This content requires Adobe Flash Player version
or later.
Either you do not have Adobe Flash Player installed,
or your version is too old,
or there is a problem with your Flash installation and we were unable to detect it.
impacts would be negligible/mitigated for either option
Table 1.8. Potential Impacts on Noise and Vibration Option 1: Pre-Installed Ducts
HDD Noise & Vibration
Jointing pits Noise and Vibration Traffic Noise & vibration Less vehicle movements More vehicle movements
(plant infrastructure and spoil transport).
Conclusion
There is a clear reduction in the noise and vibration impact by adopting Option 1. This is primarily as a result of the reduced excavation required, the removal of the requirement to undertake HDD of major obstacles at ten locations for each of East Anglia THREE and East Anglia FOUR, and the resulting reduction of vehicle movements.
Up to 40 locations (noise from equipment listed in Table 1.1)
Up to 40 locations (noise from equipment listed in Table 1.1)
Option 2: Open Trenching
0 locations
10 locations
Table 1.9.Potential Impacts on Traffic and Transport Option 1: Pre-Installed Ducts Option 2: Open Trenching
Road Safety
Congestion and driver delay Severance
Pedestrian delay Dust and dirt Conclusion
Lower volume of vehicle movements
Greater volume of vehicle movements
Overall, the implementation of Option 1: use of pre-installed ducts, would greatly reduce the number of vehicles on site during the cable installation phase, than if Option 2 were adopted. This is shown most clearly in the removal of the need for transporting excavated soil around and off the site in the direct cable lay method. Minimal excavations would be undertaken through Option 1 at the jointing pits, as opposed to along the full 37km long onshore cable route. This would therefore result in a lower impact.