Epping to Thornleigh Third Rail Track

1) Why is the existing footbridge south of Pennant Hills Rd being replaced? Can it not be modified to accomodate the third track instead of wasting taxpayers money on a new bridge?
2) Improvements to the northern side footpath on the existing Pennants Hills Rd Bridge which would also be better value for money instead of the proposed new bridge.

Long term environmental sustainability should be considered in all options; a full value engineering exercise on replacement of an existing functional asset should be undertaken to justify the proposal.

I hereby register protest & request the scrapping of the proposed Epping to Thornleigh Third Track on the following grounds and with the following areas requiring urgent & complete addressing:

* use of rock blasting must not be used due to damage of homes (unstable soils), affect on amenity, affect on wildlife, damage to endangered ecological community
* the fait acomplis nature of the public consultation given that there is no way for the community to prevent the procedure of the project with the government already having decided to proceed regardless of / influencing the findings of the EIS and narrowing it's scope to only one option failing to adequately explore others. For example, printed on the invitation to comment on the extremely long & detailed EIS is the construction complaints line. That certainly does not inspire confidence of a transparent process where the community's concerns and desire not to have the project will be adequately addressed.
* A complete lack of public consultation at earlier stages of option considerations including from truly independent experts
* damage / removal of endangered ecological community with no make good or offset planned
* no noise or visual impact make good planned along route
* No diesel particulate pollution measuring pre and post
*no diesel particulate pollution limits for residential area immediately surrounding the rail line
* no alternative route or solution considered - such as PPP to fund underground line or inland line not affecting established residential areas, endangered ecological communities and heritage conservation areas
* no noise pollution limits to protect residential amenity - engine noise & wheel squeal
* no protection / limits / testing for coal dust to protect public health using precautionary principle
* no offer to buy immediately adjacent homes that will lose value & amenity & be unsaleable during construction & operation
* inadequate time frame without coordinated long term town planning; resulting in me being allowed me to build in 2009 within 60m of the existing train line with no notification at any stage that a freight line was planned on my side of the existing train line that when finished will be less than 50m from my front door, spew cancer inducing coal dust & diesel particulate pollution, destroy visual and audible amenity, destroy property value, affect structural integrity of my property, destroy the endangered ecological community of the Wongala Cres Bushland, affect local wildlife, destroy cultural heritage in the Cheltenham Beecroft Heritage Conservation Area.
* this project was not taken by politicians to the local or state elections. There was no opportunity for the public to vote for or against the project. I did not vote for this. I do not want this. I do not believe it is needed. It is not value for the taxpayer dollar. It harms the community and benefits large (and declining) business. It does not support a renewable economy which NSW must transition to and rather perpetuates the declining but politically powerful mining industry.
* the project has not been been properly discussed or planned in public discourse. It is being rushed through planning approvals. No one knows about this project. Even people living alongside the train line do not know or understand the implications. We certainly weren't advised when purchasing or developing our properties.
* no offset or ongoing repair to endangered ecological community post project
* no compensation or offsets for damage to heritage conservation area

I also request that the following requests for compensation for nearby residents be immediately addressed and included in the budget for the project proposal:

* compensation to nearby residents (within 100m) for loss of amenity & sleep during construction & operation
* compensation to nearby residents (within 60m) for loss of property value during construction & operation
* compensation for structural damage and funding of the appropriate pre and post structural integrity measurements for houses within 60m
* buy back scheme for houses within 60m of the proposed track due to loss of livability and property value - at today's value of homes as given by local real estate agent valuation
*liaison with Valuer General to ensure revision of property values within 500m off new track
*measures to reduce visual and audible impacts of the freight line

I object to the proposal due to the removal of large trees and vegetation which is generations old. This will have a significant detrimental impact on the environment, particularly the look and feel of the suburbs involved. These suburbs epitomise the long established leafy, green atmosphere of the bushland shire and this will be destroyed (as happened to Epping around the new rail station). I am particularly concerned with the destruction of trees and vegetation around Pennant Hills station and all along Yarrara Rd Pennant HIlls. However, I am also concerned about the lovely stations of Beecroft and Cheltenham which will be adversly impacted.

My second concern is the long term increase in noise levels of freight trains. This is already a major issue for residents in these suburbs and past strategies to mitigate noise levels have not worked. Therefore I do not accept this issue will be properly dealt with in this project either.

I, XXXX XXXX strongly object to the Epping to Thornleigh Third Track Proposal and consider that the EIS is very limited in its approach to the impact on the area that I have lived in for all of my 54 years.

I attended school at Cheltenham Girls High School and then once married, I have lived in the area for the past 26 years, so my depth of knowledge Cheltenham and Beecroft and its heritage is fairly substantial.

This track proposal will change the character and heritage of a suburb where I have spent my entire life.

The increase in noise from the freight trains over the last 26 years has been substantial. If this proposal goes ahead the noise levels will be intolerable. The study fails to address the increase in coal dust from uncovered wagons and diesel particulate matter, a known carcinogen a problem that had to be addressed with the M5 tunnel. I play tennis at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and you can smell the diesel and see the fumes in the air and it takes considerable time for these to disipate. The study does not appear to address the health issues associated with these fumes and diesel matter let alone the excruciatingly loud engines that power the trains.

Do not allow these private freight operators line their pockets with profits at the expense of the health of our community. Restrictions must be imposed on these freight rail operators.

Another major concern I have is that these locomotives are extremely old. We are not allowed to purchase cars any longer that run on leaded fuel yet we are allowing privately owned freight companies use these outdated locomotives that pollute our beautiful suburb. These private companies that are profiting from the haulage of coal and freight should be made to use modern locomotives through legislation, just as we are made to use unleaded fuel.

In the EIS I saw very little reference to the Beecroft Cheltenham Heritage Conservation Area, the whole fabric of this community is its heritage. You might note there are no shops at Cheltenham. That is a deliberate attempt to keep the village atmosphere in tact in this quiet little suburb. The proposed new Cheltenham Station must take into account our heritage and fit into the community landscape. Firstly I would like to say that I have lived at Cheltenham for 26 years and following the upgrade to the Epping Railway station there was an immediate impact on the area where I live. You can no longer drive to our local station and park your car to commute to the city. Residents from afar, often even from the adjacent suburb of Epping, now drive to Cheltenham to park their car and take the train to the city. No doubt this is due to a lack of car parking spaces and poor planning at Epping. No doubt with the upgrade to Cheltenham Station we will again see a reduction in the number of car parking spaces available to the locals and an influx of outsiders heading to our suburb to the new upgraded station.

Currently there is a small intimate car park on the Sutherland side of Cheltenham railway station and another carpark on the Beecroft road side. I note from the plan there will only be one large car park on the Beecroft road side of the station. This change just adds to the changing face of Cheltenham that will result from the implementation of the third track.

Insufficient investigation has been done into the impact on vegetation in the area and the depletion of vegetation in the rail corridor. Cheltenham is a bushy, treed suburb with lots of families enjoying the outdoors walking and riding their bikes. With the loss of the vegetation along the corridor beside the train track we lose the peace and tranquility provided by a treed and bushy landscape and instead are faced with a stark railway landscape. This is not acceptable in a HCA listed area.

This project cannot be approved. Consider other alternatives. We are looking at freight movements into 2028 and beyond so a third track looks to be merely a stop gap measure. Look to a proper fix to this problem by investing sufficient funds into the project. Perhaps we should consider placing a toll on the railway track as we do on motorways. The motorist pays to use the tolls why dont the freight operators pay to use the railway lines and this way we can consider more expensive long term solutions to the problem. Build underground tunnels, go out west consider the options for the long term future and health of our community and hence our nation.

97 Wongala Crescent
Pennant Hills
NSW 2120

Director Infrastructure Projects
Epping to Thornleigh Third Track Project - SSI 5132
NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
Sydney
NSW 2001

Epping to Thornleigh Third Track Project - SSI 5132

In accordance with the guidance issued during your exhibition for the Epping to Thornleigh Third Track Project - SSI 5132 and as a resident of a property next to the proposed track I am submitting the following concerns, observations and requests.

The noise impact is my greatest concern followed closely by the likely visual impact caused by the removal of flora.

Overall noise analysis is very limited with some consideration being given to LA10, LAeq, and other statistical measurements. The nature of the freight train movement is such that excessive noise is generated for a few minutes only. The most lower frequency intrusive noise is generated by diesel locomotives travelling uphill (currently about 10 per day), with higher frequency wheel squeal from poorly maintained rolling stock travelling down hill (again about 10 per day), and rolling stock bunching. Given the short duration of these activities (a few minutes), the cumulative duration of the excessive events is about 20 mins per day. These excessive noise events will only affect the statistic modelling if LA1 is considered. The assessment does not consider LA1. Indeed the duration and nature of the excessive noise events is not presented in the assessment. Worryingly the effects of the actual frequencies and their impact is not considered at all. It should be! Indeed I experience pain in my ears with some of the peak level higher frequency `screeching' a better description than squeal.

* An Operational Noise Model has been established, and is supposed to be validated in the assessment in section 4.8 of Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. At the most significant location, L3, the measured and modelled differ by 5dBA (LAmax). This lack of agreement is disregarded as arising from "high maximum noise events of short duration". This is indeed the case, and should have triggered further study of the noise effects, and development of a reliable model. It was not, and hence the model lacks credibility. There is no reporting or indeed justification of the assumptions which are used by the model, nor any justification of the very limited sample size. The high maximum noise events of short duration are the source of the community concerns. It should be noted that location L3 is near a tight radius (400m) curve, and steep gradient. Its exposure is typical of the exposure to noise that occurs between Beecroft and Pennant Hills Stations. However, no recordings were taken from Wongala Crescent on the Pennant Hills side which could experience a sound channel with a potentially sound focusing effect especially for the uphill trains.

* In Table 11 of Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, LAmax of 99dBA is recorded with the comment that this arises from "wheel squeal". This apparently did not trigger further analysis, and in the absence of such further measurement leads to the conclusion that it occurs on numerous train movements. This concurs with my own personal observations.

* The EIS also reports that the freight train movements will increase from the current level of 20 per week day, to 48 per week day in 2026, an increase of 140%.

* In the absence of proper analysis and consideration in the assessment, the only conclusion is the noise events in excess of 99dBA will increase by 140% through the operation of the project. It is indeed likely that the effect will be greater than 99 dBA at residences on the west side of the track, where the noise generation will move closer from the construction of the third track. The current distance from my house to the nearest point of the current track is approximately 50m, with the new line this will be reduced to 40-43m from my front door, essentially a 14-20% encroachment on my property. When standing at my front door on my verandah I am at eye level with the top of the each train, which I can see clearly through gaps in the existing flora. My ears are in the direct path for the locomotive engine noise emissions. Yet the report recommends that noise barriers would be ineffective. I do not agree with this assessment.

* The assessment acknowledges that measures such as LAmax and LAeq do not "provide a complete picture" and recognises that "subjective impacts" should be considered, and suggests that these should be considered when determining feasible mitigation measures. The authors of the assessment state that this should be done in the future, after determination of the conditions of the project, and during detail design. This is not acceptable, and avoids the very purpose of the EIS. The impacts need to be assessed as part of the EIS, and required mitigation determined and mandated in the approvals.

* Several mitigation measures are noted in the assessment, however most are rejected, leaving only three as recommended as being "reasonable and feasible". The three recommended mitigations are:
o Concreted ballasted bridges - there are no bridges proposed at the steep and low radius sections of the project where the noise impacts are highest.
o Track lubrication - no evidence of effective implementation of such measures is given. It is understood from the exhibition that a trial is being conducted in the vicinity of my property, if this is the case then it is not working. It is unlikely that such measures would be effective on tight curves and steep grades. Effective implementation would require reliable maintenance. There is no evidence that reliable maintenance has, could or would be carried out. There is no evidence provided to suggest that these measures would effect the noise generators - locomotive engine noise, wheel squeal of rolling stock bunching.
o Building treatment - suggestion of this measure indicates failure of the authors to understand the nature of the community in which the environmental amenity of the area is a key consideration. It would not mitigate the noise during the many months of the year that I want enjoy the outdoor aspects of my property, I am not going to sit indoors for 8 months or more of the year.
o Additionally there are no recommendations for the legislative requirements that could be applied to the operators of these trains to reduce acoustic and exhaust emissions.

The recommended mitigation are inappropriate and inadequate. It is not the EIS mandate to decide what is reasonable and feasible!

The ecology report offers no recommendation except to minimise the impact of the project on the existing flora and fauna. This does not protect our environment at all. Bland statements that not all potential fauna were observed during the survey does nothing to protect the Echidna which I saw in the bushes opposite my property less than a week ago.

The Air Quality report offers no evidence of assessment along the existing track and cannot be considered as a valid assessment, again flawed and ill-considered. To report on particulates from Lindfield has no relevance to me sitting on my veranda experiencing a 140% increase in the level of exposure to the carcinogens produced by the particulates within in the diesel exhaust emissions.

In summary, the EIS results and interpretations in particular those, which relate to community health and quality of life are flawed and ill considered. Many recommendations are discounted which seems to favour the project aims and are clearly not to the benefit of the community, which is clearly contrary to the objectives of an EIS.

The sample size of the Ambient noise levels was very limited, only 4 residential monitors being used along the length of the proposed track. Modelling requires assumptions to derive the output and can be manipulated to achieve a desired outcome, no assumptions were provided. Additionally a small sample size creates a distortion, which can favour the potential to reach a desired conclusion, commonly called situating the appreciation.

Why was my house for example not considered to host a monitor on the Pennant Hills side of Wongala Crescent, it is as close to the railway line as the property on Wongala Crescent on the Beecroft side but is arguably at the end of a `sound-channel' which may generate an amplification or focusing effect for trains going `up' the line. Current noise levels exceed recommended safe levels, the frequency of which is going to increase by as much as 140%. ALL means to mitigate the noise should be taken, which cumulatively may provide some relief. To dismissively discount noise barriers across the project is wrong and must be reviewed.

My property and a small number of houses which are almost level with the track on the Pennant Hills side of Wongala Crescent would clearly benefit from a section of noise barriers which would be partially hidden by whatever flora is left. This would also mitigate the visual impact (pollution) caused by the seemingly inevitable removal of protected flora, under the `convenience' of the bio-offset measure. House noise treatment does not offer any assistance to mitigate the noise impact for much of the year when I want to use my outdoor facilities.

Property Value - not only has the expectation of the project reduced the value of my property but I am now unable to sell it without a significant loss of equity which will be sustained for the duration of the construction and beyond. It will take many years to recover. Further I am now constrained in my choice of living location by the potential loss I would suffer. In effect I have sustained a net loss for which I should be compensated.

High levels of noise, vibration and vehicle/emissions during construction have to be endured which will further reduce quality of life. All properties must be structurally assessed in advance of any construction work to ensure that structural collateral damage can adequately compensated.

To conclude, the cumulative effect of the noise, vibration, air pollution and visual impact will significantly affect the value of my property and reduce the quality of life for my family, adding unnecessary stress. Overall it generates a significant short, medium and long term health risk to me, my family and all those other members of the community which are effected by this project. All conceivable mitigation measures must be implemented not conveniently dismissed as they have been in this document.

Yours faithfully,

OSB


Mike Stow


Tel: 02 98752525
Mob: 0412 611849


4 November 2012

Whilst I support the proposal to improve the rail freight corridor, I object to the proposals in application number SSI-5132 and the supporting EIS.

The excessively noisy night operation of the increased number freight trains due to poorly maintained and outmoded rolling stock and engines has not been adequately addressed. This is detrimental to health of residents in proximity to the rail corridor and is glossed over because no independent legislated noise standard has been set to cover this specific activity.

The engineering design standards adopted are inadequate for the Beecroft Cheltenham Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) including its flora values. Station modifications, retaining structures, landscaping, carpark and modification to existing community active and passive recreational space propsals are all substandard for the HCA.

Whilst I have always been an advocate of rail transport, both for passengers and freight, I am concerned that plans for expansion of NSW railways are proceeding without the appropriate guidelines in place.
When I asked the Transport NSW representative which guidelines would be used to evaluate noise emission, I was referred to the recently revised draft Rail Infrastructure Guidelines. However, I was subsequently shocked to discover that freight was exempt.
Holly Park states in her document "Rail Freight Transport in NSW" (2009) "whilst there are a variety of policy decisions and documents that are referred to as a `freight strategy' or `part of the freight strategy', there is no published, comprehensive freight strategy for either NSW or Sydney, despite it being discussed since 1993". Sadly, it would seem that this is still the case.
I am sure that the general public consider it is imperative that noise emission standards are implemented prior to the extensive works proposed by NSW Government.
The public deserve some protection from the increased noise generated from the additional number of freight trains but without proper guidelines this problem will remain in the "too hard basket". Should the proposal proceed regardless, at the very least sound barriers should be erected and covered with some sort of vegetation to improve the visual impact.

As part of this project, the addition of a cyclepath alongside the third rail would be of great benefit to cyclists as the railway line has good consistent gradient in a hilly area. If operational and cost constraints prevent a path for all of the proposed length, sections where these can be overcome will still provide significant benefits.
Addition of such facilities is a great way for the community to be left with something of lasting benefit and would recompense for the disruption caused during the works.

The Website will not allow me to attach my submission, so have emailed it to the Planner Tracy Bellamy. In summary:
1) I object to the Northern Sydney Freight Corridor Epping to Thornleigh Third Track on the grounds that the proposal and Environmental Assessment fail to address the impact on the significant heritage value of the area through which the track is to pass.
2) I object to the gross scale and abject lack of heritage sympathy of the `indicative design' proposed for Cheltenham station.
3) I object to the lack of protection in the Assessment of the corridor from works and materials unsympathetic to the heritage, and the failure to offset within the corridor itself tree removal both from the project and other recent works.
4) The ugly dive structure on the down exit from Epping Underground station and proposed freight line viaduct adjacent to Beecroft Road must be landscaped and screened to a standard consistent with the above.
5) The project must engage the Beecroft Cheltenham Civic Trust on all aspects of the project, with particular regard to Cheltenham station.

The EIS noise conclusions are flawed because the new freight line will not be proportional to the existing measurements because it will have different geometry creating smaller radius curves. This will increase all the flanging and wheel squeal because of the different geometry and increase locomotive noise due to the greater effort to pull the same loads.

Old locomotives appear not to be considered under existing noise measurements because they precede any legislation. This should be limited to existing operating locomotives only to prevent the rebirthing of old locomotives.
This could be achieved by requiring each locomotive to be individually registered with a unique number which permits it to operate on the line as at the opening of the new line and all locomotives not on the register at that time must comply with the current noise legislation.

I object to this project due to the destruction of long established trees and vegetation which play an important part in the suburbs of Pennant Hills, Beecroft and Cheltenham. The railway stations in these suburbs are leafy and attractive. This project will destroy the look and feel of all these suburbs. I particularly object to the removal of trees and vegetation along Yararra Rd Pennant Hills, as the other side of Pennant Hills station has already been destroyed by industry. If this project proceeds as planned, these suburbs will end up like indusrtrial sites rather than beautiful bushland suburbs (much like Epping has been destroyed by the development of the station and surrounding area).

I also object to the project due to the increased level of noise from more freight trains. The noise levels are already high for residents and this project will further add to this problem both in the short and long term.

To the assesor,
Our objection to to this proposal has three parts (1) Current situation (2) Construction issues (3) Impact of completed proposal.

(1) Current situation,
The noise emitted from most of the freight train wheels is currently unacceptable the pitch and volume is so great if we are outside we have to seek protection or shelter to be comfortable. It was also noted of late that similar complaints as above appear to have been addressed by slowing the trains as they pass this has only changed the pitch of the noise and extends the duration (also unacceptable).

(2) Construction issues,
Firstly construction noise is a great concern as the required widening of the embankment across the gully in which my house is situated will require much fill and 24 hour construction,I am a 24 hour shift worker and require suitable conditions to sleep both day and nights which this construction will not allow.
Secondly this widening will impact on the on the bush gully which is a council bush regeneration site with many mature blue gum and black butt trees that will die as a result of having there ground level changed (effectively ring barking them) as the embankment covers the tree bases. Not to mention many other native species including animals only last week an ekidna was seen in this bush gully.
Thirdly access by cars, utilities and trucks during construction is another concern as SRA access is currently via Wongala crescent at two points close to our house, this road is difficult at best normally as we share this road with Arden School and gridlock is eminent slowing construction and restricting our normal access.

(3) Impact of completed proposal,
(a) The relocation of the 11,0000 volt over head wires closer to residences is unacceptable with the known health ramifications.
(b) The proposed freight train number increase to almost double current numbers is already unacceptable as in item (1)
(c) The removal of the vegetation and trees by this proposal will expose us visually and audibly to the now closer 3 tracks. No consideration appears to have been made to compensate this loss.

Yours sincerely,
Lynn & Graeme Baker

Noise above 85dB causes damage to the human hearing. The effect is cumulative and therefore cumulative exposure to loud noises should be limited. This appears to be worst for children. The Beecroft area is being rejuvenated with an influx of young families.
IGANRIP lists triggers for noise criteria generally at 85LAMAX and 80LAMAX for new lines. (The new freight line must be a new line as it is exclusively freight and therefore not part of the existing rail line).
Increasing this level for future operation above existing levels above the IGANRIP is wrong without mitigation by a pollution reduction program.
I suggest the reduction program should consist of number of a maximum number of events exceeding 85LAMAX at the railway boundary now and that this be the level when the new line is commissioned.
This gives time to reduce the existing noise pollution and for the new line to achieve IGANRIP airborne noise criteria.
An event should be recorded similar to the aircraft noise monitoring, ie when the threshold of 85LAMAX is exceeded and finishes when the level falls below 85LAMAX .

I believe that increasing the noise level because it is subjective (report no. 610.10578-R3 page 4) when it is above 85LAMAX which causes physical damage is completely detrimental to society and risk taking, therefore creating an invalid EIS argument.

The proposed project does not offer the Cheltenham and Beecroft area any benefit.

The EIS does not assess the impact of the proposed rail station at Cheltenham on the Beecroft/Cheltenham Heritage Conservation Area as a whole. The EIS makes assessments of particular heritage items, but not the large scale heritage fabric of the Beecroft/Cheltenham Heritage Conservation Area.
The EIS fails to assess the cumulative impact of the proposed rail works on Beecroft/Cheltenham Heritage Conservation Area.
The proposed rail works should not be approved unless the proposal can be shown to benefit the impacted area and be designed in keeping with the Heritage Conservation Area.

(Text from pdf attachment)

Bike North welcomes the opportunity to comment on this EIS. There are a number of areas which we believe should be addressed by the project.

Cycling access during construction

1. No change in access at any time of the cycleway linking Cambridge Street, Epping with Beecroft Road, the former bus underpass for the M2. This cycleway provides a vital local link between the key employment areas of Macquarie Park with Epping West.

2. No change in access at any time for cyclists to the M2 shoulder in both directions. The M2 provides a direct and essential link between the Hills District and key employment centres in Macquarie Park, North Sydney and Sydney CBD.

3. No change in access for cyclists at any time on Sutherland Road and The Crescent in Beecroft & Cheltenham. Both roads are critical linkages in the local bicycle network of these suburbs, as well as a back-road cycling link between Epping and Pennant Hills. We also believe that heavy truck movements should avoid these roads as much as possible to reduce impact to cyclists.

4. No change in access for cyclists and pedestrians at any time on the M2 underpass between Sutherland Road and Somerset Street in Epping. This forms a crucial local link for both cyclists and pedestrians between Cheltenham and Epping.

5. Bicycle parking at all stations to remain as accessible as current facilities. If construction works require the relocation of bicycle parking facilities, these must be installed in the same proximity to the station as current facilities.


Construction of cycleway from Epping and Thornleigh

Bike North believes that this project provides a fantastic opportunity to also construct a separated cycleway along the railway corridor between Epping and Thornleigh, where no cycling facilities currently exist. Furthermore, a cycleway constructed in the same grade as the railway would alleviate much of the hilly gradients found on local roads.

We believe the construction of this cycleway in parallel with the Third Track will be a cost effective way of providing this "missing link", encouraging further take-up of cycling and an opportunity to reduce local vehicular traffic, a truly positive legacy for the local community as a result of this project.

In particular, construction of these sections would provide the greatest benefits:

1. Construction of cycleway as part of the new bridge over M2 Motorway & Devlins Creek, connecting the northern end of Cambridge Street in Epping with Cheltenham Station. This facility would allow cyclists to avoid the steep hills on either side of Devlins Creek, greatly improving cycling access between Epping and Cheltenham.

2. Construction of cycleway on railway grade between Beecroft Station and Pennant Hills Station, including the provision of a grade-separated crossing of Pennant Hills Road. This will help fill a "missing link" in cycling access between these points, as there is currently no direct access.


About Bike North
Bike North is a volunteer run bicycle user group, affiliated with Bicycle New South Wales, with a membership of over 600 members. We work with eight councils in northern Sydney, towards creating a bicycling friendly environment for all who want to use a bike for transport or recreation in northern Sydney. As well as actively working with those councils, Roads and Maritime Services / Transport NSW and other government authorities, we run a diverse, popular and quality program of social rides which is free and open to the public. More recently we have developed and offer an education program of cycling skills called `Bike for Life' to encourage more skilled and confident bike riders in Sydney.

Bike North has worked with many state government roads and transport authorities, consultants and road/rail builder on a number of transport projects including:

* M2 widening - phase 1 and 2
* Lane Cove Tunnel Project
* Chatswood to Epping Rail Line

Why Cycling?
Bike riding is widely recognised as a healthy activity and a sustainable and equitable form of transport. Riding a bike is an easy way for many people to gain the requisite amount of moderate physical activity to reduce the risk of obesity and many common modern diseases. Using a bike to ride to work or for other transport reasons is a very effective way for people to achieve necessary levels of physical activity as part of their everyday activities. In Sydney, increased use of the bike for shorter commutes has great potential to reduce congestion and ease the increasing demands that single occupancy cars place on the roads and the increased pressure on our trains and buses. Bikes are also sustainable transport which is clean, not dependent on dwindling non-renewal resources and contributes to reducing the impacts of climate change. Bikes are a cheap and economical form of transport and cycling is a highly social activity.

Cycling is a most efficient mode of transport for short transport journeys of up to 10 kilometres.

Cycling Policy
The encouragement of cycling for transport and recreation is policy at all levels of Australian government for many of the reasons already outlined previously.

The National Cycling Strategy, 2011-2016 is the latest of a number of five year strategies released by various federal governments. This Strategy's goal of `Gearing up for active and sustainable communities' is underpinned by six priorities and objectives including to `create a comprehensive network of safe and attractive routes to cycle and end-of trip facilities'.

NSW 2021, a plan to make NSW Number One' identifies the target to `more than double the mode share of bicycle trips in the Greater Sydney Region, at a local and district level by 2016'. To meet this target the plan identifies the priority action to `increase walking and cycling to help ease transport congestion and build a healthier, more active community'.

Many local governments, especially in northern Sydney, have policies to increase the use of the bikes for both transport and as recreation due to the benefits outlined previously. All eight local governments in the Bike North area have bike plans and at least two councils, Willoughby and Ku-ring-gai are currently in the process of reviewing those plans. Many local governments annually extend and improve their network of cycleways in accordance with their adopted bike plans.


Demand for Cycling
There is a strong latent demand for cycling in Sydney communities that if fulfilled would enable these cycling policies to be easily met. There is recent evidence of this demand from the City of Sydney experiences and also north of the harbour with the cycling infrastructure built as part of the Lane Cove Tunnel project. This is a positive indication of the potential for the Greater Sydney area to meet the state targets for bicycle modal share.

Providing bicycle end of trip facilities and improving the access routes for bicycle to reach the railway station is an excellent way to also grow the bicycle modal share in the north-west.


Further information regarding this submission is available from:

Kin-Yat Lo Bike North Hornsby Workgroup [email protected]
Phil Griffiths Bike North Advocacy Officer [email protected]

I object to the proposal for the following reasons:

Air Quality Assessment and Environmental Assessment is deficient due to the following reasons:

1) The air quality criteria is deficient and not reflective of current human and environmental health knowledge.

2) Does not take into account that diesel emissions are a known human carcinogen - as declared by The World Health Organisation.

(see. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation "Diesel exhaust carcinogenic" The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/90/7/12-010712/en/ )

3) Does not take into account that all (97% according to Parsons Brinkerhoff Sept 12 Air Quality Technical Paper, p40 (AQTP)) particle emissions from the increase in freight will be in the form of small particles (PM2.5) from diesel combustion which are carcinogenic.

3a) Does not take into account that for particles there is no safe threshold for exposure. (ie. exposure to any amount of particle pollution can result in adverse health impacts).

4) Does not take into account the steep gradient of the line from Epping to Thornleigh (steepest in Sydney) - although a gradient diagram is provided elsewhere in the EA (Figure 4.2, p37). The steep gradient requires a maximum output from each locomotive travelling from Epping northwards.

5) Locomotives travel slowly northwards along this section of track due to the gradient and the strain on the engine results in worst case emissions from the locomotives. The emissions inventory in the AQTP does not take these worst case emission rates into account and therefore significantly underestimates locomotive emissions.

6) Locomotive emission rates are based on old (Lilly 1996) and unreliable data.

7) It is not clear what fuel has been assumed to assess emissions from locomotives. It is likely that real emissions from the locomotives will be significantly worse that that assumed in the AQTR.

8) Fails not take into account and give due weight to the high number of sensitive receptors within 100m and as close as 30m from the proposed corridor. NO less that 13 child care facilities, 2 hospitals, 2 aged care facilities, and 17 schools exist in close proximity (closer than 500metres) to the rail corridor. These will all be exposed to significantly increased carcinogenic diesel emissions from the increased locomotives. Increased incidence of health related impacts due to increased concentrations of carcinogenic diesel emissions must be expected in the long term - however the AQTR and EA fail to address this issue.

9) Insufficient model resolution (cartesian grid resolution of 50m) when it is stated the closest sensitive receptors are 30metres away from the proposed rail corridor.

10) The dispersion modelling in the AQTP is deficient as it does not take into consideration topography of the planned route. Local topography between Epping and Thornleigh plays a critical role in the lack of emission dispersion along the rail line. Due to significant cuttings, vegetation and topography, wind speed and direction along the rail line is highly reduced and modified when compared to the regional meteorology used in the air assessment. This has resulted in an underestimation of impacts at locally effected receptors.

11) Is misleading as it is suggested that local air quality improvements will be gained along the Epping to Thornleigh rail corridor due to reduced road freight. Beecroft Road is not a freight corridor and consequently is not greatly impacted by diesel emissions from heavy vehicles. (The freight corridor is Pennant Hills Road and the Pacific Highway - which are not aligned with the main north railway line).

12) Mitigation during the operation phase is "identified as NOT required" - despite the predicted increase in diesel related air impacts at local residences, schools, child care centres and hospitals.

13) The AQTP and EA should require the use of electric locomotives to effectively eliminate carcinogenic and other pollutants from diesel combustion. This commitment is lacking and is despite intense community concern with regard to the health impacts from locomotive emissions in the Hunter/Newcastle Region and elsewhere in NSW and Australia.

14) Emissions from loaded wagons are not considered in the air assessment. It is noted that curently freight that passes between Thornleigh and Epping includes loaded coal wagons. Single trains currently carry scores of loaded coal wagons. The coal load in each wagon usually extends well above the height of the wagon. This greatly assists in the generation of coal derived particulate emissions from wind erosion - which escapes from each wagon as it travels along the rail line. Emissions from loaded coal wagons may result in significant health impacts and there is considerable community objection to being subject to impacts from loaded and uncovered wagons.

15) A requirement for all loads on any freight train must be for each load to be covered such that emissions cannot result from materials carried in the wagon.

Other:

1) not convinced noise issues have been adequate addressed. Noise from diesel locomotives is currently excessive and at times very disruptive - even to large distances from the railway.

2) concerned that the changes to Pennant Hills Station and Yarrara Road will result in reduced parking on the northern side of Yarrara Road. As a local resident I do not want the Yarrara Road shops to become like those on Beecroft Road at Epping - due to the removal of parking spaces. (speak to local council members (Parramatta/Hornsby) for additional information).

See attached.

See attached.