Subscribe to RSSReport Slams Official Waterview Claims
Just how bad will the air quality be around the Waterview area be once the tunnel is completed and has the estimate of traffic flows been greatly under-estimated?
An independent report seemingly confirms some of the local residents’ raised fears about the impact of all the fumes, which could also affect neighbouring Waterview primary school’s playing fields.
Damming is one way to describe a review of the Air Quality Assessment submitted to the Waterview Board of Inquiry by independent specialist Emission Impossible, as it challenges the NZTA evidence, especially the methodology used by the agency, which it says is contrary to recommendations in the Ministry for Environment best practice guides.If that’s true, then it is a worry.
It also questions whether the NZTA has downplayed how much new traffic will be generated by the provision of the tunnel.
To quote: “We are extremely concerned that the assessment is underpinned by an assumption that induced traffic amounts to an increase in vehicle trips of just 0.06% (2400 trips per day). This does not seem realistic.”
And higher traffic - such as 90,000 vehicles a day- will result in more pollution.
“In the absence of specific sensitivity analysis, it is considered appropriate to assume that hourly emissions of PM10 PM2.5 and NOx from surface roads could feasibly be four times higher than predicted, under congested conditions. This meansthat the concentration of PM10 PM2.5 and NOx could be significantly higher than predicted. ”
In other words, Auckland’s pollution triggered by vehicles will get worse around there. Great for asthma rates, general health and the environment.
In the dying days of the old Auckland City Council, residents made an impassioned plea for their concerns especially about ventilation, air quality and the impact on schools and playing fields to be addressed and pursued by the council as we near the start of a last-tracked hearing process.The council did a bit in their submission but said they were closing down so time had run out to get more pro-active on the issue.
This independent report says those residents are definitely at risk raising the reality that the air quality will exceed acceptable targets - we are talking targets set by the previous authorities.
To quote again:
“The assessment predicts exceedances of the Regional Air Quality Target for PM2.5 in the Oakley Creek Valley (sector 9 and existing parts of SH20). Existing levels of PM2.5 already exceed the Regional Air Quality Target in this area. Any increase in emissions is inconsistent with the objectives and policies of the Auckland Regional Plan: Air Land and Water and the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991, regarding safeguarding the lifesupporting capacity of air, and should be mitigated or offset.
“There are a number of residential houses very close to the proposed new motorway in Sector 9. In these locations we consider that exceedance of the National Environmental Standard for PM10 is likely. People living in these houses would be adversely affected by the proposed new motorway. The air quality assessment includes no information on minimum separation distances and whether these are adequate to ensure compliance with National Environmental Standards at residential properties.
“There are residential houses very close to the existing alignment of SH16 in sectors 1, 5 and 6. We consider that there is a real risk of exceedances of the Regional Air Quality Target for PM2.5, as well as the National Environmental Standard for PM10, at these houses very close to the road. This is a risk with or without the project in place. However any increase in road capacity, and any decrease in separation distance would exacerbate this risk. This issue has not been addressed to any extent by the assessment.”
After the March public open days conducted by NZTA, the agency made an expected plan change. The early presentations had the ventilation building at the end of the twin tunnel underground.
Now it’s at the tunnel’s southern portal, located in Alan Wood Reserve, but will no longer be partially underground but at ground level.
The completely above ground ventilation building and exhaust stack in the middle of the reserve will be over 100 m long, 35 m wide and 8 m high (with a 16 m stack on top of that).
Alan Wood reserve will be right in the middle of it
Still planned are ventilation stacks at each end of the tunnels. NZTA insists that its current modelling indicates that the vents of either 15m to 25m above road level would comply with national and regional air quality goals. It’s that modelling that the independent report questions.
The report is saying the NZTA assessment does not seriously consider alternatives (e.g. stack heights) or mitigation options as required by Schedule 2 of the RMA.
“We do not consider that alternative stack heights have been adequately considered as required by Schedule 2 of the RMA. The limited information provided suggests that a 15m stack may result in similar effects to a 25m stack, at least in the current built environment.
“We note that discharges from the ventilation stacks during emergency (fire) conditions have not been specifically assessed and have not been considered in our review. We also note that the NOR for the emergency stack at Craddock street has been withdrawn. We assume any emergency discharges will be dispersed via the two ventilation stacks. Emergency discharges should be considered in any evaluation of alternative stack heights.”
NZTA graphic of the view of the stack from the primary school yard
It is now up to the board of inquiry to take the environmental concerns seriously and challenge the official side of the evidence.
Green Party MP and spokesperson on resource management, David Clendon, says the independent review raises many of the air quality and traffic issues the community has been trying to raise with the NZTA. ”However, the Government is pushing this project through a new fast tracked process, which seems designed to limit community input.”
“We cannot get a good result if we do not take into account the concerns of the community, because they will be the ones who suffer from the long term adverse environmental and social effects of the motorway project.
“The vast majority of submissions oppose the project, and for good reason. It is an outdated and very expensive project that will do nothing to solve Auckland’s transport woes in the long term, but will have serious consequences on the liveability of the surrounding area.”
Personally, I don’t go along with the suggestion we should not finish off the ring route. But I am concerned about air quality and we need to be convinced the health of Aucklanders won’t suffer and no compromises are being made on the region’s agreed targets. It will be next year before a major study on Auckland motorway’s current pollution is released.
And just why would the road traffic figures be greatly under-estimated?
We've been officially assured the Oakley stream won't suffer
You can read the Emission Impossible report here.
A summary of submissions is here
12 Comments
Remember the NZTA estimates on the manukau link were far below real flows. Could connecting the other end of SH20 have a similar effect there?
When finished this motorway will become Auckland’s equivalent of London’s M 25 with long hold-ups.
Much North - South traffic, particularly trucks will go this way to avoid Spaghetti Junction and a large portion of the airport traffic from the northern North Shore as well.
The problems on the M25 were blamed on too many interchanges that were built too close to each other. Our interchanges are even closer. NW/Port merges with the Northern only 100 metres from the Wellington St entry, why was this one reopened and not closed permanently?
Ramp lights do nothing and certainly do not resolve the problem of excessive numbers of entry/exit points. I suspect we will have another Manurewa situation where the ring M/way meets the NW with a tail back of choking stationary motorists through the Waterview tunnel.
To add to the above, motorways breed traffic so any projection of use should always have say 25% added.
The NZTA continue to demonstrate they pay little regard to the vehicle pollution they promote and help cause.
Back in October 2010, when it was revealed many areas near roads in Auckland breach World Health Organisation safety, the NZTA’s spokesman Andy Knackstedt had this to say (from the Dominion Post):
It sounds like the reports today don’t support this notion that building more and larger roads in our city will reduce pollution. Does the NZTA and Andy Knackstedt really think we’re as stupid as they sound?
New Zealand is completely clueless when it comes to air pollution. It’s cities and towns are hugely polluted especially in the winter months, and I have found living here to be a frustrating experience, especially when being directly affected by two completely unnecessary sources of toxic pollution. Woodburners in the suburbs and after I moved house to get away from that, rural burning off of rubbish. And trying to deal with both I have found the local and regional councils are a deep pool of absolute incompetents who are completely scientifically illiterate.
So to expect the NZTA to give a damn about particulates would be outrageous going on how stupid the rest of New Zealand society is when it comes to air pollution.
One very practical measure that the locals around Waterview could do if they are worried about their exposure to particulate pollution would be to ban the use of their woodburners. And then if New Zealanders actually gave a stuff about their neighbours and not killing them with particulate pollution would be to extend the woodburner ban nationwide.
I would also like to point out that my current neighbour is a completely selfish w*nker and his burn off pile is too close to my house and every time he uses it smoke comes into my house, and every time it does and I complain to the council and they refuse to revoke his burn off permit then they are a complete bunch of incompetent f*ckwits.
“The report is saying the NZTA assessment does not seriously consider alternatives”
…such as better public transport, or measures against sprawl…
Matt, I’ve lived in New Zealand all my life and have never once died of suffocation due to air pollution. Neither have my siblings, my parents, my grandparents or my great grandparents. Nor have they suffered from any conditions caused by that.
You also seem to forget the various articles that have put New Zealand as one of the most livable countries in the world. With Auckland and Wellington being frequently put in the top ten cities in the world and all my overseas friends can’t stop going on about how great New Zealand is.
I’m not in a position to defend your neighbour. But I will say that he does sound very irresponsable. But thats just based on what you said and judging by your post you would probably still complain even if he moved it to the otnher side of town. I know people who have burnoffs responsibly and they shouldn’t be denied the right simply because some greenies don’t believe it fits with their ‘New World Order’.
I strongly recommend that if you find this country too stupid for your liking, then you should leave.
Eric, Don’t be so unconstructive. Why don’t you, and all the other people ignorant of the real harm that wood smoke toxins do, leave the country, and leave New Zealand for those of us who can treat their neighbours with respect and don’t poison them with wood smoke?
From
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/air/emission-design-standard/emission-design.html
“Particle pollution from home heating fires is estimated to cause between 350-800 premature deaths each year in New Zealand.” Hey and what is it, but 6 times the average rate of childhood asthma. No link there of course.
Why the hell should I have to endure something that I don’t like, find particularly annoying, and could kill me? Sorry for having an opinion. Do you want me to go back under a rock and not say something that you can’t deal with again? I’ll say it again People who burn off are bastards. They’re either ignorant bastards or selfish bastards.
How can this be resolved? Another ventilation stack in the middle somewhere?
I’m sorry Matt I missed the part where I said that you should have to endure it? I’m not leaving, I love my country. I also believe that I am entitled to rebut your point (I’m entitled to an opinion as well). I would also point out that my neighbours don’t really care whether I light a fire (as do most people) or not because they have a chimney as well. Because it’s not like for every person that lights a fire there is someone living next door who hates them and complains to the council.
I would say that the 350-800 range would have had pre-existing medical conditions. And I would also like a comparison with other countries on how our pollution is but judging from the fact that we also have one of the highest life expectancy rates in the world that the deaths are quite low by world standard.
I’m asking a question, I mean no disrespect and I’m merey trying to get facts. But have you talked to the neighbour personally? Because if the council won’t do anything then maybe you just need to talk it over?
I don’t really know how all the people who have burn offs are selfish? When I lived rural I used to regularly go round to friends and have a burn off, in fact all of our neighbours would have burn offs and we would regularly go round and help out. You seem to make out that people who have burn offs are a small hated minority, but the fact is that in most situations like the one with your neigbour
people wouldn’t really care.
Also with some quick calculations your chance of death from that smoke your neighbour produces is about 0.02% (based on 800 people dying a year) or 0.00875% (based on 350 deaths a year).
Eric, You told me I should leave the country, so every offence was taken. When I came to NZ I had two job offers. One in Christchurch and one in Wellington. Christchurch has an international reputation for winter pollution and I thought Wellington would be cleaner. I moved to Raumati on the Kapiti Coast to live near the sea thinking that would make the air cleaner, and my judgement was wrong. Still nights were intolerable. So I moved house, and bought in the country. My neighbour is an evil, evil bastard. I have explained to him that his smoke enters my house and asked him to move his burnoff pile away from my house or to only burn when I am not home. He now has a gun that he shoots off next to my house at regular intervals that the police inform me is not a firearm. The local council, the KCDC, are the do nothing to help council, either about the smoke or the gunfire noise.
Don’t understand the hostility to wood smoke. For some people it is intolerable, and they do have a reduced quality of life, and less options on where to live. I am going to have to move away, but have no idea where I could actually live unmolested in New Zealand. All that stuff about liveabilty for Auckland and Wellington is a joke. Air pollution is a huge part of the equation of liveability for me (and for other people, even if they are too stupid to recognise).
Back to the original topic. What is going to happen to people who can no longer live in their houses because of the now concentrated particulate pollution because of the new tunnel?
And despite what you think, burning off in the cities, towns and rural areas, no matter what it’s source, should be strictly controlled, and almost without exception, prohibited. Burning off in the country, should be, in my opinion, criminalised.
I am currently on holiday down on the coast up in Waikanae and during the winter months when I come down and all the huses around me are lighting fires I don’t find it particularly annoying (nor do I notice it at all). It actually sounds as if you have a serious problem if you can’t handle the pollution and I really don’t know what you should do. But I doubt you would gwet it any easier overseas.
I’m not going to sit around and watch as some foreigner slanders our country and calls us stupid so thats why I told you to leave if you found us too stupid (no reference to saying you have to endure it what so ever). I think that burn offs in the city showed be banned, but I don’t actually think many people do do them in the city anyway.
I have no beef with people doing them in the country, the area are not dense enough to create any real smog and people don’t do it at the same time either. I do think however that your neighbour is rather iresponsible, but I’m not in a position to comment on that since I’m not there. I don’t think that you should let it sour your views of New Zealand at all since most Kiwi neighbours in that situation would happily move their pile somewhere else and I’m sorry you had an unplesant experience.
I don’t know what will happen to the people who can’t handle the smoke. But I do know that Auckland is covered with motorways and cars so I think that very few people if any will move due to that.
[...] better buses?Auckland Transport:Dominion Road & K Street TransitwayAKT:Animated Auckland PT MapAKT:Report Slams Official Waterview Claims This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← Not the Nine [...]