |
Island View |
Traffic noise from Operational noise from the existing Country Club |
MV |
Manly Villa |
Minor traffic noise from the private access road to Manly
Villa Operational noise from the existing |
OR HY |
Hau
Yuen |
Traffic along Operational noise from the existing |
*BC1 BC2 |
|
Traffic along Shum Wan Road |
Note: * NSR located outside the Study
Area (i.e. more than
Prevailing Noise Levels at NSRs
3.27
As discussed in Section 3.16, the recommended EIAO-TM
assessment criteria for fixed noise sources is 5dB(A) below the appropriate ANL
set out in the IND-TM or the prevailing background noise level where the
prevailing noise level is 5dB(A) below the appropriate ANL. Hence, it is necessary to determine typical
prevailing background noise levels at the NSRs identified for operational phase
fixed plant and entertainment noise assessment.
3.28
Noise surveys were undertaken in October and November 2005 to determine the
prevailing background noise levels.
Prevailing background noise levels were obtained through measurement of
existing noise levels at six representative locations (refer to Figure
Table
Noise Measurement
Point |
Description |
Floor level of
noise measurement |
Measurement Date |
Measurement Time
Period |
MPS |
Old Teaching Block ( |
Roof Floor |
|
1000-1100 1700-1800 & 2100-2200 |
MOR |
|
Roof Floor |
|
1000-1100 1700-1800 & 2100-2200 |
MCV |
Country Villa |
Ground Floor |
|
1000-1100 1700-1800 & 2100-2200 |
MMV |
Local Road within |
Ground Floor |
|
1000-1100 1700-1800 & 2100-2200 |
MO |
Existing |
Roof Floor |
|
1000-1100 1700-1800 & 2100-2200 |
MBC |
|
Roof Floor |
|
1000-1100 1700-1800 & 2100-2200 |
Table 3.3b Measured Noise Levels
Noise Measurement Point |
Represented NSR |
Measured Noise Levels, Leq(15min) on Weekday* |
Measured Noise Levels, Leq(15min) on Sunday* |
||
Morning (0700-1900) |
Evening (1900-2300) |
Morning (0700-1900) |
Evening (1900-2300) |
||
MPS |
PTS1 |
63.7 |
63.5 |
62.7 |
62.6-64.7 |
MOR |
OR HY |
55.6 |
55.1 |
56.2 |
55.5-56.1 |
MCV |
SW2 HA CV2 XC |
75.1 |
77.5 |
75.4 |
72.5-76.6 |
MMV |
MV |
55.5 |
55.7 |
56.0 |
55.5-56.6 |
MO |
IV1 |
63.2 |
62.9 |
61.9 |
63.1-63.8 |
MBC |
BC1 |
71.3 |
69.9 |
62.0 |
61.8-61.6 |
Note:* All noise
measurements were conducted when the Park was in operation.
3.29
All the noise measurements were conducted in accordance with
the Technical Memoranda (TMs) issued under the NCO. Sound level meters in compliance with the
International Electrotechnical Commission Publications 651: 1979 (Type 1) and
804: 1985 (Type 1) specifications were used for carrying out the noise measurement. Immediately prior to and following each noise
measurement the accuracy of the sound level meter was checked using an acoustic
calibrator generating a known sound pressure level at a known frequency. Measurements was accepted as valid only if the
calibration level from before and after the noise measurement agree to within
1.0 dB.
3.30
Noise measurements, each for 15 minutes, were conducted at
each of the selected monitoring locations during both the morning (1000-1100)
and evening periods of time (1700-1800 & 2100-2200) on weekday and
weekend/public holiday. Prevailing noise
levels at NSRs consist of noise from existing traffic and other background
noise (e.g. operational noise from the existing
Table 3.4 Prevailing Background Noise Levels at
Representative NSRs
NSR |
Description |
Existing Major Noise
Sources |
Background Noise Levels
(Weekday and Weekend / Sunday), dB(A) |
Minimum Background Noise
Level [1] |
IND-TM ANL-5, dB(A) [2] |
Fixed Plant Noise
Assessment Criteria i.e. Minimum of [1]
& [2] |
Background Noise Monitoring Location as shown on Figure |
PTS1 |
Old Teaching Block ( |
Road traffic along Operational noise from
the existing bus terminus at Operational noise from
the existing |
62.6-64.7 |
62.6 |
60 |
60 |
MPS |
SW2 HA CV2 XC |
Wong Chuk Hang San Wai The Hazelton Country Villa |
Road traffic along Operational noise from
the existing |
72.5-77.5 |
72.5 |
60 |
60 |
MCV |
IV1 |
Island View |
Recreational facilities
(e.g. ball courts) at Country Club Operational noise from
the existing |
61.9-63.8 |
61.9 |
60 |
60 |
MO |
MV |
Manly Villa |
Minor road traffic along
the access road to Manly Villa Operational noise from
the existing |
55.5-56.6 |
55.5 |
60 |
55.5 |
MMV |
OR HY |
Hau Yuen |
Road traffic along Operational noise from the
existing |
55.1-56.2 |
55.1 |
60 |
55.1 |
MOR |
*BC1 |
|
Road traffic along |
61.6-71.3 |
61.6 |
65 |
61.6 |
MBC |
Note: * NSR
located outside the Study Area (i.e. more than
Assessment Methodology and Uncertainties
3.31
In accordance with the EIAO-TM, the methodology outlined in
the GW-TM was used for the construction noise assessment. The general approach is
summarized below:
§
Locate the NSRs which would most likely be affected by noise
from the construction work
§
Determine the items of Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME)
for each discrete construction activity, based on available information or
agreed plant inventories
§
Assign sound power levels (SWLs) to the proposed PME
according to the GW-TM or other sources
§
Calculate distance attenuation and screening effects to NSRs
from notional noise source
§
Predict construction noise levels at NSRs in the absence of
any mitigation measures
§
Include a 3 dB(A) façade correction to the predicted noise
levels in order to account for the façade effect at each NSR.
3.32
Sound power levels (SWLs) of the equipment were taken from
Table 3 of GW-TM. Where no sound power
level (SWL) was given in the GW-TM, reference was made to British Standard
5228:Part 1:1997 Noise Control on Construction and Open Sites and
previous similar studies or from measurements taken at other sites in
Operational
Phase – Project-induced Traffic Noise
3.33
Works proposed under this
Project are due for completion in 4th quarter of 2011. It is expected that
the number of visitors to the Park would increase and hence the traffic arising
from these visitors would also increase.
To assess the likely project-induced road traffic impact due to the
proposed Redevelopment, the following were considered to ensure that the worst-case traffic scenarios would be
captured for the assessment.
Design Year
3.34
The project-induced traffic noise impacts were predicted based on the maximum traffic forecast within 15
years upon the completion
year of the Project. As discussed in Section 2.41, traffic forecasts for year 2026 are considered to present the peak traffic flow for the
proposed project, and were adopted for the traffic noise assessment. Projected peak hourly traffic flows and vehicle composition for 2026 are provided in Appendix 2.3.
Design Day
3.35
The assessment was based on peak traffic attracted / generated by the proposed
redevelopment on a normal weekday as well as at weekends / on public holiday, taking account of the possible variance between the
attendance of the Park on weekdays and public holidays.
Peak Hour
3.36
It is expected that additional traffic would be attracted
and generated as a result of the proposed redevelopment. Based on the Feasibility Study for Repositioning Ocean Park – Hong Kong, Phase 2
draft report (2004), the estimation of the arrival and departure pattern
was based on four main factors: (a) the average length of stay is extended to
nearly six hourly; (b) entertainment will be provided in the afternoons and
early evening to encourage people to stay longer; (c) many tour groups may
arrive late (after lunch); (d) twilight admission becomes available at 1600 on
peak days. The
Traffic Consultant predicted that the time period during which maximum traffic would arise
from the proposed redevelopment would be 1800-1900, having taken into account the operation hours of
Traffic Scenarios
Assessed in the EIA Study
3.37
Traffic scenarios assessed in the EIA study are summarised
in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 Traffic Scenarios Assessed
Scenario |
Design Year |
Design Day |
|
|
1 |
With Redevelopment |
2026 |
Weekday |
PM Peak |
2 |
Without Redevelopment |
2026 |
Weekday |
PM Peak |
3 |
With Redevelopment |
2026 |
Weekend/ Public |
PM Peak |
4 |
Without Redevelopment |
2026 |
Weekend/ Public |
PM Peak |
3.38
All four scenarios assumed that there would be no South Island Line (SIL) as the SIL
proposal was still under review by the Government at the time of
reporting. While the SIL would reduce the background traffic, and transport many of the
Park’s visitors, it was understood that the SIL would unlikely be in place by 2011.
Since the SIL is not a committed project, the assessment would focus on the traffic situations without the SIL, which would be the worst-case
scenario in terms of project-induced traffic noise impact.
3.39
The likely project-induced off-site traffic noise impact was predicted using the methodology provided in the UK
Department of Transport Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN)
1988. All major roads within
3.40
The road network, building layout and all other features
that could have noise screening or reflective effects, were taken into account
in the road traffic noise model. The
roads were divided into segments. Each
segment has a defined road width, road surface type and traffic mix, flow and
road design speed. The segmentation and
calculation process were carried out using a model based on the CRTN, which is
agreed by the EPD. Noise levels were
calculated at each receiver point at each floor up to the top floor.
3.41
Impervious road surfacing was modelled for all road sections. The operation speed for all road sections
within the Study
Area was assumed to be
3.42
Practical mitigation proposals such as traffic management
measures would
be considered to alleviate
the traffic noise impacts if:
§
The noise level differences predicted between Scenarios 1
and 2 or between Scenarios 3 and 4 (refer to Table 3.5) would
be more than 1.0(A); and
§
The noise levels predicted for Scenario 1 or Scenario 3 (refer to Table 3.5) would
exceed the traffic noise criteria specified in the EIAO-TM.
Operational
Phase – Fixed Noise Sources
Assumed Fixed Plant Noise Source Terms
3.43
According to the preliminary design information provided by
the Engineer and the Project Proponent Ocean Park Corporation, the major
fixed plant noise sources to be operated within the park have been identified
including rides, other attractions, PA system, air conditioning units,
ventilation fans and chillers.
3.44
As there is no specification and noise data for the
identified fixed plant noise sources in this preliminary design stage, the
sound power levels of the identified noise sources of the planned rides/ attractions
and PA system were determined with reference to on-site noise measurement of
existing rides and facilities at
3.45
Noise emanating from the rides at the Whisker’s Harbour was
predicted based on the noise levels measured at the currently operating Kid’s
World at the Lowland. The existing Kid’s World was selected for noise
measurement as the Whisker’s Harbour would be similar in area, scale,
facilities and other settings. Having considered the number of rides/ attractions,
the noise strength of the Whisker’s Harbour is expected to be less than double that
of the Kid’s World. Therefore, the sound power level due to rides at the
proposed Whisker's Harbour was assumed, as a worst case scenario, to be double
that from noise due to rides at the existing Kid World, and so 3 dB(A) was
added to the sound power level (equivalent to doubling of the noise).
3.46
For the
3.47
In addition, the sound power levels of the ventilation fans/
chillers were determined with reference to the data stipulated in “Good Practices on Ventilation System Noise
Control" issued by EPD.
Assumed Fixed Plant Inventory
3.48
Based on the master layout plan and preliminary design
information, the main fixed plant were identified and presented in Appendix
3.4.
3.49
Note that since a complete list
of fixed plant for the Project is not available at this stage, the EIA study made
reference to the best available information based on the master plan and the
current situation of the Park as appropriate.
3.50
The following assumptions in the proposed setting of the
Park during operation phase of the Project were be used in the noise
assessment:
§
A funicular system would be provided as one of the new
attractions. The E&M equipment
serving the system would be a source of fixed plant noise, but it is expected
to be enclosed, similar to the arrangement for the existing cable car system.
§
PA system similar to the system serving the existing Park
would be used.
§
Split-type air-conditioning units and chillers serving the
existing back of house and Administration Buildings would be retained or
replaced by similar systems.
§
The assumed Sound Power Levels of the main fixed plant were
determined with reference to the
specifications of similar items of equipment provided by the Project Proponent
/plant supplier, the data derived from the Good
Practices on Ventilation System Noise Control (GP-VS).or the noise
measurement data for the existing rides.
§
It is assumed that all the fixed plant would be operated at
the same time as worst case scenario.
Directivity was not taken into account in the assessment. Screening
correction offered by buildings or other structures such as office and cable
car terminus were taken into account in calculating the predicted noise levels.
According to the GW-TM, noise reduction of 5-10dB(A) for the fixed plant can be
achieved depending on the line of sight of the representative NSRs.
§
A positive 3 dB(A) was added to predicted noise levels at
the NSRs due to the façade effect.
§
Based on the noise measurement data at the boundary of the existing
park, it is considered that the overall noise output of the future ocean park
operation should not be characterised as being tonal, impulsive nor
intermittent as defined in the IND-TM. Tonality correction was not applied in
this assessment.
§
The key fixed noise sources at the
§
The ventilation fans and chillers
assumed at the Back of House of the Waterfront would be equipped with silencer
and enclosures respectively.
§
During the lagoon night show, the
PA clusters serving the show venue at
3.51
The last assumption presented as above would give rise to
two different scenarios, namely Scenario I – “Not During Lagoon Night Show” and
Scenario II – “ During Lagoon Night Show”.
For Scenario I, the PA clusters serving the show venue would be turned
on, similar to other clusters serving the remaining part of the Park, mainly
for soft background music and occasional announcement broadcast. When there is a lagoon night show (i.e.
Scenario II), the PA clusters serving the show venue were assumed to be turned
off and the loudspeakers would be used instead.
Note that noise from loudspeakers for the show has
been assessed under the “Entertainment
Noise” section below. Assumptions
made for the above two scenarios are presented in Appendix 3.4..
3.52
The assumed sound power levels of
the main fixed plant at the Waterfront and
3.53
For the assessment of noise from the fixed plant, the sound
pressure levels at the NSRs were estimated using the standard formula:
SPL = SWL –DC + FC –BC
where
Sound Pressure Levels, SPL in dB(A)
Sound Power Levels, SWL in dB(A)
Distance Attenuation, DC in dB(A) = 20 log D + 8 [where D is
the distance in metres]
Façade Correction, FC in dB(A) = 3 dB(A)
Barrier Correction, BC in dB(A)
Assumed Entertainment Noise Sources
3.54
Shows are essential elements of
modern theme parks and they are popular with guests. In the existing
3.55
Noise issues would generally not
arise if shows are to be held in an indoor environment. Most of the shows at
3.56
Under the proposed master
plan for the Waterfront, the lagoon area in the
3.57
The lagoon night show intends
to capture as many spectators as possible.
Hence, the preliminary design concept assumes the audience would be standing
around the lagoon, sitting at the lagoon restaurant and standing in front of
the lagoon restaurant. It would not be
cost-effective to build a cover to enclose the whole venue for the lagoon night
show as the area involved would be substantial, and indeed would compromise the
open-air experience of the show setting.
3.58
The lagoon night show would
target a broad cross-section of guests, in particular
family groups, and would be designed to appeal to all ages. The show would be primarily a visual experience
and would focus on activities on the surface of the water, for instance objects
would rise gently out of the lagoon. Apart
from the visual elements the show would be backed by relaxing music providing
continuity from one scene to the next. The
music would likely be of the modern classical genre. The show would aim to remind guests of their
day at
“The Lagoon Night Show would draw crowds of up
to 3,000 at night to the terraced viewing spots for the night time spectacle
over the water. Beautiful music would begin,
and the waterfall at the Aquarium would begin to glow with luminous
colour. Light would cascade down the
waterfall and into the centre of the lagoon – where fountains would spring to
life. Coloured lights would bathe the
front of the Aquarium; and projected letters would fade into view, revealing
the show’s title: Waterdance. A group of huge, inflatable sea creatures would
appear on the lagoon – a seahorse, a tropical fish, a jellyfish, and a
starfish. They would glow with soft
internal light. Beautiful water ripples would
appear, projected on the Aquarium. Fish would
glide around the lagoon’s surface, then, as the music rises, the sea creatures,
rise, too. They would be filled with
helium, allowing them to float up on tethered lines.”
3.59
The lagoon night show would
be open-air. The musical score would be
broadcast to guests using sound amplification (loudspeaker) systems. The loudspeaker system would be designed in
such a way that potential noise impact on neighbouring NSRs could be
minimized. For instance, the loudspeaker
system would comprise clusters of small power loudspeakers instead of a few
large-power loudspeakers. Speakers would
be distributed throughout the spectator area rather than being clustered at one
end of the show venue or directly pointing to NSRs. The speakers would be placed close to the audience
so as to limit the need for high power output speakers. Directional speakers would be used and
oriented as far as possible to point towards the audience and away from the
nearby NSRs.
3.60
The loudspeaker system
design is not yet available. To demonstrate
the feasibility of the proposal, the Project Proponent developed a conceptual loudspeaker
system design based on the principles described above. The conceptual design and other assumptions
made in this EIA study would be used as a reference for future detailed design
of the show. The conceptual design was developed by
the Project Proponent along the lines adopted on similar musical shows. A detailed design would be undertaken at a later
stage of the Project once the music content of the lagoon night show is available. The location of the
lagoon night show and the conceptual loudspeaker design are provided in Appendix 3.5.
3.61
Although details of the
lagoon night shows were not available at the time of reporting, the Project
Proponent has committed the design developed in the later stage shall comply
with all mandatory noise control requirements.
In this connection, entertainment noise impact was predicted based on two
test scenarios, namely Scenarios A and B.
Assumptions made for the two test scenarios are as
below:
Assumptions |
Scenario A |
Scenario B |
Number of loudspeaker clusters |
15 nos. (Noise source A-O as shown in Appendix
3.5) |
5 nos. (Noise sources F, H, K, M and O as shown
in Appendix 3.5) |
Sound power level (SWL) of each loudspeaker cluster |
96dBdB(A) |
102dB(A) |
Total Sound power level (SWL) of all loudspeaker clusters |
108dB(A) |
109dB(A) |
3.62
The SWLs specified for each
loudspeaker cluster for Scenarios A and B would correspond to equivalent
continuous sound level (Leq) of about 75dB(A) measured at about 4
3.63
Note that the loudspeaker system
assumed for Scenario B would serve a smaller audience area than Scenario A. Each cluster of speakers was modelled as a point
source.
3.64
The proposed lagoon show has been
designed to work with the opportunities and constraints of the site location
and topography. The show is not a noisy
show and is designed in conjunction with the layout of the lagoon and surroundings,
the anticipated spectator viewing areas, as well as the surrounding and nearby
existing structures and new buildings. Accounting
for the available screening effects so provided, as well as type of music to be
played, the Project Proponent has revealed that the audio levels assumed in
this assessment would be practical and adequate for audience enjoyment of the
show.
3.65
The Project Proponent attended an
on-site demonstration for music of similar type to the proposed lagoon night
show. The music played during on-site
demonstration falls into the “contemporary classic” category, which would be
generally not an intense type, similar to that proposed for the lagoon night
show. In the demonstration, the
loudspeaker system was set to emanate Leq(15mins) of 75dB(A) at
3.66
Noise measurement was conducted on March 17, 2006 at the
3.67
The assessment presented below
has shown the proposed open-air lagoon night show to be feasible. Additional screening over and above that
provided in the proposed layout would be considered not necessary.
Prediction of Entertainment Noise
3.68
Entertainment noise levels at
selected NSRs were predicted by adopting standard acoustics principles[1]. Noise levels at NSRs contributed by the noise
sources were predicted by taking account of various factors of attenuation from
the source to the receiver point.
Distance attenuation, barrier effect and façade effect were factors
considered in the noise prediction. Cross-sections
from indicative loudspeaker clusters (noise sources) to NSRs are provided in Appendix 3.5. Given the effect of surface directivity and
source directivity would be considered minor, they were not considered in the
calculation. Details of noise calculation for
the lagoon night show are provided in Appendix
3.5.
Cumulative Fixed Noise Source Impact
3.69
Cumulative noise from all fixed
noise sources within the park was predicted by summing the level of noise from
both fixed plant and entertainment. Presented
below is a flowchart summarising the scenarios that have been assessed.
3.70
Cumulative noise impacts at
selected NSRs were assessed against the determined criteria as shown in Table 3.4.
Level of Uncertainty in the
Assessment
3.71
The predictions of construction and road traffic noise
impacts were based on the methodologies described in the GW-TM under the NCO
and the United Kingdom Department of Transport’s “Calculation of Road Traffic
Noise” (1988) respectively. The
methodology had previously been applied in similar situations in other EIA
studies (e.g. Penny’s Bay EIA), is generally accepted for use in assessing
construction and traffic noise impacts and comparison of prediction results
with EIAO-TM noise criteria.
3.72
There would be some limitations such as the accuracy of the
predictive base data for future conditions e.g. traffic flow forecasts, plant
inventory for the proposed construction works and fixed plant for future
operation. Uncertainties in the
assessment of impacts should be considered when drawing conclusions from the
assessment.
3.73
In carrying out the assessment, realistic worst case
assumptions have been made in order to provide a conservative assessment of
noise impacts. The construction noise
impact was assessed based on conservative estimates for the types of plant and
methods of working. As for the
assessment of road traffic noise impact, peak hourly traffic flows representing
the worst case scenario were adopted.
3.74
For fixed plant noise assessment, all items of fixed plant
have been assumed to operate concurrently and directivity has not been included
in the calculation as the worst case scenario. For determining the distance
correction factors, the horizontal distances between the noise source positions
and the NSRs were used for representing the worst level of the representative
NSRs. Since a complete list of fixed
plant for the Project is not available at this stage, the EIA study makes
reference to the best available information based on the master plan and the
current situation of the Park as appropriate.
3.75
The assessment of entertainment
noise has been based on the conceptual loudspeaker design developed by
Identification
of Environmental Impact
Construction
Phase
3.76
The potential source of noise impact during the construction
phase of the Project would be the use of PME for various construction
activities. As indicated in the
construction program (Appendix 2.2 refers), the Project would last from June 2006 to July 2011.
3.77
Works at Lowland for the formation of the new Waterfront
would mainly include the construction of five major zones both themed and
non-themed as shown in Appendix 3.3. Major construction activities involved would
be site clearance, demolition of existing structures, site formation and
excavation, drainage and sewerage diversion, piling works and superstructure
construction. The construction of the
new attraction funicular railway would include tunnel excavation, portal
formation, piling for station and station construction. The tunnel section of
funicular will be excavated by drill and blast method. The use of PME for the
above-mentioned construction activities would be the prime source of
construction noise impact. As NSRs were
identified at distance of about 40
3.78
Site formation for the majority part of the
3.79
Apart from rock blasting, piling
for the funicular station would be required for the funicular railway. The remaining construction activities for the
3.80
Drill and blast would be adopted for rock breaking at the Headland.
Having consideration for the site safety and the operation period of
3.81
To minimise the noise impacts arising from blasting,
mitigation measures are recommended to be implemented and these are listed in Section 3.129-3.131.
3.82
As indicated in construction programme, the construction
works at the Lowland would likely coincide with the construction works at the Headland. Nevertheless, work areas at the Lowland are located more than
Project-induced Traffic Noise
3.83
Visitors accessing the Park would contribute to additional
traffic to road networks in the vicinity of the Park. It is envisaged that upon completion of works
under the Master Plan positive growth in visitor numbers would be envisaged, and hence traffic arising from these visitors would also
increase.
3.84
Table 3.6 presents the peak-hour traffic volumes at key road links in
the vicinity of
Table 3.6 Peak-hour Traffic at
Road Link |
Traffic Flow on Weekday |
Traffic Flow on Sunday |
||||
Without Redevelopment (1) |
With Redevelopment (2) |
Increased in Traffic
Flow (2)-(1) |
Without Redevelopment (3) |
With Redevelopment (4) |
Increased in Traffic
Flow (4)-(3) |
|
|
4563 |
5449 |
886 |
5072 |
6037 |
965 |
|
537 |
1702 |
1165 |
915 |
2185 |
1270 |
Shum Wan Road |
570 |
580 |
10 |
509 |
556 |
47 |
Note:
(1) traffic flow (in vehicle /hour)
3.85
As shown in Table 3.6, the Park would contribute to about 965-1270 vehicles (approx.) to key road links in the vicinity of the Waterfront. Traffic induced by the Project would likely have
noise implications for sensitive receivers identified in the area around the
Waterfront.
3.86
While
Fixed Plant Noise at
the Waterfront
3.87
The Waterfront, upon completion of the Project, will be
divided into three themed zones:
3.88
The
3.89
The existing Kid’s World will be modified to a new zone
known as the Whisker’s Harbour providing rides and attractions targeted for
families. New rides proposed
under the Master Plan would include bumper cars, Tivoli
Coaster, Huff and
Puff will be introduced to this zone. Some of the existing rides (e.g. Double sided
Frog Hopper) will be refurbished or replaced.
3.90
Key attractions at the Birds of Paradise will be the aviary
and animal enclosures. Being the homes
for the birds and animals, this zone is expected to be a quiet area containing
no major fixed noise sources
except the PA system.
3.91
The remaining two “non-themed”
zones will be the
3.92
Other mechanical equipment includes pumps and emergency
generator for holding tanks. Such
equipment is expected to be located within enclosed structures and so, noise
impact associated with their operation is considered to be minor.
3.93
All public areas at the
Waterfront would be serviced by PA systems for announcement and soft background
music broadcast.
Entertainment
Noise at the Waterfront
3.94
Under the proposed master plan, the Mystery Lagoon Show
is the only large scale venue in the Waterfront. Entertainment noise would
mainly arise from the use of loudspeaker systems for shows and performances. To
minimise the noise impact on the neighbouring NSRs, the noise reduction
measures have been fully considered in the current design. These measures
are described in the following paragraphs.
3.95
The lagoon night show has been purposely located as far as
possible from nearby sensitive receivers and is immediately to the south of the
3.96
Special events (e.g. Halloween) would be held either at the Summit,
which is far from any NSRs or in the Event Hall at the entry plaza, which is
enclosed and therefore not expected to give rise to noise impact.
3.97
For the lagoon
night show, it is expected that loudspeaker systems would be used. For the two test scenarios, the SWLs of each cluster of loudspeakers
would be 96dB(A) and 102dB(A) respectively.
The SWLs specified for each loudspeaker
cluster for Scenarios A and B would correspond to equivalent continuous sound
level (Leq) of about 75dB(A) measured at about 4
3.98
Based on the available design
information of the lagoon night shows, it is envisaged that there would be only
one or two shows held every night, and each show would last for around 20 minutes
and not longer than 30 minutes. The
nightly lagoon shows will end before 2200 hours, i.e. before the close of the
park.
3.99
The conceptual design for the
loudspeaker system has been developed based on the past experience of
Fixed
Plant Noise and Entertainment Noise at the
3.100
The Headland, which will be renamed the
3.101
As the
3.102
All the identified fixed noise sources at the
3.103
Dwellings at the high-rise
development
Noise
from the Funicular system
3.104
As shown in Figure 2.2, the whole alignment of
the funicular system would be in tunnel. Thus, no train noise impact would be
expected.
3.105
As broadly illustrated in the construction programme,
various construction activities may be carried out concurrently during a
particular period. The unmitigated
cumulative noise levels arising from each construction activity at
representative NSRs were predicted. A
summary of the unmitigated construction noise levels predicted at
representative NSRs is given in the Table
3.7.
Table 3.7 Unmitigated Construction
Noise Levels During
NSRs |
Predicted Unmitigated
Construction Noise Levels During (0700-1900 on
weekdays), dB(A) |
EIAO-TM Noise Criteria,
dB(A) |
PTS1 |
64-82 |
70 for normal teaching 65 for examination period |
SW2 |
65-82 |
75 |
HA |
68-84 |
75 |
CV2 |
72-88 |
75 |
XC |
72-80 |
75 |
IV1 |
72-82 |
75 |
MV |
71-81 |
75 |
PS1 |
54-65 |
70 for normal teaching 65 for examination period |
BC1 |
63-74 |
75 |
3.106
The assessment results showed that predicted cumulative
noise levels at the representative NSRs would range from 54 to 88dB(A) and
exceedance of relevant noise criteria is expected.
3.107
As shown in Table 3.7, the unmitigated noise levels at NSR
BC1 and PS1 would comply with the noise criteria because of the large distance
from the works
areas at the
3.108
Exceedance in the range of 1-13dB(A) was predicted at NSRs
near the
Waterfront for daytime
(i.e. 0700-1900) if no noise control measure is in place. Mitigation measures are considered to be
necessary in order to abate the construction noise impacts at the Waterfront. Appendix 3.3 shows the detailed construction noise calculations for the
unmitigated scenario.
Project-induced Traffic Noise
3.109
Unmitigated traffic noise levels at the representative NSRs
for the four scenarios were predicted, and the assessment results are
given in Table 3.8-3.9 below.
Table 3.8 Predicted Traffic Noise
Levels for the “With Redevelopment” and “Without Redevelopment” Scenarios - Weekday
NSRs |
Floor |
EIAO-TM Noise Criteria, dB(A) |
|||
|
|
Scenario 1- With Redevelopment [1] |
Scenario 2- Without Redevelopment [2] |
Difference [1]-[2] |
|
PTS1 |
1/F |
61.6 |
59.8 |
1.8 |
65 |
|
2/F |
63.9 |
62.8 |
1.1 |
65 |
|
3/F |
65.0 |
64.2 |
0.8 |
65 |
|
4/F |
65.6 |
64.7 |
0.9 |
65 |
PTS2 |
1/F |
64.8 |
62.0 |
2.8 |
70 |
|
2/F |
65.7 |
62.9 |
2.8 |
70 |
|
3/F |
66.2 |
63.5 |
2.7 |
70 |
|
4/F |
66.5 |
63.8 |
2.7 |
70 |
WCHC |
1/F |
73.1 |
72.6 |
0.5 |
70 |
|
3/F |
74.1 |
73.6 |
0.5 |
70 |
|
6/F |
74.5 |
73.9 |
0.6 |
70 |
SW1 |
1/F |
74.1 |
73.7 |
0.4 |
70 |
SW2 |
1/F |
73.9 |
73.7 |
0.2 |
70 |
CV1 |
1/F |
73.4 |
73.3 |
0.1 |
70 |
|
2/F |