Moorebank Intermodal Precinct East - Stage 1

When growing up we played cricket in the back lanes, played in the parks and in the streets with all the kids in the area, this is what taught people of my era to be street wise and learn the meaning of common sense. Unfortunately today common sense does not exist, if it did I would not be sending this submission.
Surely someone must have a little bit of forsight to see what is really going to happen here. How could anyone dump a commercial project the size of this into such a large residential as the area proposed. Over 1,000,000 movements a year 24/7 please see if you can find that bit of common sense needed.

Please stop the project of Intermodal site: Moorebank Avenue, Moorebank, Rail corridor

Please stop this project. I strongly object to it

Dear Sir/Madam,

Claims that Moorebank Intermodal Terminal will reduce the number of Port Botany containers moved by truck are false. According to the NSW Bureau of Transport Statistics (February 2014), 6.9 million Port Botany containers will be moved by truck in 2046, compared with 1.9 million in 2013. BTS assumes intermodals operating at Moorebank and Eastern Creek.

BTS estimates that 4 million containers will be moved by rail in 2046 , compared with 0.3 million in 2013. This requires building new rail freight lines to Port Botany, and between Chullora and Eastern Creek. For containers that are railed to Moorebank, the road system is unable to sustain any increase in traffic. Already, key traffic intersections are frequently gridlocked.

For these reasons, most of the federal government's business case for the Moorebank intermodal is redacted.

As a resident of Moorebank for over 45 years I have great concerns over the Intermodal project proposed at Moorebank. My main concern is the impact on our living conditions and the effect it will have on our local environment.
One of my main concerns is the impact on traffic. As a long time resident of Moorebank I know what the traffic is like and how congested all the roads such as Newbridge Road, Nuwarra Rd, Heathcote Rd and particularly the M5 can get now.
The chairwoman of the Intermodal Kerry Schott states it will relieve traffic congestion on Sydneys roads. Does she not consider the roads around Moorebank. She says "there will be SOME trucks on the road" and adds" we are conscious of some of the very poor traffic conditions around Liverpool". I don't understand how she can say by placing this Intermodal in Moorebank can be a viable option.You are moving the problems of congestion from Botany to the suburb of Moorebank.
There is the impact of noise and air pollution on residents of Moorebank and adjoining suburbs. How has this been addressed.
This chairwoman states they will look at suggestions and make changes. No matter how many people put forth ideas to improve this horrendous project it will all fall on deaf ears. The only improvement would be to not have the project go ahead in the first place.
I feel the Australian Government in selling this land to construct the Intermodal has sold out the people of Moorebank and surrounding suburbs. We are living in a community we love and try as we might we just want to have a voice.

To whom this may concern,

My name is Valent Karlusic and I'm writing to you regarding my concerns about the proposed Moorebank Intermodal development. Yes, that includes SIMTA as well - amazing how everyone is confused as to who is proposing what? I, along with my wife Melita and children (Anton - 22 month old boy and Stephanie - 6 month old girl), are the owners of our little dream house in Casula which will be within a mouse's roar (~300m) of the Intermodal's western boundary.

I ask that the following questions be posed to the people in charge of implementing this project:
1) would you allow your children to be subjected to the noise, visual and most importantly of all, air pollution that the massive number of diesel-powered locomotives and trucks will emit once this monstrosity is operating at full capacity?
I hear them all say from the comfort of their homes which are no where near the site "of course I would because the modelling SUGGESTS that nothing will change and if it did, the mitigation measures would protect my family and I from any adverse health effects." Now, looking at the proposed mitigation measures which range from the laughable (instructing crane operators not to `bang' containers together and greasing train bogies to stop squeal!?) to the non-existent (the visual landscape will be obliterated) tells me that this project is a foregone conclusion. Why do I say that? Nobody in their right mind would propose this level of idiocy be rubber-stamped BEFORE all the mitigation measures have been detailed and shown to WORK IN THE REAL WORLD. Not on paper, not on a computer screen as part of a modelling software package, but the REAL WORLD.
2) what financial compensation will I receive when I'm forced to sell my house at well-below market price?
Surely they don't expect that when my front-yard view of the Holsworthy plains is replaced with a few 30m high cranes and 1000's of shipping containers the value of my house will remain the same? What about when a container clangs onto a semi-trailer or the diesel loco squeals into the terminal at 3am on a Sunday morning? I suppose my children can listen to that instead of the relaxing sounds from the Bell birds. Would the proponents of this lunacy pay top-dollar to live in this area once they're finished with it? They wouldn't want to work in that area let alone EAT, SLEEP, RELAX AND PLAY WITH THEIR YOUNG CHILDREN in the area. Even Kingsford Smith Airport doesn't operate 24/7 - yet we're supposed to put up with this forever? Yes, that's right - until we either die or move out. No rest or respite whatsoever. Doesn't sound like a `home' environment, does it?

In short - this is not an infrastructure project that you just plonk in the middle of a couple of residential suburbs. If it goes ahead it will turn out to be one of the most idiotic project implementations' ever. When it eventually dies a slow death due to traffic congestion (do they really think the expected 10000+ semi-trailer movements a day are possible in that area?) the public will crucify (in more ways then one) whoever was involved.

Is it required? Maybe. Actually, if it helps out the rest of the city, then why not? But is it the right area? NO!

Thank you for taking the time to read my submission.

Valent

No Combined EIS has been provided now that the Federal Government, SIMTA and MIC have agreed to make the two sites mentioned in the EIS into one combined site. Tthis EIS does not reflect the true impact that the Intermodal will have on the MOOREBANK AREA.
It must be accurate and upto date on its true impact, especially now that it is to be combined with another proposed site. This EIS deals with the impact of the operations of one operator and ignores the proposed operations of its competitor. NOW that the operators has agreed to work with its competitors to form one massive combined facility over two proposed sites a new EIS must be conducted to assess both operations and the effect on the community as a whole.

The agreement between the parties to conglomerate and jointly operate makes the previous EIS null and void as they argued in their individual submissions that there was a chance that the other site would have limits and constraints imposed on it by the EPA.
As the previous submissions to EPA do not consider the whole sites combined, there must be a bigger combined outlook taken for the whole complete area.

There is no record of any impact being made outside the immediate area of the proposal. The proposal does not show the predicted noise outcomes for the residents living near the proposed southern access point to the site. The operation will be 24/7 and means a vast increase in the number of trains and additionally vast increase in the noise to the surrounding residents. It is a fact that where trains leave or enters the main line from a siding that these "Cross Over Points" or "switching points" have severe noise impacts.
As recently reported by the media and EPA the noise generated from the Pt. Botany site has by far exceeded the noise predicted by the EIS and that residents up to three kilometres away have been having their sleep disturbed by train and track movements.
It is important to consider the impact of resident living along the rail corridor that this Moorebank site will affect.
MIC and SIMTA have both asked that the site operate 24/7.
Recent results provided by Ralcorp on noise in the Casula area have shown that the recommended 40dba ceiling limit for noise is being exceeded by more than 40dba. It shows that the maximum noise has been as high as 103db between 12am and 6am and that the average is around 83dba for this same period. This exceeds all the Governments own Guidelines. The SIMTA and MIC argue that this is not within their brief ...that this is an ARTC requirement for its Operating License and refuse to acknowledge that its operations will have any effect on local residents living at or along the access routes to its site.
In 2005 ARTC met with local residents and assured them that the new SSFL was being installed to allow trains to enter the Sydney rail network more efficiently and not be held up by the curfew of trains during peak hours imposed by Railcorp. Their promise to the community was that trains being held at out Sydney areas and entering Sydney in the early evening hours would no longer have to wait till the peak hours finished and that the trains would be entering Sydney during the daylight hours. They promised the residents that Sound barriers and the change in large heavy long freight trains would no longer affect the residents living along the rail corridor.
Mr Michael Magney " TfNSW Michael MAGNEY Director, Project Development [email protected] 02 8265 8910 0407 900 452 Transport Projects "
will be able to provide documents regarding this information.
UNFORTUNATELY for the residents of Casula and Liverpool the Sound Barriers and the Freight Trains being transferred from night time running to daytime running has not happened. For some reason the EPA agreed with ARTC to ignore the requirements of the EPA Noise standard and therefore we are still waiting for noise relief.
The EIS does not address the noise generated by the operation of trucks leaving their facility and travelling across the M5 bridge at Moorebank.. Their response is that it is outside their operations and therefore not required.
In defence of the community, the M5 bridge over the Georges river is the main access to MIC and SIMTA and therefore any operations by these facilities must take into account noise and particulate matter generated by their operations on surrounding areas. EIS does not take into account any of the access points except for Moorebank avenue which has no residents for its 1klm curtilage. Outside this area MIC and SIMTA have no EIS considerations even though the trucks and vans movements generated by their facility use the access roads for their activities. The noise and air pollution have not been addressed, especially the additional 24/7 noise which will be generated by vehicles on the M5 bridge which will be transmitted along the Georges River corridor affecting many residents. The entire area is an amphitheatre and no noise reduction has been installed on the M5 bridge at Moorebank despite the entire length of the M5 have such sound barriers installed except at this point.
The EIS fails to include new technologies recently installed at Chullora and Pt. Botany.
The basis for the Moorebank intermodal requirement is the need for new terminal sites to help with the movement of Containers from Pt. Botany to the west.
The EIS assumptions incorrect advise that existing intermodals cannot be used to handle the extra capacity. However Chullora has just introduced new technology which increased its throughput from 300000 teu's to 600000 teu's thru new technology and the existing Enfield intermodal which is not operation at its full capacity of 360000 teu's could also be upgraded and therefore make Moorebank obsolete.
The SIMTA and MIC sites have been trying to secure rail space on the existing line from Pt. Botany through Enfield and Chullora to Moorebank.
SIMTA and MLC have on many occasions reported that the rail link between Pt. Botany and Moorebank is fully utilised and therefore limits the amount of TEU's that could be delivered to Moorebank at 1.2m TEU's. However with Chullora now being able to double its capacity surely this takes a huge chunk for the Moorebank site and both Chullora and Enfield are much better suitable sites for the TEU's as both areas are located within commercial sites well away from residents unlike Moorebank which is to be situated right in the middle of very sensitive residential homes and affecting many children and much of the local community.
There is one enormous question which the Moorebank site EIS has failed to asses. That is the benefit to the Community.
What will the Moorebank Intermodal bring to the Community that will be to the benefit of the Community?
Their argument of taking trucks of Sydney roads in a fabrication because the trucks will still be on the roads at Moorebank, so effectively argument should be that they are moving the Trucks from Pt. Botany to Moorebank despite the fact that PT Botany roads are much better suited to handle the massive trucks than Moorebank is. The road structure is so much better and much of the air and noise pollution is dispersed over industrial areas or dispersed out to sea. Unlike Moorebank which is an island surrounded by rivers and in a basin which depending on which way the wind is blowing will not be dispersed by lay in the basin affecting the community severely.
In Conclusion this EIS does not reflect the true impact that the Intermodal will have on the MOOREBANK AREA.
It must be accurate and upto date on its true impact, especially now that it is to be combined with another proposed site. This EIS deals with the impact of the operations of one operator and ignores the proposed operations of its competitor. NOW that the operators has agreed to work with its competitors to form one massive combined facility over two proposed sites a new EIS must be conducted to assess both operations and the effect on the community as a whole.

It is ridiculous to think a development of this size is suitable for this residential area. It will bring more trucks onto our streets with increased traffic to and from the site. It is obvious that there has been no consideration for the residents who purchased in this area well and truly before any type of development had been proposed.
What about our quiet neighbourhood? It will be noisy and dirty.
What about our children and the health impacts? The construction of this site will bring increased dust and pollution to the area alone!
What about the flora and fauna? It will be destroyed and so will the health of the river that is being regenerated!
Take a hard look at yourselves! Would you like to live next to this? I think not!

I concern about the heavy traffic, noise and air pollution as well as the safety for daily commuters around the area. This will also raise a worry about the affection on health for my family as well as others.

I live on the street backing onto the M5 and when buying the property I fully understood that I would expect the noise etc from traffic but think the impact of truck noise especially at night will increase if this development goes ahead which greatly concerns me for the continuing health of myself and my children. I dont think that the impact of large freight trucks has been taken into consideration properly with the impact it will have to our beautiful community and our infrastructure. I noticed that a traffic flow survey was done on streets surrounding including Moorebank Ave on the weeks around Chinese New Year which to my understanding that there would of been less traffic around this time so survey would not of been 100% factual.

This terminal will increase congestion on the roads . Affect our life with noise and destroy the quiet suburb we live in with no clear benefit from

Do NOT want the Intermodal at Moorebank!

I object to the Intermodal based on the following reasons:-
1. Increased traffic flow in the Liverpool area.
2. Increased noise due to the 24/7 operation of the terminal.
3. Increased noise due to the huge increase of trucks on the local roads.
4. Increased risk of safety to all people in the area, including those passing through due to the increased amount of trucks on the road.
5. Increased risk of health problems due to the increased air pollutants in the area from the trucks.
6. Increased pollution to Georges River which backs on to the terminal site.
7. Lower house values due to the rezoning of the site.

The terminal needs to be built further west away from high density housing area.

I have health issues that will be greatly affected by constant diesel emissions and don't believe this type of structure should be put so close to residential areas. I have lived in this area for over 45 years and am disappointed to hear of something like this being considered for our area.
Our river is already polluted, much work is being done to beautify the area and make it "people friendly", putting this type of construction into an area where people live is not in anyone's best interest. Please consider again.

I object to this construction. Have lived in the area for over 45 years and don't believe building an intermodal to move over a million containers a year is in the best interest of this area. There are accidents on Moorebank avenue entering the M5 almost every day, putting 5000 trucks into the equation is a recipe for disaster. Please consider the residents before you approve something like this in a residential area. It should be put together with the new airport at Badgerys Creek.

I refer to the noise assessments part of the Environmental Impact statement. I have these queries and would like a response.

- Section 7.4 of the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (SLR, October 2014) states "It has been assumed that all equipment will be designed to control potential noise characteristics of tonality, low frequency and impulsivity. No modifying correction factors have been applied to the noise emission sources or predicted noise levels.". Seeing as though the terminal will be unloading trains using a rail mounted gantry train, the nature of the noise is expected to be highly impulsive and / or low frequency or tonal, and modifying factors from the Industrial Noise Policy should be applied accordingly. This would result in an increase of predicted noise levels of up to 10dB, and according to Table 50 of the report, reduction requirements of up to 23dB at Full Build. This would be an unachievable reduction and would result in large exceedances of project noise goals, even with all feasible and reasonable mitigation measures in place.
- Sleep disturbance criteria are presented in Section 5.4 of the report but these criteria do not apply to rail traffic noise, as stated in the sleep disturbance assessment in Section 13. Nonetheless, they do provide context for the magnitude of sleep disturbance that nearby residences will experience. Sleep disturbance criteria of 48dB(A) is established for Casula. A design criterion of 80dB(A) LAFmax has been adopted for the SSFL, as stated in the sleep disturbance assessment in Section 13. The proposition that noise reaching 48dB(A) from an industrial source is likely to cause sleep disturbance, but rail noise below 80dB(A) will not is unreasonable. Sleep disturbance criteria stated in Section 5.4 should be applied to all noise sources as the source of noise plays no role in the level of disturbance to sleep. To this end, LAFmax levels of up to 86dB(A) are predicted at the nearest receivers in Casula, 38dB above sleep disturbance criterion presented in Section 5.4. These levels indicate a high level of daily disturbance will affect sleep in a large number of residences in the area.

Proposed noise mitigation tactics will are not realistic for residents living in close proximity to the sight.

Simply, absolute mistake to place an intermodal in a very busy and congested area already now. Also there are too many residents and residential homes affected by this on a daily basis. Move it to a more suitable and more appropriate place before there is a complete stand still of traffic in peak hours. The motorway we come to a standstill like it was previously in peak hours before the extra lane was added. I object this intermodal no matter what good it might bring. It will bring more problems than benefits for the residents of Moorebank and surrounding suburbs.

The Intermodal should NOT go ahead! The Intermodal is incredibly concerning for the community and will have unprecedented negative impacts on the residents living here, whilst decreasing the value of the whole community and area.

It in unconscionable to place such a monstrosety so close to a built up residential family area.

The placement of the proposed intermodal freight terminal at Moorebank is an issue that will affect everyone. The site identified for the Moorebank intermodal is prime, urban, riverfront land. This land should be used to assist the government in meeting its housing crisis identified in the draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney, by using the development as a premium riverside residential lifestyle precinct.

The SIMTA intermodal terminal is designed to have a throughput of 1 million TEUs per year. This equates to 2740 TEUs entering the site on 21 trains per day. SIMTAs documentation states this will generate 2638 truck movements per day.

Cardno have extrapolated that SIMTA traffic could add up to 84% of the additional trucks on the Hume Highway, 350% of the additional trucks on Moorebank Avenue and 22% of the additional trucks on the M5 west of Moorebank Avenue (SIMTA Intermodal Terminal Proposal Peer Review of Environmental Assessment, prepared by Cardno, dated June 2012, page 35). This represents significant increases in traffic on major roads and will lead to congestion and increase commute times through the region.

Placing a heavy industrial facility in the middle of a residential area is negligent and will be extremely detrimental to our community. The proposed site is located in a basin which allows pollution to lie, rather than easily move away. The NSW Planning and Assessment Commission have already recognised that the air quality in the Liverpool area is generally well below guidelines. Additional diesel emissions and particulate matter released from this proposal will prove dangerous for residents, especially children and the elderly.

I received a Community News Update leaflet in the mail recently from the SIMTA.
After reading it i called them to clarify what was on the leaflet that they say they will do.
I spoke to a gentleman called XXXX.
I asked him about the claimed reduction in heavy vehicle movements between Port Botany and moorebank by up to 2700 movements per day.
He found this hard to explain to me as it had to do with the rail line seeming to take all the trucks off the m5 motorway.
when i pressed him to tell me how many more trucks were going to go past my house once this terminal is built he told me it would be 670 movements per day more than the present amount travelling up and down Moorebank avenue.
I would like to know why and how this increase of 670 movements per day in my back yard is going to reduce heavy vehicle movements between Port Botany and Morebank by up to 2700 movements per day.

I would like to also know (as stated on this SIMTA leafelet ) how there will be a positive impact on air quality by reducing the number of freight truck movements and reducing overall emissions to the local area when there will be an increase of 670 truck movements per day (from present levels) in the area.

This doesnt make sense to me, it seems SIMTA is trying to paint a rosy picture of this terminal.

This huge extra volume of truck movements in close proximity to my home will have a devastating impact on me and my family and every other family in this area.

I do not believe what this leaflet is saying and XXXX was at a loss to explain this information to me.

I would like to suggest that this terminal would be much better placed in closer proximity to the Badjery Creek Airport or somewhere where there are far fewer people living.
And if anyone wants to go and live there next to a freight terminal then let that be peoples decision to do so, not the other way around.

I do not want to have more fine deisel dust and pollution than what i already have in my area and in my home.
this is something that i shouldnt have to plead for - it should be my right.
I do not want you to forcibly poison me and my family... please.

What a preposterous idea for moorebank, moorebank is not the place for this to be built. Not when there's a facility that just got upgraded at chullora and is no where near capacity. This kind of development should be built near the planned badgerys creek airport which will have the railway and highway to support. Moorebank is a residential suburb and growth corridor, not an industrial area. Any land the army doesn't want should be used for housing.