Mod 1 – Concept Proposal Changes

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
I do not want more trucks, pot holes on the roads and pollution in this area, there's already enough of all.

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
This facility is in the wrong place It is a gross waste of taxpayers money whilst imposing a health and safety juggernaut on the local community There is absolutely no consideration or care for the families living in this area which will be subject to Pollution, noise, light spill and road chaos. There will be detrimental effects on the local families in so many ways Indigenous artefacts and scar trees will be subject to ignorant in difference of cultural importance. Local native fauna and the newly discovered recently thought to be extinct flora will be without regard destroyed denying future generations their splendour. And lastly the importation of 1.6m3 fill says this area is not suitable. This riverside land should be used for a university/tafe combination facility to provide first class education to the south west

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
This application shows total disregard for the community! We do not want to have the noise pollution or the traffic disasters this plan is sure to create.

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
The damage it will do to the environment will be unrepairable.
The traffic it will cause in the area with all the trucks coming and going will be unbearable. Why it is not at Eastern Creek with all the new industrial area growing and links to all the major arteries. Not to mention the new airport

The plans for the Moorebank Intermodal must be stopped. Loss of land value, increased pollution and health risks and major traffic disruptions are just a few reasons why.
I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community.
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location. I believe this will have a negative impact on the local community's, especially wattle grove, casual and moorebank.
The traffic congestion already on the M5/M7 and Hume is already to much to bare.. I find it very hard to see any positively coming from this project.
My wife and I are very concerned about bringing up a family in the area and never thought the government would propose such a massive project so close to local family homes.
I am a Plant mechanic my trade and Can tell you now how toxic truck and machinery emissions are, not only for local residents but to marine live and wild life.

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location. As it will impact greatly on my residence, family and the environment. It will decrease the value of our home, it will impact on our health, it will cause more traffic in the local and surrounding areas. I believe this is not the appropriate place, a more suitable place would be off the m7 or closer to Badgerys creek airport.

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
This project is harmful to the community

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
The flora in the region must be protected, as does the fauna. You cannot destroy a rare plant

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
There must be better places for this than a residential area!

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
Traffic and noise from a 24 hr operation have not been fully accounted for in this proposal

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
You're destroying my roads and polluting the air my kids are breathing. This is only going to get worse. Take your business elsewhere you're not wanted here

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
Stop ruining the lives of thousands of residents by building this atrocity.

I am totally against this project as it will have a massive impact on the area which always seems to be ignored by everyone.I have been opposed to this project for 9 years and believe our concerns have never been taken seriously and the health impacts on the area are always overlooked.I have done research that has revealed that the area is one of the worst health areas in NSW with 11 percent diabetes and huge number of asthma sufferers and a5 per cent higher mortality rate and this alone should preclude the area from such a ridiculous project.Also experts have stated that the false assumptions used by proponents only worsen the impact on the area.I believ this is the worst location that could be used as most of the cargo is destined for other areas which will greatly increase the transport costs

I strongly object to SIMTA/ MICs request for Modification to the Proposal due to their ambiguity and unwillingness to disclose exactly to the public together with the Commission how they plan to alleviate public concerns. I am also not comfortable with Commissions "want" to approve this project.


Import by truck of approximately 1600 000m3 of fill (from offsite locations

Crushing and screening of oversized materials and demolition materials stockpiled during early works, for direct placement on site

Establishment of Temporary haulage routes.

There is a 1km section of the M5 motorway located between Moorebank Avenue and the Hume Highway with on and off ramps at each intersection. This section is a recognised congestion point within the motorway as vehicles entering the motorway.

This 1km area is called the Georges River Bridge. It is stated that this section is a recognised congestion point - noting already there is much traffic. How does the Commission plan to mitigate noise to Casula/ WattleGrove? The Georges River Bridge is the only area on the entire orbital Network without noise walls. Even dirt mounds have noise walls. MIC/SIMTA is introducing more trucks and noise to this area Even a dirt mound along the M5 corridor has a noise wall. Why is this stretch of road between Moorebank Avenue and the Hume Highway constantly ignored when it is regarded to noise walls. Your determination states that there will be increase in noise. The addition of more trucks on this road will cause harm to the residents of Casula Liverpool as they suffer sleep deprivation at present due to the constant bombardment of existing truck exhausts as has been proven by medical records to the local GP. Compression braking as stated by your report is not the only noise emitter. The brrrrm sound of the trucks picking up speed is the main noise carrier. Yet to date despite decades of residents pleas and complaints, no sound walls have been erected. Yet sound walls have been erected on other locations on the M5 including dirt mounds to protect ants. Should it not be a condition of approval that noise walls be finally erected on this stretch of road considering it is the only open stretch in line with housing on the entire network not protect by barriers


Please note that this area has been on the RMS noise abatement program since the 1990s. It has been shown that the noise levels have increased over time yet no mitigation. Before placing further stress on the residents of this area from additional trucks. Please provide a duty of care and place condition of the requirement that this stretch of road receives the same consideration as the rest of Sydney and the ants in the dirt patch! For people live here not just ants.


It is proposed that the works would be undertaken during extended works hours to those identified in the MPW Concept Plan

The extended hours would include 6 am - 7 am weekends

Evening period between 6 pm - 10 pm on weekdays.

How does the Commission plan to mitigate noise between this period considering there are children in need of sleep. Why has PAC not disclosed this? Why has there been no public meeting showing how exactly MIC/ SIMTA plan to alleviate noise levels when residents are clearly concerned?

The increase in traffic movement is shown:

3.2.8 /Liverpool


The majority of vehicles would travel to and from the site via the m5 Motorway.

Addition of 745 Heavy vehicles per day

Vehicle trips per day 1, 490

Addition of light vehicles 95

Vehicles per day 190

Why is the Georges River Bridge not mentioned in the REMM. Yet it is mentioned in your determination as the "1km stretch". Why the ambiguity and the lack of acknowledgement of the people who live meters away from this 1km stretch of road that will be impacted by the noise of additional trucks on this road. Vague admission of addition noise was mentioned to the people of Liverpool Casula Links estate with the introduction of the additional trucks. Why were they left out of the equation considering they will be the MOST affected

Why is there no duty of care to the Casula / Liverpool Links Estate? Why are ants living on dirt mounds got more precedence in terms of mitigation (they have noise walls installed to protect them going towards the Fairford exits) to people living in the circular of 2km radius of the M5 and the closest to MIC site? Where is the duty of care? How is the Commission ok with this? I reiterate, the ONLY section on the ENTIRE ORBITAL network with people less than 25 meters away residing! And the Commission wants to put addition noise emitting trucks to add to their three decades worth of pain and lack of care by the government! Ants with noise walls. That is one for the press.



Early works:


Demolition of existing buildings and structure

Rehabilitation of the excavation /earthmoving training area( ie dust bowl)

How does MIC /SIMTA propose to mitigate the dust in the air considering Liverpool has the highest asthma cases in Sydney?
Why again is there not a public meeting displaying how EXACTLY do they plan to mitigate air pollution? Again I ask how is PAC ok with this

Light

How will light pollution impact both human and animal habitats? What mitigation does MIC/ SIMTA propose to the Casula/Moorebank estate? Why is it not written? Light impacts sleep as does noise, both impacts persons functioning ability and could result in accidents going to work and at work. As does it also increases the level of stress. Again why are no mitigation measures mentioned in relation to light?


Surrounding residential areas

Wattlegrove located 670 meters from area of impact

Moorebank located 650 meters from the area of impact

Casula located 300 meters from the area of impact

Exactly What mitigation will there be provided to the people of Casula and Moorebank located 300 meters from the area of impact.? Again why is it so ambiguous. Why is it not in the condition of consent that mitigation measures should be first and foremost and give number one priority before consent. Put in the barriers to protect the people first from noise and pollution, rather than prioritising shareholders, and company heads.

Establishment of two access points at Chetlam Road ( Southern Access Point) and at the signalised intersection approximately 900m to the south of the intersection with Moorebank Avenue and the M5 Motorway (northern access point)
The main exit The main exit from the area of impact will be located would be via the Northern access Point located approximately 1km to the South of the intersection of Moorebank Avenue and the M5 Motorway (refer to section 5.1

Again Why is there no mention of the need of noise walls on the Georges River Bridge ( 1km stretch of road) considering its stated that it is the first exit off Moorebank Avenue? Why is the Georges River Bridge not mentioned, as a road where noise will be increased substantially? Why is it not considered in MIC /SIMTA plans, considering it is the first exit route. Yet it has no noise walls. Why is there no duty of care to the people of Casula/ Liverpool Links? How PAC ok with this?

The works required as part of Early works for the MPW Project have been further refined and it has been identified that works to raise the MPW site are required to achieve the desired stormwater outcomes, meet geotechnical requirements, and minimise the offsite disposal of contaminated waste materials.

The assessments included in this report have concluded that, with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, environmental impacts associated with the proposed modification would be minor and of a short duration.

What ARE the mitigation measures that will be provided? By the Freedom of Information Act has not the people of Liverpool a right to know the exact type of mitigation before any works are done?

Traffic on Moorebank Avenue would be monitored during peak periods to ensure queuing at intersections does not impact other road users.

Very interested to know who will stand on the corner of the M5 and Moorebank Avenue and ensure there is no queuing or 'monitor queuing'. This is deliberately deceiving both the people of Liverpool and Planning Department as it is not logical. Again traffic going westbound on the Georges River Bridge is of little movement. Also, traffic going East too is of little movement. Does not the people of Liverpool deserve to know the process behind how additional trucks will be monitored instead of a motherhood statement?

The Traffic Impact Assessment Report prepared by Arcadis is extremely vague lacking in substantial evidence and depth to show how exactly do they tend to mitigate both noise and traffic both in and outside peak periods. There is no mention of the impacts to the closest receivers Casula / Liverpool Links nor mention of mitigation to this area even though in the report it states that this area is less than 300 meters away from the impact site. There is no mention where noise receivers were placed hence one can safely say going by past performance that they were placed in obscure places well away from MIC area. The deceptiveness and lack of care by the Government to date in terms of noise in this area is disgraceful. If MIC was serious in their claim of transparency there would be conditions and recommendations with substance, not just general statements. Why is there no mention of the impact of traffic to Casula/ Liverpool Links who are adversely affected?? Please show evidence that shows otherwise.

In relation to Sydney, IA suggests that the opening of new intermodal terminals at Enfield and Moorebank and the expanded use of existing terminals at Chullora, Minto and Yennora may provide an incentive for movement of containers by rail within the Sydney metropolitan area7. IA also recommends that work should also commence assessing options for the full development of the planned Western Sydney Freight Line and Eastern Creek Intermodal Precinct, with the corridor and site for these important projects required to be reserved now8.

Why the rush for Moorebank Intermodal, when other Sydney intermodal's in the last 6months have said in the press that they are going to expanding. Why the need to spend taxpayers money, when other intermodal's such as Asciano are meeting Sydney's needs at present?



Further to the reports not taken into consideration by the Commission ; Why is there a clause on page 11/13 of the Geotechnical and Contamination Memorandum absolving Golder Associates Pty Ltd of any responsibility and the lack of a ` complete assessment of all possible conditions circumstances that may exist at the site referenced in the Document' As a local impacted resident I would like to know why was NOT a complete assessment done of all circumstances in a project of such magnitude. What detail was conveniently left out that such a clause had to be written to protect from litigation? Why is the Government not requesting a detailed assessment? Why is such vagueness acceptable by the Commission?

As a resident and by the Freedom of Information Act I would like to know how many times did Golder visit the site to make their evaluation? I would like to know what time and weather conditions also. It is stated that it is of Golder's opinion. Why is there no scientific/numerical evidence provided? How is the Government provide a duty of care by going by mere opinion?

Again why is Golder protecting themselves and their affiliated sub-consultants if the information provided is extensive and measurable. The eight paragraphs of Limitations with clauses absolving Golder of responsibility shows to the average person that the investigation in the area was done sparsely and maybe only once which does not provide an accurate report. How is PAC ok with this?


The area of impact is greater than that defined for Early works, however, the vegetation of the additional areas is similar to that within the Early works boundary, comprising scattered native and introduced trees and shrubs over mown grassland and developed areas. Where is the proof of this? Why is govt content in taking such a statement at face value without proof?

Threatened species that may be affected by vegetation clearing include micro chiropteran bats, arboreal mammals and nesting birds. How is the commission satisfied with how MIC plan to protect these threatened species considering they were earmarked as monumental importance in the Airport saga? How are they less significant today


Soil and particulate dust, PM2.5 ow is it not disclosed what impact will this have been done on the impact to threatened species? Why does the Commission not disclose how they are ok with studies when in the last month a rare species on the verge of extinction has been discovered.


How does the Commission find it ok to remove hollow bearing trees today, yet when the airport was proposed, studies showed that bats and other threatened species will be too much under threat. Why the discrepancy?


Why is the biodiversity Assessment not comprehensive? Why is it so vague? How is the Commission ok with this? The 54 hectares of trees that will be cleared does not mention the fact that many are under the EPBC ACT and are of International and of State Significance

What happens to the Eucalyptus bauerianian not mentioned in the report that is rare and appears on Moorebank Avenue and on the banks of the Georges River and is considered of State conservation Significance. Why is the government turning a blind eye and allowing again conclusions to be made on face value?

Acacia binervia also appears on the banks of the Georges River and Moorebank Avenue and is of Reginal Conservation Significance.

The Eastern Bristlebird has been noted in this area and is considered National Significance.

The brush-tail rock wallaby has been sighted by Department of Defence yet in MIC/ SIMTA reports it states it may and may not exist. Again how and why is such vagueness acceptable in approval by the Commission?

Why are our local experts, professors that were used in the airport days, experts pertaining to these endangered species not allowed to 'double check' the numbers.? How and why is it acceptable that only one study is an accurate measure of flora and fauna? That does not make sense in any professional field. The study also conflicts with the numbers of flora and fauna attained in the past. With the lack of activity on the site, it is logical that numbers would increase over time due to lack of human intervention. Does not the Liverpool Community deserve a second opinion to the numbers attained by an independent of their own choosing? Would not a court of law find it perplexing that only one study was done on flora and fauna not by individual experts to brush tail wallaby? And would they not find the statement that the species may or may not be on the site very vague considering the army in the past have seen the species? Again I ask the Government to show a duty of care in allowing independents and experts in the field to conduct a separate study so there is a broader database than just one.

The Commission has found that in the longer term alternate sites at Badgerys Creek and/or Eastern Creek could provide a contribution to the Commonwealth and State freight rail networks. However, neither site is likely to be delivered in the short or medium term. In both cases, only preliminary investigations are underway and it will be some time before the future range of land uses in these areas becomes clearer and infrastructure corridors secured, funded and delivered.

By comparison, the site at Moorebank is available and ready to be developed. It has good linkages to both road and freight rail. Its size and generally flat topography also make it a suitable site for an integrated freight terminal. The Commission notes that an intermodal terminal has been proposed for the site since 2004.

How is this possible when other intermodal companies are now expanding i.e. Asciano and so too, the Enfield intermodal? Is not land around a river more suited to people than to containers. We are not living in China. Would not a better proposition be to sell off the land to developers and buy land in Eastern Creek or Badgeries. Would not the sale of such water frontage aid to fund an extension of the ARTC line. Is that not better planning for Sydney's future, having trucks circling on the outskirts rather than in mid suburbia and mid-Sydney?

The vast majority of containers to and from Port Botany are moved by road, producing around 3,900 truck movements daily, principally along the M5 corridor9. Road capacity in Sydney is limited even after taking into account planned and committed road infrastructure projects around Port Botany and Western Sydney, for example, WestConnex. The proposed intermodal terminal will allow for freight to be transferred to Moorebank by rail from Port Botany, reducing the demand for road transport from the port and providing a hub for the wider road and rail freight networks10.

So the solution is to put 3 900 trucks in Moorebank going West. How is that ok. To add additional trucks to already Hot spots such as Hume Highway and Georges River Bridge.

A further potential weakness to a site at Badgerys Creek, and to a lesser extent Eastern Creek, is its location in relation to the market. The Commission understands that 80% of freight from Port Botany is transported within 40km13. Given that Badgerys Creek is approximately 56km from Port Botany, freight would be taken from Port Botany to an area beyond the majority of the target market and then transferred back into areas of Western Sydney further compounding traffic problems.

This is not a true statement considering the bulk of the recipients of the containers are in the vicinity of Badgeries and Eastern Creek. Not Moorebank. As a member of the public, I would like to know the exact location of the recipients of the containers. Common sense prevails that the majority will be in these two locations as the other terminals such as Ingleburn, Chullora etc cater to the Moorebank area.

The utilisation of freight trains rather than trucks, especially during peak hours, would reduce the congestion on roads. Trains are able to transport significantly more containers than trucks and if used efficiently, could remove a large number of trucks from the road network. The reduction in truck travel would reduce the growth in congestion across the road network, reduce travel times, and increase the reliability of trip duration.

A deceiving motherhood statement used by the commission. There is no acknowledgement that it will cause havoc in particular during peak periods in the area of Liverpool ( Moorebank Avenue, Georges River Bridge, Hume Highway and arterial roads. Again the commission is being dismissive of the blatant fact that it is moving congestion from one area and putting it in another. Is that not right? Please show how it is wrong before going further with this proposal.

The Commissions concludes that a demonstrated need and strong strategic justification exists for an intermodal terminal to be developed in this location. The Commission is of the opinion that it is rare to find within the Sydney metropolitan area, a large, flat site within such close proximately to the rail and road transport network and the growing consumer markets of Western Sydney.

Yes, this is the case, having said that is not more a need for people to live in close proximately to rail and transport network, and more importantly by the river especially mid-Sydney. Rather than containers. The United States are now looking to put intermodal on outskirts feeding into cities. Why are we not following suit? Is it not better planning to put an intermodal on the outskirts circling away from people rather than mid-Suburbia? This is ridiculous planning and is pushed mores by corporate greed rather than a visionary's. Do we not owe it to the future generation to provide a safer Sydney by putting intermodal far west instead of mid suburbia.

Road costs are generally higher during peak hours, while unpredictable congestion reduces service reliability. Truck operations are also unproductive when there are empty container backhauls. This is a greater issue for trucks than for trains.

Yes, a case for placing the intermodal on the outskirts where they rightfully belong. If the commission travelled South West, they would be aware that from Moorebank Avenue to the Hume Highway is car park generally 90% of the time. Also, the newly formed M7 is a carpark going west in peak hours. This is due to such bad planning and motherhood statements made by such people as in the commission. Trucks do not like sitting in car parks, nor do truck companies like paying tolls as one has noted so the only other alternative is now to use Liverpool's arterial roads, in turn, questioning the safety of the local residents. Why has this not been considered or acknowledged?

There are so many holes, vagueness and ambiguity. To date, there has been no public meeting explaining how the Commission tends to mitigate. Commission has vaguely alluded to the Weave on the 1 Km stretch. Yet has not provided any solutions to make the public feel comfortable in sharing this stretch with additional trucks. It is a dangerous stretch of road that only a local totally appreciates the danger. I recommend that members of the commission visit this stretch of road and try to make the manoeuvre themselves with double semis before playing with lives of the innocent. Please reconsider this project for the best alternative for Sydney if one is a true visionary and cares about planning and the future generations are on the outskirts of Sydney. People should enjoy the river. Not containers. This is not China.

Please make it a condition of consent that noise walls are provided for the M5 1 km stretch mentioned and the people along the rail. This is the LEAST one can do for the residents of the area if sadly one wants to proceed.



Kind regards

Dara Bonic

Please keep my name off public records when publishing.

I object to Moorebank Intermodal Facility being built in a residential area. I object to the destruction of the native environment and military history on the proposed site of the Moorebank Intermodal Facility.

As a group, the Moorebank Residents' Action Group opposes this submission due to the scale of modification.
The importation of this quantity of fill does not constitute a minor modification, and it is the opinion of the Group that this level of alteration merits a completely new application.
We also object to the increase in footprint of the facility - again it is strongly felt by the Group that this is not a minor modification, and warrants further investigation and study - particularly in light of the recent fauna discoveries.

This Intermodal is in the wrong place and should be located away from residential areas.
I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.

This Intermodal is in the wrong place and should be located away from residential areas.
I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
I've been living near the Georges River for the past 20 years, and I'm only now starting to see it is cleaner than it was, even 10 years ago. To put something like this proposal right on the river will just bring the river pollution right back up again. This is environmental vandalism!