appendix e prelim engineering assessment

7/27/2019 Appendix E Prelim Engineering Assessment

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/appendix-e-prelim-engineering-assessment 1/39



Report For

Riverstone Holdings Ltd

Fiordland Link ExperiencePreliminary Engineering Assessment of

Monorail Proposal

October 2009

Prepared By Opus International Consultants Limited

Will Parker Christchurch OfficePrincipal Civil & Structural Engineer 20 Moorhouse Avenue

PO Box 1482, Christchurch Mail Centre,Christchurch 8140, New Zealand

Telephone: (03) 363 5400Reviewed By Facsimile: (03) 365 7858

John Davies

Construction Engineer Date: October 2009

Report CSFile No: 6-DP038.00Reference: G:\clients.pvt\6dp038.00 - Fiordland

Link\Fiordland Link Experience – Final

Report.doc John Reynolds Dossier: CS2016Principal Civil Engineer Status: Final

© Opus International Consultants Limited 2009



Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 ii

KEY ABBREVIATIONS

The following abbreviations have been used within this report:

ATV All Terrain Vehicle

DoC Department of Conservation

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

FLE Fiordland Link Experience

Opus Opus International Consultants Limited

RHL Riverstone Holdings Limited

WCL Wildland Consultants Limited



Fiordland Link Experience – Preliminary Engineering Assessment of Monorail Proposal

Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Opus has been engaged by Riverstone Holdings Limited to undertake civil & structural engineering

work on the monorail component of the proposal within the DoC land (0-29.5km approximately).

Opus has undertaken site visits as follows:

• To assess key aspects of the engineering feasibility and construction methodology.

• To assist with route selection and assessment in conjunction with ecology & geomorphology

team.

Opus has carried out initial engineering assessments of:

• monorail geometric constraints.

• geotechnical considerations and slope stability.

• likely pier heights, beam curvature and working constraints.

In conjunction with HEB Construction, Opus has developed a conceptual design & construction

methodology, which is described in this report. This methodology and its environmental impact has

been refined during a series of workshops with the RHL team.

Based on the assessment work undertaken to date we confirm that it is feasible to

construct the monorail proposal through the DoC land. It is estimated that work on site wil l

require a construction period of 30 months.

Further work will be required as the monorail proposal develops. Key aspects are:

• Monorail alignment, to be developed in conjunction with a supplier and a ground model.

• Access/mountain bike track standards and locations to suit construction and operation.

• Geotechnical investigation, especially in the areas of more difficult topography.

• An environment management plan including further development of erosion and sediment

control measures.

• Development of monorail operational requirements.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 2

2 BACKGROUND

As described in the 2006 EIA, the proposed Fiordland Link Experience (FLE) currently consists of

the following components:

• A Catamaran from Queenstown to Mt Nicholas Station across Lake Wakatipu (20km).

• All terrain vehicles (ATVs) from Mt Nicholas Station to Kiwi Burn (45km).

• A Monorail from Kiwi Burn to Te Anau Downs (43.8km).

Visitors are then to be bused to and from Milford Sound and Te Anau. The entire journey length is

approximately 106km and has an estimated journey time of 123 minutes. Approximately 29.5km of

the proposed monorail route passes through Department of Conservation (DoC) land, the majority

of which is within the Snowdon Forest. The FLE is to initially cater for 160 passengers per

monorail trip, with this number being expanded in the future as demand increases.

The original concept for the FLE was developed in the 1980’s. The initial proposal was for a much

longer monorail (approx. 80km). This length was subsequently reduced due to cost and

construction time restraints and the availability of public road from Mt Nicholas Station to Kiwi

Burn.

In August 2003, RHL lodged a concession application to construct and operate the monorail

component of the FLE through DoC land. In September 2004 a draft Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA) was submitted to support the concession application. Since the draft EIA was

submitted, the monorail route has been revised. In August 2006 an EIA was submitted based on

the revised route as part of the concession application to DoC.

In May 2007, Wildland Consultants Limited (WCL) recommended a significant amount of further

detail was needed for the FLE proposal to be considered.

In November 2008, Mitchell Partnerships engaged Opus to undertake a civil & structural

engineering review and carry out further work on the monorail component of the proposal within

the DoC land. This report outlines the findings of the work carried out to date.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 3

3 SCOPE OF ENGINEERING INPUT

3.1 Scope

Opus has been engaged by Riverstone Holdings to provide civil & structural engineering input to

Riverstone Holding’s proposed Fiordland Link Experience monorail. The scope of this work has

broadly been in two stages:

• Review of the engineering feasibility, constructability and environmental impact of the monorail

proposal.

• Follow up work on key issues identified in the review and the development of design &

construction methodology.

3.1.1 Review

The first stage was completed in December 2008 and involved reviewing the previous concession

application. This was done interactively with Riverstone Holdings, Mitchell Partnerships and Ian

Stewart.

3.1.2 Follow Up Work

This stage commenced in February 2009 and involved development of a construction

methodology and an initial assessment of key aspects identified in the review.

The main focus of this work is summarised in the following table:

Objective Activities

Confirmation of monorail geometric constraints.

Limited geotechnical investigations and slope stability

assessment.

Initial survey to assess likely pier heights, beam curvature

and working constraints.

Clarification of environmental constraints.

Consider design & construction methodology including

programme in conjunction with a contractor.

Refine route in conjunction with ecology & geomorphology

team.

Preliminary assessment of water & wastewater services at

Kiwiburn Terminus

Discussion of proposal with monorail manufacturers to confirm

requirements for alignment /geometry e.g. superelevation, speed.

Desk top overview, site fly over and walkover of entire route through

DoC estate.

Site fly over, walkover and GPS survey of marked route through

DoC estate.

Consideration of environmental constraints in conjunction with RHL,

Mitchell Partnerships and other consultants.

Development of outline concept design with HEB Construction.

Workshop with Opus, HEB, Mitchell Partnerships, Ian Stewart and

RHL team.

Walkover of entire route in DOC estate, GPS survey of marked route.

Assessment of regional council and district plan requirements and

conceptual design.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 4

3.2 Site Visits

3.2.1 Work Undertaken for Development of Construct ion Methodology

Work was carried out on the 13 and 14 March by Will Parker & John Davies from Opus

Christchurch, and Noel Band, General Manager of HEB Construction, Tauranga. This visit

involved:

• Walking in from the Kiwiburn Footbridge with Ian Stewart and following the route up

towards the saddle.

• Discussing construction techniques on the ground.

• Spending a night in the Kiwiburn Hut.

• Flying over the entire route with Louise Robertson and Ian Stewart, landing at key

sections such as river crossings etc.3.2.2 Work Undertaken for Route Assessment and Survey

Work was carried out on the 13, 14 and 25-28 May by Will Parker & Graham Watson.

Route Assessment

Will walked the complete route from Kiwiburn Terminus to the end of the DoC land (30km

approx). This has involved:

• Fixing additional tape markers to enable the route to be easily followed (with orange

plastic marking tape).

• Marking out areas previously unmarked, for example from 10-12km.

• Assessing portions of the route with difficult topography, including looking for

alternatives where terrain is difficult.

• Initial discussions with ecology, landscape and geomorphology teams regarding

proximity of trees, alignment to maximise vistas and avoiding areas of instability. These

issues are by no means completely resolved at this stage but have been considered

where possible.

Survey

Graham undertook the surveying work using a Trimble GPS base and rover. A variety of

GPS survey techniques were employed including RT Differential, RTK, & Post Processing.

The majority of the DOC section of the route from 1-30 km was completed but time did not

permit the entire section to be surveyed because of the limited working day available due to

weather conditions such as fog. Sections not surveyed include:

• The section from 17.5-25.5km

• A section of the Kiwiburn saddle (where reception was very limited)

• A section around 27km (where reception was very limited)




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 5

4 ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY

4.1 Topography and Monorail Route

The proposed monorail route traverses a combination of ‘rolling’ country, areas of ‘steep’ terrain

consisting of gullies and small watercourses and more open river flats. The majority of the terrain

in DoC land is covered by native beech forest. The relatively flat sections of terrain have varying

levels due to alluvial terraces and the undulating nature of the topography.

These topographical constraints require the monorail to have considerable horizontal and vertical

curvature to obtain the required grades and limit the pier heights. Refer to the construction

methodology for further detail.

4.2 Route Descript ion

The monorail route is shown on drawings 30-34 with a bold coloured line. The colour and line type

relates to the terrain type which has been developed with the preliminary construction

methodology.

These drawings also indicate the following:

• Approximate kilometre marks starting at the Kiwiburn end.

• A 200m proposed corridor accommodating the monorail alignment and the

construction/mountain bike track. (refer to section 6, ‘The Monorail Envelope’ for further details)

The following captioned photos should be read in conjunction with the route and terrain type

drawings. A detailed description of the route including topography is included in Stephen Brown

Landscapes Report.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 6

Figure 1: Kiw iburn terminal location is on the far right. The route follows grass and tussock

covered terraces on the True Left o f the Mararoa River to where it crosses.

Figure 2: After following grass and tussock covered terraces, the route cuts through beech

forest before emerging onto further open terraces on the True Right of the Mararoa River.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 7

Figure 3: The route leaves the Mararoa Valley and enters the Kiwiburn Valley, crossing

grass and tussock. The route then climbs through beech forest towards the saddle.

Figure 4: The route descends from the saddle at the head of the Kiwiburn (far left) before

climbing to a low saddle near Limestone Hill. After descending and crossing the

Whitestone (mid photo on left), the route climbs onto a terrace on the True Right.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 8

Figure 5: The route follows the edge of the Beech forest up the edge of the ‘Finger’ towards

the head of Ascension Creek.

Figure 6: The route descends on the True Right of Ascension Creek, before crossing and

re-crossing the Upukerora. The route follows open terraces on the True Left and then True

Right of the Upukerora before climbing above Bluff Slip (refer to section 4.3 below).




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 11

Figure 9: Area of Instabilit y at 'Bluf f Slip' on the True Right of the Upukerora at 25.5km.

Figure 10: Erosion by the Upukerora at the Toe of 'B luff Slip'.

Area of Instability

Proposed Route




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 12

Figure 11: Scarp at top of the area of instabilit y at ‘Bluff Slip’

4.4 Tree Fall

There has been a large amount of tree fall at the site, a significant amount of this seems to have

occurred recently. It appears to have been caused by a combination of wet ground, snow and

wind.

The risk of a Beech Tree falling onto the monorail beam needs to be managed, and a number of

measures can be considered such as:

• Providing a realistic tree clearance width including "at risk" trees beyond the minimum

clearance width.

• Establish a process for identification, assessment and management of falling risk trees.

• Developing contingency plans, such as beam repair or replacement.

• Operational systems, for example remote detection and/or visual checking of the route on a

daily basis.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 13

Figure 12: Beech Forest beside the Mararoa River, note the presence of tree fall which has

been cut to clear the path.

4.5 Survey

As noted in section 3.2.2, the majority of the DOC section of the route from 1-29.5 km wascompleted but time did not permit the entire section to be surveyed with the Trimble GPS.

The incomplete sections have been in-filled using hand held GPS data. We have been able to

assess the accuracy of this hand held data by comparison with the Trimble GPS data where both

were obtained. This data is sufficiently accurate for establishing a corridor.

We consider that LiDAR would be very effective, even in the areas of Beech Forest. We have

surveyed some areas at Te Anau Downs for 'ground truthing' which would be required with the

LiDAR.

4.6 Geotechnical Conditions

An appreciation of the anticipated geotechnical conditions has been obtained from a complete

walkover of the route to undertake ‘above ground’ site observations during the site visits and a

desk top review of geology. These investigations consisted of probing from the surface, observing

materials in stream beds and banks, and soils exposed by tree fall. We note that further

specialised geotechnical investigations will be required as the project progresses.

The geology of the area is indicated on the extract of the geological map included in the appendix.

This shows that the only rock outcropping is in the Mararoa River near the Kiwiburn terminus. The

majority of the route crosses outwash gravels and tills (i.e. boulders, cobbles, gravels, sands, silts

and clays).




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 14

Figure 13: Footbridge across the Mararoa, note the bedrock in th is locality.

Figure 14: Mararoa River Bank, note predominance of gravels and cobbles.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 15

The flatter areas of the route appear to have more of the finer grained soils near the surface, for

instance in the Kiwiburn (refer to figure15), Whitestone and Upukerora Rivers. These flatter areas

often have poor drainage and are relatively ‘wet’. The presence of water near the surface willmake foundation construction more difficult, although this can be mitigated by employing

foundations with short driven piles.

Figure 15: Kiwiburn Stream, note the presence of both gravel and fine grained soils.

The Mararoa River has wider river terraces and these appear to comprise coarser materials

expected to be suitable for shallow pad type foundations (refer to figure 14). At the Kiwiburn Swing

bridge there is an outcrop of bedrock. This is covered with surficial deposits on the river banks.

Bedrock creates the ‘rapids’ in the Mararoa River at this location. The outcrop only extends for a

few hundred metres downstream but it may be encountered below bed level at the proposed river

crossing location.

River valleys on the route generally contain alluvial gravels to an unknown depth, which will requiredeep pier foundations where they are within an existing waterway that has the potential to scour.

An initial desk top review of slope stability in the area has shown that the route is generally not

subject to instability. Figure 36 from the IGNS document Geology of the Wakatipu Area is included

in appendix C. There is an area identified on this figure which occurs at 19km approx. It is noted

that this area is not steep and is well vegetated with mature beech forest.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 16

Figure 16: A debris fan at a tributary on the True Right of the Whitestone at 13.4 km. This

material has been washed down from the upper sections of the tributary near the bush line

where the watercourse is very steep.

There are isolated slope stability issues along the proposed monorail route. These are generally

very localised, in the order of 2-4m in height, where creeks, streams or rivers have eroded the toe

of a side slope. These can readily be avoided by selecting the detailed alignment and pier location

to clear these features.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 17

Figure 17: Bank at stream below Kiwiburn Hut, note the fine grained layer on the left which

is towards the Kiwiburn.

There is a significant area of instability on the True Right bank of the Upukerora near TakaroLodge (26km – refer to figure 18). This is the end of a spur which shows signs of long term and

recent instability. This area has been avoided by climbing above the end of the spur on ground

which is unaffected by any existing or predicted effect of instability. There are other alternatives

including following a route on the True Left on the river terraces, but these have not been

considered further at this stage.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 18

Figure 18: Till material being eroded at Bluf f Slip on the Upukerora

The monorail route also crosses concealed seismic fault traces which are not considered to be

active. The effect of these faults has not been investigated in detail but a preliminary seismicassessment indicates that ground shaking associated with these faults will be less severe than

that of the alpine fault which is approximately 70km distant.

Based on the investigations undertaken to date, we consider that the geotechnical conditions are

suitable for construction of the monorail. However, the ground conditions will have a very

significant effect on design, construction and cost. Further specific investigations will be required

as the design is developed.

4.7 Monorail Geometric Alignment

A key aspect in defining the alignment is the capability of the monorail train, especially in terms of

grade, radius, super elevation and associated speed, warp rate etc. Information has been sought

and obtained from a number of monorail manufacturers and more detailed information will be

required to progress the design and selection of a manufacturer. A summary of the information

obtained from monorail manufacturers is included in appendix B.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 19

4.8 River Crossings

Rivers along the monorail route consist of semi-braided alluvial channels, some with relatively wide

flood plains. Piling for the complete width of the active flood channel is proposed to guard against

scouring of shallow foundations. These are likely to be in the order of 1m diameter concrete piles

installed approximately 10m deep into the alluvial gravels to allow for potential future scour of the

river bed. It is likely that deeper pad type foundations could be utilised in the more stable areas of

the flood plain following further investigation.

Figure 19: Location of the Mararoa River Crossing at 1.3km.

We note that for each of the major river crossings, heavy piling equipment could gain access via

public roads and existing tracks on private property.

All pile locations would be positioned to avoid any work within watercourses. We note however that

with semi braided alluvial channels, water courses do change over time and therefore some

temporary flow diversions may be necessary.

Construction techniques will be developed to minimise disturbance to the river bed and ensure

materials, spoil and concrete is carefully contained and removed off site upon completion of

concreting. This methodology will be developed and become part of a construction environment

management plan.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 20

Figure 20: Upukerora Showing Semi Braided Channels.

4.9 Foundation Design and Construction

Three foundation types are proposed. These consist of bored piles, precast pads and precast

pads supported by driven piles. These foundation types are shown in concept form on the

drawings.

Precast foundations are preferred as they minimise the amount of work on site, and hence plant

and labour requirements are reduced. The foundations would be precast in sizes which allow

ease of handling and assembly by small plant on site. There is also no need for concrete mixing

on site with the associated water requirements and waste materials. Because there is less site

work and materials, they will have a lower environmental impact.

A piled foundation type will be required within the alluvial gravels of the river channels, asdescribed in the river crossing section above. The precast pads would be used in all other areas

where suitable, except for wet and/or soft ground conditions where the pads with driven piles are

proposed.

Excavation and backfilling in the till deposits should be readily achieved with small excavators.

4.10 Piers

The proposed precast concrete piers would be designed for a range of heights to suit the monorail

alignment. At this stage it is intended that the piers would be grouted into the precast concrete

foundation pads.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 21

4.11 Monorail Beam

The proposed rail beam system is prestressed concrete beams spanning 20m between piers, with

an allowance for steel beams on longer spans or in areas of tight curvature. The final running

surface will influence ride comfort, refer to section 5.7 for further information.

4.12 Kiw i Burn

An outline of the water and wastewater services required for the Kiwiburn Terminus is provided

below. A copy of the site plan, drawing number 40, is in appendix A.

4.12.1 Stormwater

Stormwater from the Terminus roof will be captured and discharged directly to ground or to

surface water via downpipes. Stormwater from hardstand, carpark and roads would be

directed into adjacent grassed swales to provide some treatment.

During construction of the new Terminus, erosion & sediment control measures will be

required to prevent discharge of sediments to the surrounding environment.

4.12.2 Sewer

The Terminus will contain toilet and handwashing facilities available for use by both

monorail passengers and day visitors to the area. Wastewater will be treated using a

septic tank based system with a packed media bed reactor system or similar for effluent

polishing. The tanks can be buried adjacent to the Terminus building.

The treated effluent will be discharged to a disposal area. Options for disposal include drip

irrigation fields, an evapo-transpiration system, or a sand trench system. A suitable system

can be selected once detailed investigation of soil types and infiltration rates is carried out.

A disposal field area of approximately 2000 m2

is required for treated effluent based on

initial user numbers, and there is sufficient suitable land available within the site for both

initial and projected numbers. It is likely that the disposal areas will be close to the

boundary on the higher ground to the south of the site. Obtaining written approval from the

adjoining landowner is therefore recommended.

4.12.3 Water Supply

An estimated 15,000 litres of water per day is required to service the Terminus. This can

be taken from the nearby Mararoa River, with the intake location and structure to be

confirmed during detailed design. Water will be pumped from the river to the building, and

stored in tanks which can be situated below the building deck.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 22

5 CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY

This section outlines the construction methodology which is being developed by Opus and Noel

Band, General Manager of HEB Construction. Input has also been provided from the RHL team.

This section should be read in conjunction with the following documents which are attached:

• Opus drawings showing approximated terrain types along the route and typical plans and

cross sections in the different terrain types

• The preliminary draft programme for the project.

5.1 Construction Environment Management

An overall construction environment management plan will be developed for the project. A keycomponent of this plan will be management of erosion and sediment.

5.1.1 Erosion & Sediment Control

Erosion and sediment control will be managed as part of a construction environment

management plan. We envisage that draft details of the erosion and sediment control

measures will be developed during design and finalised prior to construction.

There are various methods to control erosion and sedimentation and the methods adopted

will be specific to each situation. Some of the methods we envisage include:

• Diversion channels/bunds.

• Contour drains.

• Sediment retention ponds.

• Grit traps.

• Silt fences.

5.2 Depots & Accesses

Three main construction depots along the route are proposed as follows:

1. Across the Mararoa River from a farm near the Kiwiburn valley

2. In the Whitestone River Valley

3. Near the bush edge at the end of Retford Road

Each depot would be expected to have:

• Laydown areas for components i.e. beams, piers & precast foundations.

• Fuel storage.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 24

Figure 21: 12tonne Excavator for track c learance and foundation excavation, placement and

backfilling.

Figure 22: Four Wheel Drive Support Vehicle.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 25

5.4.2 Survey Team

These teams would carry out initial pegging of the routes for clearance. Detailed survey

would then be undertaken for foundations and piers, and for design and construction of the

beams.

• 4 teams of 2 people.

• 4WD truck.

5.4.3 Construct ion Track/Erosion & Sediment Control Construction

Teams would clear topsoil to one side for later re-use, install drainage and sediment control

measures (refer to section 5.1.1 for further information) as required and construct a

metalled track.

• 4 teams of 3-4 people.

• 12t excavator per team.

• 4wd trucks bringing in metal, silt fences, geotextile & pipes as required.

5.4.4 Piling of River Foundations

Access to each piled foundation would be constructed including all environmental

management measures. The piling rigs themselves would be self propelled on either tracks

or wheels. Refer to section 4.7 for further details on river crossings.


• 35t piling rig per team.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 26

Figure 23: 35tonne Piling Rig for River Foundation Piles.

5.4.5 Excavation and placement of pad foundations & pier & backfill ing

The small tracked machines would excavate each foundation placing excavated material

nearby. Each component (foundations and pier) would be placed in position by theexcavator and, following curing of the grout to secure the pier in place, the foundation

would be backfilled with the excavated material. The quantity of surplus soil would be small

due to the small volume taken up by the precast foundation pad.


• 12t excavator per team.

5.4.6 Excavation and placement of foundations with driven piles & pier &

backfilling

The plant and equipment would generally be the same as for the pad footings. The

equipment required is therefore covered in the previous section, but with a pile driving

attachment for the excavator. Each foundation component would be placed in position by

the excavator and piles driven by a driving unit attached to the excavator. This driving unit

will use established techniques to restrict noise to acceptable limits. Following placement of

the pier the methodology would be the same as for the precast foundation pad.

• Pile driving attachment for 12t excavator.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 27

5.5 Access Track and Component Transportation

The plant involved is expected to be approximately as follows:

5.5.1 Depot to Construct ion Front

Travelling to the several construction fronts from each depot during each step in the

construction process would be:

• 4WD utility towing a fuel bowser.

• 4WD equipped with mechanical & hydraulic breakdown gear & mechanic.

• 4WD towing a compressor.

• Survey team.

5.5.2 Foundation pads & piers

Equipment used to transport the precast concrete foundation and pier components to their

specific location on site will be:

• 10t Hiab bringing in precast foundations in the open/flat terrain.

• Tracked, or possibly 4WD vehicle in difficult terrain.

Figure 24: Four Wheel Drive HIAB for Transport ing Components.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 28

Figure 25: Tracked Vehicle for Transport ing Components in Diffi cult Terrain.

5.5.3 Placement of piers

The grouting vehicle would be completely self contained and able to carry all materials

which would be mixed on site and pumped into each foundation with no spillage.

• 4WD grouting equipped utility vehicle to grout pier into pad.

5.5.4 Transportation for river foundations

These vehicles would follow the route created for the piling rig. Specific measures would be

put in place to prevent spillage as outlined in section 4.7 and 5.1.

• Flat bed truck with reinforcing cage.

•

Concrete trucks.

5.6 Erection of Monorail Beams

Beams would be placed with a launching gantry operating from the section of monorail beam

already completed.

• Beams would be brought in on a jinker operating on the completed monorail beam from the

construction depot.

• Beams would be placed by launching gantry with one gantry operating from each depot,

therefore 3 or 4 gantries would be required.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 29

At river crossings it may be preferable to have longer span beams to reduce the number of piers

within the active river channel. Construction of these spans could be carried out using two rough

terrain cranes where access permits.

5.7 Completion of Monorail Running Surface

At this stage we have considered several options to complete the final running surface to provide

the required ride comfort. We have made an allowance for site work required to complete this

component of work.

We anticipate 4 crews of 2 people would be required to undertake this task.

5.8 Rehabilitation

More consideration of the best approach to backfilling, rehabilitation and restoration is required

including inputs from specialists. At this stage we have scoped the following:

(a) Removal of the temporary construction track on the monorail alignment and the erosion &

sediment control measures.

• 4 teams of 3-4 people

• 12t excavator

• 4wd trucks removing metal & silt fences etc

(b) Rehabilitation & restoration has been outlined by others including within the Mitchell

Partnerships Ecology Report. This will be further developed and implemented in conjunction

with DoC.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 30

6 THE MONORAIL ENVELOPE

A 200m wide easement is being sought for the monorail route. This width would accommodate the

monorail and the construction/mountain bike track, and has been proposed for the followingreasons:

• To provide a visual and experiential separation from the monorail, expected to be 70-80m

in flat terrain.

• The mountain bike track could be on either side of the monorail, but is intended to be on

the uphill side in sloping terrain.

• To provide some flexibility to suit topographic features, such as streams, gullies, steep

banks etc.

As the monorail design is further developed, the optimal construction/mountain bike track location

can be determined.

6.1 Monorail Alignment

The approximate line that the monorail will follow has been assessed on site and an indicative

route has been marked as shown on drawings 30-34 in appendix A. This is based on:

• Initial field survey data of the route determined on site.

• Expected capability of the monorail train, such as grade.

Further work is required to fit a three dimensional monorail alignment to the ground. This can be

done when a more detailed ground model is available. We note that the monorail will have

geometric constraints such as:

• Minimum radii for curves.

• Maximum grade.

Due to the constraints of the monorail and the topography of the route, the monorail alignment will

have some scope to be adjusted to avoid features such as large trees, banks, bluffs, creeks.

However due to the form of construction, the monorail beam could span some of these features.

Tree clearance will be required on the monorail alignment to provide a safe operating envelope for

the trains. This is expected to be a width between trees of 4-6m. It is expected that trees will need

to be assessed beyond this envelope and some, for example those in poor condition, rotten or

leaning, will need to be removed. For further information, refer to section 4.3, tree fall.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 31

6.2 Construction/Mountain Bike Track

The construction/mountain bike track can be located to avoid trees, minimise impact on vegetation

and to take advantage of the topography to minimise earthworks. It is envisaged that the

construction track would become a permanent mountain bike track at the completion of the

monorail construction. The 3m wide mountain bike track would also be located to provide a visual

separation from the monorail. At this stage this is intended to be 20-30m on sloping ground with

the track generally on the uphill side, and 70-80m in flat country. Refer to drawing 006 for an

indicative layout.

A number of 3m wide spur tracks would be required to gain access to the monorail during

construction of foundations and piers. It is envisaged that one spur track would provide access to

a number of foundations (10-15) that can be constructed linearly (i.e. from the farthest foundation

back) without affecting overall project progress.

The route for the construction/MTB track and the spur tracks would be selected to ensure that

there is always a significant barrier of bush visible from the monorail train (i.e. there is no view

straight down a track or route). The junction points where the spur tracks meet the monorail route

would be selected to minimise bush clearance and could have special reinstatement and

replanting treatment.

The construction track would be located to cross streams at the most advantageous location (e.g.

where the stream is at its narrowest or the banks highest) reducing or eliminating the impact on

the stream environment. At stream crossings, the main track or spur track would make use of light

bridging units spanning bank to bank, thereby minimising disturbance to the stream itself. At the

major rivers, permanent lightweight bridges will be required for mountain bikes.

The main construction track and the spur tracks would be routed to avoid trees wherever possible,

thereby preserving as much of the canopy as possible.

The construction and spur tracks would follow a route that takes advantage of better topography

and avoids crossing environmentally sensitive swampy ground that the monorail crosses,

accepting that access to each foundation would be necessary but for only a few trips for

equipment.

During construction the construction track will need to have passing bays for vehicles travelling in

opposite directions. These will be incorporated into the junctions with the spur tracks which are

spaced at approximately 200-300m and located to avoid trees and ecologically sensitive areas.

The majority of these will be reinstated at the end of the construction phase.

The construction/mountain bike track will require maintenance and will therefore need to be

designed for long term vehicle traffic. This track could also be used for emergency access for the

mountain bike track users or for the monorail.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 33

• Clearing fallen trees.

• Maintaining culverts.

• Periodic metalling of the track surface.

Maintenance on the monorail alignment will be required for:

• Vegetation management.

• Clearing fallen trees.

• Inspection/ maintenance of the monorail system.

It is anticipated that this maintenance would be carried out from rail mounted equipment. However,

the mountain bike track could provide emergency access if required.




Ref: 6DP038.00

October 2009 34

7 CONCLUSIONS

Based on our work on the project to date, we draw the following conclusions:

• Design and construction of a monorail on the proposed route through the DoC land is feasible.

• Initial information obtained from monorail suppliers indicates that the grades and curves

required for the proposed route can be achieved by a conventional monorail train.

• The construction track which runs parallel to the monorail and will become a mountain bike

track provides an efficient means of constructing foundations and piers for the monorail.

• Precast concrete pad foundations and piers are proposed where practicable to minimise site

work and environmental impact. Deep reinforced concrete piles will be required for crossing

the active flood channel of the three main rivers.

• Initial contractor involvement in the development of the preliminary design and construction

methodology has shown that a 30 month programme is challenging but achievable.

• Key aspects of the environmental management during construction will be the careful choice

of small plant and equipment to achieve efficiency while minimising environmental impact, and

the commitment by RHL to using completed monorail sections for the transport of materials.

• Water and wastewater services for the Kiwiburn Terminus can be provided using proven

systems.

Further work will be required as the monorail proposal develops. Key aspects are:

• Monorail alignment, to be developed in conjunction with a supplier and a ground

model.

• Access/mountain bike track standards and location to suit construction and operation.

• Geotechnical investigation, especially in the areas of more difficult topography.

• An environment management plan including further development of erosion and

sediment control measures.

•

Development of monorail operational requirements.




8 APPENDICES

Appendix A : Drawings

Appendix B : Monorail Informat ion

Appendix C : Geotechnical Data

Appendix D : Preliminary Construction Programme

appendix e prelim engineering assessment

Documents