Moorebank Intermodal Precinct East - Stage 1

I say No to the Moorebank Intermodal facility phase 1.

As a resident of Moorebank, I am opposed to the Intermodal facility being planned for a residential area for the following reasons:-
- The noise and congestion from additional truck movements each day rolling in 24-hours a day, 7-days a week
- The declining air quality from these extra trucks and the detrimental impacts their pollutants will have on the Georges River & the health of residents in the area
- The impact of freight trains on the future of the Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre
- The impact on Liverpool's progressive plans for housing at Moorebank
- The grounding halt this will bring to the tens of thousands of commuters who use the M5 and surrounding roads on a daily basis

As a resident of Moorebank, I am opposed to the Intermodal facility being planned for a residential area for the following reasons:-
- The noise and congestion from additional truck movements each day rolling in 24-hours a day, 7-days a week
- The declining air quality from these extra trucks and the detrimental impacts their pollutants will have on the Georges River & the health of residents in the area
- The impact of freight trains on the future of the Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre
- The impact on Liverpool's progressive plans for housing at Moorebank
- The grounding halt this will bring to the tens of thousands of commuters who use the M5 and surrounding roads on a daily basis

The proposal for an Intermodal on Moorebank Avenue is just wrong for this area for the following reasons.
1. It is surrounded by residential dwellings.
2. It is adjacent to the Georges River, which is a recreational river for residents in this area.
3. It will create extreme overload on the road system in this area, which cannot cope now.
4. Diesel emissions from trucks and container trains will choke the atmosphere, which is already struggling, because of the basin we are in.
5. Diesel emissions are carcinogenic, so the health of residents will be greatly at risk.
6. Noise from the 24 hour/7 days a week operation will be continually disturbing for residents within at least a kilometer. Rail screech from container wagons entering/exiting from the site and exhaust brake noise from trucks is unacceptable.
7. There are other existing container terminals in western Sydney which can be expanded to cope with additional container movements.
8. What has the Moorebank area done wrong to deserve this monstrosity?

I oppose the Moorebank intermodal

I have a problem with the impacts this is going to have in my local community and on the Georges river I don't believe full and proper environmental studies have been conducted and pollution in the area is already high. With Athma sufferers in my family I am concerned for their health.

Please save our suburb, our health is number 1.
Why spoil our lovely suburb when there is wide open space at Badgerys Creek. People can then choose if they want to live there with an intermodal going in. Why disrupt our lives and roads with an intermodal at Moorebank when there is one at Chullora only 15 mins away and they have just had an upgrade with two huge cranes. We DONT need an intermodal at Moorebank. All that traffic congestion, accidents, noise who wants that on their doorstep 24/7.
What a joke.

Is it all because of money? because MONEY seems to be playing a big part in this conglomerate if its not money what is it.? Why do Governments down trodden the ordinary person, why are our wishes being ignored. This will devalue our homes, would you like this monstrosity in your backyard - NOWAY. GIVE US A BREAK. PLEASE LISTEN TO OUR WANTS AND NEEDS FOR A CHANGE.

I totally object to this development. A facility of this nature will only add to already congested local roads, and add even more pollution to air which is already past the annual PM 2.5 average.

Firstly, with the announcement of the merge of the SIMTA/MIC proposals into one large super terminal, I feel this EIS should really become null and void. The proponents should have to submit a DA based on the one terminal and not seeking separate approvals, therefore trying to deceive the community as to the real impacts a super terminal will have on the local community. I think the residents of our local area at least deserve to have the impacts of a super terminal fully and properly examined before this is dumped on them.

The proponents have claimed there will be significant financial benefits to the local area, and the South West region as a whole. The EIS claims there will only be 40 employees employed to work in stage one, but will add on a minimum close to 700 trucks onto local roads, adding to the already congested intersections indentified in the proponents EIS. How is this of financial benefit to the local community, giving that not all of these employees will live in the local area or region? Even when warehousing staff are added, proposed automation will see many jobs become redundant, calling into question the figures provided in the concept approval/EIS. This does not provide local service providers with any real economic benefit, so I fail to see how it is in the publics best interest.

I am yet to understand how any of the proponents can continue to claim it is going to take trucks off the M5. All that will happen will be trucks off roads at Port Botany, and moving them to Moorebank and surrounding suburbs. Also, how are empty containers to return to Port Botany? This will add additional trucks on the road back to Port Botany, which I don't feel has been taken into account in any transport modelling. So any so called environmental benefit will be limited at best, taking into consideration it is only shifting the trucks from one area to another, plus adding emissions from locomotives.

The current existing intermodal terminals in Sydney have the capacity to deal with the projected demand of rail transported freight past 2020, meeting government strategies. The demand for freight transported from Port Botany in this manner has to this day not really been tested. With the construction of the Westconnex, I doubt that companies with warehouses based at Eastern Creek and Erskine Park especially will pay for the double to triple handling of their freight, when they can easily send there own trucks to Port Botany to retrieve their freight and return it directly to their warehouse. My father and husband have worked in the freight industry for the majority of their working lives, and have intimate experience with this industry. No real demand has been shown for a intermodal of this size (where you can basically ignore that this approval is only for 250,000 TEU, as the super terminal this will be a part of is seeking ultimate approval for 1.55 million TEU per annum to economically viable), meaning this could turn into a very expensive white elephant. This alone fails the impact to benefit ratio test, showing it is not in the publics best interest.

There is also no guarantee that trucks will not use local roads to rat run when there is heavy local traffic. This has happened in my own residential street, CHRISTIANSEN BVD, when there has been heavy traffic on local roads. Heavy vehicles carrying containers should not be on local roads populated with young children. The recent accident of a container truck overturning at Auburn recently just highlights the increased risks to local residents of potentially fatal accidents. I hold no confidence in monitoring of this by government agencies.

I find it appalling that on one hand, governments are encouraging young families to consider moving to the south west and investing their life savings into building a new house then, on the other hand, dump new heavy industrial into the area. This area has moved on from when this idea first came to fruition. We have a beautiful natural resource in the Georges River, and our governments should be looking to protect it, not destroy it. All residents of this country deserve to live a relatively quiet life, without having to constantly worry about the health and wellbeing of their families. Please, do not make Moorebank the dumping ground of Sydney, please reject this application and protect the long term wellbeing of the residents of South west Sydney.

I object to SIMTA Moorebank Intermodal Facility especially due to potential increased traffic, noise, particulate matter and related health hazards.

I object to SIMTA Moorebank Intermodal Facility especially due to potential increased traffic, noise, particulate matter and related health hazards.

I object to SIMTA Moorebank Intermodal Facility especially due to potential increased traffic, noise, particulate matter and related health hazards.

Please do not add our submission / concerns onto your website, as the information are providing is culturally sensitive. Please see attached

what a shame ............

you are our chosen representatives with a responsibility towards the community but i guess we made a mistake by choosing wrong people to lead us.

The only way to find out the impacts of traffic and pollution of this project will be when few of us suffer the consequences of your wrong decision and hopefully you can then undo everything.

Any normal non biased person would know the impact of 1000's of trucks per day on the M5 which is already a car park and the neighbouring roads and suburbs not to mention the pollutions and road accidents that will be associated with it.If i have to build Patio in my backyard I need to get permission from the council but building intermodal facility in our backyard does not require our councils permission. What a joke.

I hope someone will use common sense and move the industrial projects to industrial area.

I moved to Wattle Grove almost 3 years ago and in that time have found a lovely community perfect for young families like mine. I exercise at Lakeside Park with other mums of young children and my eldest child will start at Wattle Grove Public School next year. He has already had 2 upper respiratory tract infections this year.

I cannot imagine what the impact of an additional 10 000 trucks per day in our little suburb will have on the quality, or lack thereof, of air he and thousands of other growing children will have to breathe. I feel like I am endangering his life by having to live side by side with this monstrosity.

I work in Liverpool and the traffic to get from Wattle Grove to Liverpool is already substantial. I am concerned that every time I try to leave the suburb I will be stuck in a traffic jam, breathing carbon monoxide and trying not to get hit by massive trucks that have no business being in a quiet, residential area.

Why did the government release the land, let people build their dream homes, build a lovely area perfect for young families then decide that it is the only possible location for a 24/7 intermodal? When will Liverpool stop being the dumping ground for the rest of this city? How can money be more important than the health of thousands of local residents? This disgusting monstrosity has no business operating in our lovely suburb.

I would like to express my disappointment that it appears the decision to place a large industrial facility had been made long before this consultation process began and little to no attention has been given to the concerns of the local community. The 'official' pamphlets that I have read quickly dismissed the concerns of the local residents with little or no attempt to directly address the environmental concerns of everyone who is going to live nearby. They were basically advertisements for a development that for most of the process had not been approved.
With an airport being developed at Badgery's Creek one would have thought that would be an ideal location for such a project to integrate with an international transport hub. The only conclusion that I can come to is that there is obviously influential vested interests that simply cannot 'afford' for this to fail or be re-located. Was any thought given to making the site a large public space near the river or a business park that would employ thousands of people in a largely disadvantaged part of Sydney. It is a shame that this space will be destroyed by a poorly placed intermodal.
Lastly I would like to know what the state and federal governments are going to do in regards to compensating local residents after their property values go down and health suffers for 'progress'.
Thankyou for at least providing a forum to voice my disapproval,

This is the wrong place for the intermodal. There will be increased congestion and pollution from the additional trucks on the M5. I am concerned by the ongoing noise from the 24 hour operation and the disruption to our neighbourhood. You would not have this near your own homes, why is it okay for us, do we not matter. Please do not go ahead with this intermodal, there are better places to put it.

The Intermodal will pose major setbacks enviro mentally, and poses major issues and concerns with residental homes/areas.

The public has not been taken into consideration in these plans.

I OBJECT TO THE INTERMODAL AT MOOREBANK
TRAFFIC
The traffic is already at gridlock on the M5 for hours in the mornings and afternoons.
POLUTION
The pollution from all of the extra traffic and trucks will cause more health issues for local residents
This should not be allowed to be built in an residential area that was developed over 80 years ago.
NOISE
Noise caused by the extra traffic 24/7 will create health issues for the local residents.
CONGESTION on the roads. People who live in the south west of Sydney already experience long traffic delays, this will add increase the travel time for thousands of people causing more pollution.

How many times does Infrastructure and Planning get projects right? I am unable to recall any!! Town planners need to start getting things right and spend tax payers money more effectively. Us tax payers should also have a say in what projects get implement, where and when or a public referendum on projects should be granted to get public buy in.
Why on gods earth would you only build a two lane M5 tunnel which is a total bottle neck almost all the time and then build an intermodal when the infrastructure around it is not there. There is one already at Chullora. Why on Earth would we want another one 15 mins away? Would you like loud, noisy trucks passing your property 24/7 not to mention the pollution? Having to listen to trucks changing gears, smoke billowing out of their exhaust pipes, accidents, bottle necks. Who wants that right on their doorstep? I don't think so . What qualifications do these town planners have? They have no insight and do not plan for the future needs of the population. They need insight and better planning. The Intermodal should be build where they have the space at Badgerys Creek and allow people to choose to live there once it is built. It is not fair to build it at Moorebank in a well established area and the residents have no say.
SAVE OUR COMMUITY - SAY NO FOR THE INTERMODAL

The Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Moorebank Intermodal Company (MIC) states that the proposed Moorebank intermodal will allow imports and exports to grow through Port Botany. This will mean additional traffic on the already congested road network. 10,000 heavy vehicles per day will need to access and leave the terminal utilising the M5 and local roads.
The MIC state that an additional intermodal is required to reduce supply chain costs; however, it is questioned how the proposal at Moorebank will assist in reducing these costs. The proposed terminal in Moorebank will include transferring freight by rail less than 25 Kilometres from Port Botany, while increasing the handling costs of the supply chain with containers having to be loaded and unloaded multiple times in a very short distance. Infrastructure NSW has also questioned the viability of short haul freight and the funding of additional intermodal facilities until this has been properly investigated. That being the case, the increase in capacity at Chullora should be investigated with proper planning for a true intermodal at Badgerys Creek. Jenny Wiggins, in her Sydney Morning Herald article, states that Asciano is primed to invest $112 million to `compete "vigorously" with its own intermodal terminals', for example Chullora, and challenge the Moorebank intermodal essentially casting doubts over the economic viability of the Moorebank site (Wiggins, J., 2014, `Asciano challenges Moorebank freight hub', Sydney Morning Herald, 2 July 2014).
To truly reduce supply chain costs, the intermodal location should be moved to Badgerys Creek, a facility more than 40 Kilometres from the Port with access to key roads such as the M7 and the proposed M9. This location will also have the capacity to support future growth centres. The M9 motorway will provide `a direct link between the Central Coast and the Illawarra, connecting the growth centres of Camden, Penrith and Windsor' (O'Rourke, J., 2014, `What Sydney needs to transport us to the future', Daily Telegraph, 3 November 2014). An intermodal at Badgerys Creek demonstrates good strategic and growth planning.
Why Badgerys Creek is a better location than Moorebank
The MIC, in their Environmental Impact Statement, attempt to describe why Moorebank has been selected as a location. However, Badgerys Creek is better suited to meet the criteria that the MIC has listed.
Badgerys Creek is an ideal location for an intermodal terminal to handle both interstate and import-export freight. This is because it is:
* long enough for interstate freight trains without the need for trains to be broken up and shunted, creating unnecessary additional noise in the area;
* big enough to handle the number of container movements required - up to 1.1 million twenty foot Equivalent Units (TEUs) per year of import-export freight and another 500,000 TEUs per year of interstate freight. This is a greater capacity than the proposed Moorebank site;
* strategically located in an area where a new rail line is planned for the airport;
* near the M7 Motorway, a link to the West and North West where it has been identified by Deloitte that most of the container freight will be headed, and accessible to the M5;
* near the proposed M9 Motorway, providing the ability of the intermodal to service future growth centres;
* near the Western Sydney Employment Area (WSEA), future industrial areas and future freight markets in Western Sydney, where two-thirds of container freight received at Port Botany will be transported.
* further from Port Botany than the Moorebank site, making rail a viable alternative to trucks, and reducing supply chain costs;
* in development, meaning that truck access can be configured into the $3.5 billion already allocated to the surrounding road infrastructure network rather than upgrading roads that are already at capacity in the Moorebank precinct; and
* owned by the Australian Government and available for use consistent with the airport.
Problems with the Moorebank proposal
The Moorebank site constrained by a number of issues:
* The area is already suffering from significant traffic congestion, the addition of an estimated 10,000 truck movements and approximately 5,000 passenger car movements per day will exacerbate this congestion.
* The Planning and Assessment Commission (PAC), following their community meeting on the SIMTA proposal, has identified that the Moorebank area is already suffering from significant traffic congestion. `The community has strongly argued that the proposal is only going to move the congestion from Port Botany to the Liverpool/Campbelltown region. The Commission understands the Moorebank site is constrained by the surrounding residential and industrial land uses and the already heavily congested local and regional road network. If the concept plan were to be approved with the levels of throughput proposed by both SIMTA and MIC, then clearly the community's case is strengthened.' (2014, Planning and Assessment Commission, SIMTA assessment).
* The SIMTA Concept plan was approved by the PAC on the basis that they are limited to 250,000 TEU's, plus an additional 250,000 ONLY if the road network is able to handle the volume of heavy vehicle traffic. This being the determination made by the PAC, and in the absence of a master plan that would have enabled the commission to assess the impact of both proposals as part of the one process, this limit should apply to the operation of both SIMTA and Moorebank intermodal sites combined. TEU's should be limited to a total of 250,000 in this precinct.
* The economic viability of the site has been questioned due to the limits placed by the PAC on the number of TEUs SIMTA can move through their terminal. Chief Executive of Asciano has also questioned the economic viability of the site as previously mentioned, stating that Asciano plan to invest $112 million in their sites to increase capacity and making Chullora more competitive, able to handle an increased capacity from Port Botany, and open for operation before Moorebank (Wiggins, J., 2014, `Asciano challenges Moorebank freight hub', Sydney Morning Herald, 2 July 2014). With the Chullora intermodal capacity increased to 800,000 TEU it will easily be able to support increased in freight through Port Botany while the Badgerys Creek site is planned and constructed.
* The Moorebank site is surrounded by water on all sides. This means that the complex road and rail upgrades needed to service an intermodal in this area will be extremely costly. Liverpool Council has estimated these upgrades are likely to cost in excess of $750 million.
* There are significant problems relating to air quality, construction and operational noise impacts created by the intermodals. A proposal of this size and nature should not be earmarked for a residential area.
* The PAC determination of the SIMTA proposal has already revealed that Particulate Matter 2.5 levels in the local area are close to or above the advisory criteria for this pollutant, this applies to the current background levels as well as the predicted impacts. Additional diesel and liquid natural gas powered vehicles in this area will exacerbate this problem.
* Noise impacts, light spill and air pollution will have a detrimental effect on the local community, some of whom live as close as 400 metres from the site. Residents around Port Botany living as far as three kilometres from the port are affected by these factors; many residents in Chifley for example have been very vocal about sleep disturbance in the online domain.
* The Moorebank site will have a detrimental impact on the Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre. The presence and accessibility of an art and cultural facility in a low socio-economic area, such as Liverpool, is essential for positive community growth.
Problems with the process
The Freight Infrastructure Advisory Board (FIAB) recommended a master plan for the site, this was not undertaken. Residents agree the SIMTA and MIC proposals should have been considered as a single precinct application. This has created an unfair advantage for the proponents with confusion being created among the community with both proponents presenting different figures. The fact that both proposals were assessed separately also means that media attention highlighting the different stages of the planning and assessment process has also created confusion in the community. Coupled with this, the relocation of the Defence National Storage Distribution Centre (DNSDC) and the current construction works at Holsworthy Barracks have also exacerbated this confusion with many people within the community thinking the proposal is already in its construction phase.
Liverpool Council, in meeting with PAC expressed disappointment that a master plan was not undertaken and confirms that this has created confusion within the community `The ad hoc approach .........leaves gaps and inconsistencies in the information available resulting in a lack of transparency and reduced faith in government decision making.'
A master plan would have reduced this confusion and allowed the community to better understand the impacts these proposals will have on their family, friends and neighbours. It would have allowed the community to better refute claims made by the proponents, and have a much greater grasp of any proposed mitigation strategies for this proposal.
The MIC has also created confusion and doubt within the community, adding to a reduced faith in government process and decision making. They have done this first by splitting their figures. Rather than telling the community that there will be 1.55 million TEUs going through the site, they have split these figures between import-export and interstate. And rather than stating that there will be an estimated 297 train movements expected at the site, they have again split these figures to make them sound lower. The Liverpool Leader, in their article `Intermodal company gives community $1m for compensation package but concerned residents aren't buying it', reports on community concerns around the consultation process. This `compensation package' will be completely inadequate to address the impacts this proposal will have on the area, and made MIC seem like it was trying to `buy community support'. At the same time MIC also made a highly publicised donation to the Liverpool Mayoral Ball, which Liverpool Council subsequently rejected (Hansen, N., 2014, `Liverpool Mayor knocks back $5k ball donation from intermodal group but the cash is still destined for charity', Liverpool Leader, 22 August 2014).
An intermodal at Badgerys Creek would not require this level of compensation, as it can be properly planned for a suitable area; it also has residential and council support.
Second, the Sydney Morning Herald in their article `Waterfront baron and Liberal Party donor scored inside running on freight hub tender' has highlighted a possible issue around transparency and due process in the awarding of tenders for the Moorebank precinct. In light of the recent ICAC investigations and the problems faced by the Newcastle community, transparency and due process are paramount in the government decision making process.
Key issues from the community
There were some issues raised by local representatives and the community at the PAC determination meeting on the SIMTA proposal. These have remained largely unchanged in relation to the MIC proposal.
Traffic and access
* The proposal will move the congestion from Port Botany to Moorebank, which is already congested;
* Modelling does not include the predicted growth of the region;
* The intersections and road network are already congested, how is it possible for the proposal to decrease traffic delays?
* Trucks `weaving' onto and off the M5 between the Moorebank and Hume Highway interchanges, this is going to cause accidents; and
* Trucks parking and taking short‐cuts through the nearby streets.
Noise
* There is no noise wall along the rail corridor along the Georges River, so noise will carry particularly at night;
* Noise from the unloading/loading and movement of containers within the terminal;
* Noise from the breaking and shunting of trains due to the site sizing constraints; and
* Wheel squeal from the trains exiting the SSFL, tight radius curves lead to wheel squeal.
Air quality
* Increased diesel fumes in the community generated from locomotives, heavy vehicles and other heavy equipment used on site;
* Health impacts from the increased diesel fumes;
* South‐west Sydney is already heavily polluted due to the topography; and
* Dust and odour, particularly during construction.
Two intermodal
proposals
(SIMTA and MIC)

* There is an ad hoc approach to the two proposals;
* Cumulative impacts of the two proposals have not been adequately addressed; and
* Confusion as to the total traffic generated from the two proposals, as the modelling for each is different.
Heritage
* Removal of heritage features from the site, particularly those of military and indigenous significance.
Location
* Site is surrounded by residential development; and
* Other sites are preferable, such as Badgerys Creek, which is not surrounded by an established community.
Moorebank Intermodal Company EIS presentation
There was considerable concern from the community over the presentation that was given for the MIC EIS submission. Figures and statistics presented by MIC seemed to be inconsistent and the facilitator tried, on a number of occasions, to ask the community to voice their concerns directly to MIC representatives rather than in the public forum. At each of the three sessions the facilitator kept stating that she was conscious of time; however, the community feel that their questions about a proposal that will impact their family and community deserved an answer, and are more important than clock watching. The number of questions from the community at the final community information session saw the session run over time.
Traffic and Transport
* The MIC recognised that there are significant transport and traffic congestion problems in the Moorebank precinct; however, they claim that the additional 8,160 heavy vehicles and 5,724 cars they predict to be brought into this precinct every day due to an intermodal will not have any further impact.
* The Chief Executive Officer of MIC stated that there would be approximately 1.6 trucks required per TEU. He also stated that 1,400,000 TEUs would be required to leave the terminal by truck. According to this statement, and given that heavy vehicles will have to both arrive and leave from the precinct, the figure of 8,160 heavy vehicles per day seems low, this actually equates to 12,376 heavy vehicles per day. For the purposes of this document the figure of 10,000 heavy vehicle movements per day has been chosen as a more accurate representation of the figures.
* The Chief Executive Officer of MIC also confirmed that the Moorebank intermodal will not take heavy vehicles off the M5 between Port Botany and Moorebank, and that as Port Botany expands the number of heavy vehicle movements on this stretch of the M5 is expected to grow. It should be noted that Labour Minister Anthony Albanese previously claimed that the Moorebank intermodal would take trucks off the M5; this fallacy gained a lot of momentum especially in the media and it has never been publicly corrected.
* Questions were raised by the community about the problem of Trucks `weaving' onto and off the M5 between the Moorebank and Hume Highway interchanges. MIC recognises this as a significant problem.
This `weaving' has the potential to cause a recognised `black spot', with potentially fatal consequences for the community. It is worth noting that a `black spot' is already located at the Nuwarra Road and Heathcote Road intersection, only 2 Kilometres from the `weave' site.
* The traffic modeller for MIC presented information about the predicted impacts on intersections both with the intermodal and without. Intersection surveys were undertaken on Tuesday 7 December 2010, and Tuesday 18 March 2014, in peak hours only. It is concerning that these surveys seem to only have been conducted on two days, four years apart, with the December date being in a peak holiday period.
* A Seven-day automatic traffic count was also conducted from Tuesday 7 December 2010 at only three locations along Moorebank Avenue. It is concerning that four year old data, gathered prior to a number of new and extensive residential developments in the area, is being used as a base for traffic modelling.
* The data presented by the traffic modeller showed a delay of over 200 seconds at some intersections when the intermodal is in operation. A 200 second delay, coupled with a 150-180 second cycle on a normal set of traffic lights is a significant impact (approximately six minutes at EACH set of lights), one that is likely to have flow on effects.
He has compared data, which is based on a scenario where the intermodal is operating with road and intersection upgrades, with predicted data based on no intermodal without road upgrades. This is not comparing like for like. Given that intersections in this area are currently operating at D or E classification (near or at capacity), it is hard to believe that the roads in the area will not be upgraded by relevant authorities to attempt to reduce congestion before they reach an F classification.
* It has been noticed that traffic figures do not take into account the recently announced WestConnex which will have major traffic implications on the M5 during construction; this coincides with the proposed opening date of the Moorebank intermodal.
The WestConnex project also aims to increase Port Botany by 272% more container ships by catering for a greater number of heavy vehicle traffic movements on the M5.
Labour Minister Anthony Albanese criticises the WestConnex `proposal for not going near Port Botany, where it is expected there will be a large rise in the number of container trucks'. He also questions the government's transparency, citing that `the decision to release new information about the impact of WestConnex on Melbourne Cup Day indicates to me that those who support this route are aware of its shortcomings and are keen to avoid public scrutiny.' (Saulwick, J., 2014, `Albanese pans plans for the WestConnex', Sydney Morning Herald, 10 November 2014).
* Residents are understandably concerned about the impact of intermodal traffic on local and residential roads. The MIC confirmed at the community information session that while they can implement some measures for traffic movements, it will ultimately be up to the design of the precinct, the way the precinct operators choose to use the precinct, and choices made by heavy vehicle drivers as to which route they choose to use. With heavy congestion on Moorebank Avenue and the M5, two of the key roads in the area, it is likely that Anzac Road and Cambridge Avenue will be used as `rat runs' for heavy vehicles.
* The MIC traffic modeller recognised that currently 6% of traffic on Anzac Road in the peak is heavy vehicle traffic; however he failed to include any heavy vehicle movements in his trip distribution figures for this road. In current heavy traffic conditions Anzac Road is a very attractive option, as demonstrated when the M5 is congested. Heavy traffic movements on a congested day are far higher than those measured by MIC. The omission of this traffic flow information from MIC data sets is hard to fathom. For the local residents, especially those with houses that back onto Anzac Road, it creates uncertainty and distrust in the accuracy of the information presented.
* The construction of an intermodal terminal at Moorebank shows a lack of strategic planning, particularly in relation to future traffic movements.
* An intermodal at Badgerys Creek will be a true intermodal with road, rail and air access. This area will serve the purpose of meeting the needs of future growth centres. The government currently has the ability to configure appropriate and safe truck access in the Badgerys Creek area with $3.5 billion in funding dedicated for road infrastructure.
Rail access
* MIC has predicted an additional 297 train movements each week, this figure does not include the interstate trains that may transit through the terminal.
* It was unclear how these train movements would impact residents in the area, due to three different rail entry options currently under consideration.
* Due to the length of trains, they will need to be broken up and shunted.
* MIC communicated that the actual rail entry will be decided once a tender for operation of the facility has been awarded. This makes it difficult for residents to understand the impacts of the rail access.
* It is unclear whether rail access will impact the passenger rail line and impact on travel times for people travelling by rail to the Sydney CBD.
* An intermodal at Badgerys Creek will not have the same rail implications. The size of the site will allow trains to remain whole within the terminal without the need for breaking and shunting.
Noise and vibration
* In order to ascertain acceptable noise levels in the area, the MIC have measured ambient noise levels between 2010 and 2011, and then from July 2012 to establish a base index. Approximately 20 of the 34 noise receptors set up and monitored by the MIC to establish this base index were located along train lines and major roads.
* Given that most residents in the area live in quiet, peaceful streets, it is a concern that the receptors set to ascertain the base index for ambient noise seems to have been placed in predominantly noisy locations.
* The residential suburbs of Casula, Wattle Grove and North Glenfield are the closest communities to the Project site; however, these will not be the only locations impacted by the noise generated from the proposed intermodal.
* In a recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald it was learned that `After more than a year of residents around Port Botany being told the night time noises they were complaining about did not exceed "sleep disturbance criteria", the Environment Protection Authority has admitted they were right.' (O'Brien, N., 2014, `EPA admits it was mistaken about Port Botany noise levels', Sydney Morning Herald, 17 August 2014).
* Residents in the precinct are understandably concerned that noise levels will exceed those acceptable. Above acceptable noise levels can have health impacts including: annoyance, sleep disturbance, performance issues (reduced concentration), cardiovascular health problems, hearing problems, mental health effects, and general health impacts (e.g. on the immune system).
* There is currently no noise wall along the rail corridor along the Georges River, so noise will carry particularly at night.
* There is no doubt there will be excessive noise from the unloading/loading and movement of containers within the terminal, which will operate 24 hours a day, as well the breaking and shunting of trains due to the site sizing constraints, and compression breaking of trucks on the surrounding roads.
* Wheel squeal from the trains exiting the SSFL have also been identified, as tight radius curves lead to wheel squeal. The MIC noise analyst has agreed that wheel squeal is likely to be a factor with some of the three different rail entry options currently under consideration. A factor that will apparently be decided once the tender is awarded, a decision that is likely to be economically based with no consideration for the nearby community.
* An intermodal at Badgerys Creek will not have the same noise implications, due to it being located in a purpose built heavy industrial area. The size of the Badgerys Creek site will also allow trains to remain whole within the terminal, negating the need for breaking and shunting of trains. Rail access will not be restricted by the construction of rail bridges over the Georges River, as is the case at Moorebank, reducing the instance of wheel squeal by negating the need for tight entry and exit points. Compression breaking can be limited through planned road upgrades specifically designed for heavy vehicle movements.
Local air quality
* MIC have recognised that exposure to pollutants and particulate matter (PM) can contribute to, or exacerbate, respiratory and cardiovascular issues, including premature mortality and morbidity, in addition to increasing associated hospitalisations. This supports that point that this proposal should not be planned for a residential area.
* Placing a heavy industrial facility in the middle of a residential area is negligent and will be detrimental to the 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, particularly PM2.5 concentrations which are close to or above the advisory criteria. Additional diesel emissions and particulate matter released from this proposal will prove dangerous for residents, especially the most vulnerable: children, the elderly and disabled members of the community.
* Diesel fumes and particulate matter are carcinogenic, and as well as causing other serious illnesses, will be fatal for some members of the community.
* It has been identified that diesel locomotives and switch engines are significant contributors of SO2, NOx, PM10, PM2.5 and PAHs, while onsite mobile equipment (ITVs, side picks and forklifts) are the highest contributor to CO and VOC emissions, they also contribute substantially to PM10, PM2.5.
* It is understood the decision about onsite equipment will be made by the tender winner and based on economics rather than community welfare.
* During operation of the Project, combustion engine emissions (i.e. NOx, CO, SO2, PM2.5, PM10, VOCs and PAHs) from locomotives, mobile LNG equipment and heavy vehicles represent the greatest potential for air quality impacts.
* With 297 train movements each week and approximately 10,000 truck movements each day it is concerning that a proposal of this nature could be considered alongside family homes, and close to pre-schools, primary schools, high schools, as well as aged care facilities.
* Badgerys Creek, an Australian Government owned area, is away from residential properties, and therefore not likely to cause the same risks as the Moorebank site. It is also well placed near the M7 and the proposed M9 Motorways, providing the ability of the intermodal to service future growth centres, near the Western Sydney Employment Area (WSEA), future industrial areas and future freight markets in Western Sydney, where two-thirds of container freight received at Port Botany will be transported.
Human health risks and impacts
* The NSW Chief Health Officer's Report (2010) identified that health gains achieved over the past few decades have not been equally shared across the entire NSW population and that there is a gap between those with good and poor health. This gap is exacerbated in poorer communities.
* South Western Sydney has some of the poorest communities in NSW as measured by the SIEFA data (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS 2011).
* South Western Sydney has higher rates of people with disabilities than the NSW average. People with disabilities have health conditions which may or may not be related to their disability.
* In 2004 - 2008, South Western Sydney residents had higher incidence of lung, kidney, head and neck, pancreas, thyroid, stomach, bladder, uterus and liver cancer than NSW.
* Mortality rates in South Western Sydney for cardiovascular disease at 83.9 per 100,000 are 5% higher than the NSW average of 100 and are significantly higher in Liverpool LGA (111.4) (2005/06).
* Very high psychological distress was reported by 13.2% of South Western Sydney residents (2.1% above the NSW average).
* As previously noted, MIC have recognised that exposure to pollutants and particulate matter (PM) can contribute to, or exacerbate, respiratory and cardiovascular issues, including premature mortality and morbidity, in addition to increasing associated hospitalisations. And that that diesel locomotives, switch engines, and onsite mobile equipment (ITVs, side picks and forklifts) are significant contributors of PM10, and PM2.5.
* As also noted, above acceptable noise levels that will result from an intermodal terminal can have health impacts including: annoyance, sleep disturbance, performance issues (reduced concentration), cardiovascular health problems, hearing problems, mental health effects, and general health impacts (e.g. on the immune system).
* Traffic impacts with the identified the problem of Trucks `weaving' onto and off the M5 is a significant problem. This `weaving' has the potential to cause a recognised `black spot', with potentially fatal consequences for the community.
* It is highly negligent of the Government to consider building an intermodal at the currently proposed Moorebank site. The site is located in the middle of a residential area, and the consequences of such a decision will prove dire to the community.
* Badgerys Creek is by far a site better suited to meet the criteria that the MIC has listed in their EIS summary.
Support from elected representatives
The role of three tiers of government is to ensure that community needs can be voiced to the government by their local elected representatives. These representatives are based within the community, they understand the local area, and are acutely aware of the geographic typography of the area and their constituents needs.
The representatives from the Liverpool area are all unequivocally stating that the Moorebank Intermodal proposal is in the wrong location. This includes the federal member for Hughes, Craig Kelly MP; the state member for Menai, Melanie Gibbons MP; and Liverpool City Mayor, Ned Mannoun.
It is worth noting these representatives recognise the need for an intermodal terminal within metropolitan Sydney to support future freight growth in New South Wales; however, Badgerys Creek is the ultimate location for this development. Liverpool Council have recently released a discussion paper titled `Badgerys Creek: the ideal location for an intermodal' (October 2014).
It is time for the government to listen to their party members who are voicing some very valid concerns, and join the discussion about a new location for this project.
Alternative uses for the land at Moorebank
The residents of Liverpool also support the Freight Infrastructure Advisory Board (FIAB) recommendation of the development of new intermodal freight capacity within metropolitan Sydney. However, the residents believe that the location of this development should be strategically placed to meet future growth and freight capacity. Therefore, it is proposed that Badgerys Creek, rather than Moorebank, is recognised as the consummate site for development.
`In 2011, the Australian Government developed the Liveable Cities Program (now called the Liveable Communities Programme) to support state, territory and local governments in meeting the challenges of improving the quality of life in our capitals and major regional cities' (2011, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development website).
As part of this program, Parramatta City Council (the only Sydney council selected for the program) received $16,150,000 in funding to complete three missing links on the Parramatta Valley Cycle way, and undertake a series of related works on the Parramatta River Foreshore. The money used for this revitalisation has given Parramatta an economic and social boost.
The site identified for the Moorebank intermodal is prime, urban, riverfront land. This land should be used to assist the government in solving the housing crisis identified in the draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney, by using the development as a premium riverside residential lifestyle precinct. The land is situated less than 30 Kilometres from the Sydney CBD. It is in close proximity to public transport, including the T2 Airport and T2 Inner West & South lines (both of which have capacity to accommodate urban growth in this area), the Liverpool to Parramatta T-Way, the M90 Liverpool to Burwood bus route, and many suburban bus routes. In short, the Moorebank location is perfectly positioned and adequately serviced by public transport to assist the government in meeting its housing targets set in the Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney.
An independent valuation (Cushman and Wakefield Development Opportunity Liverpool Riverside Lands, September 2014) valued the SIMTA and MIC sites at more than $482 million. Revenue raised from the sale of this land could be used to assist in the funding of the infrastructure needed to support, and fast-track an intermodal at Badgerys Creek.
NSW Chief Health Officer's Report (2010) identified that there is considerable evidence that social factors (e.g. income, employment and education) have a critical role in health outcomes. A plan to revitalise the Liverpool area by embracing natural assets, such as the Georges River, and utilising land to its full potential presents an opportunity to lift the socio-economic status and improve overall health in the area. The Liveable Communities Programme in Parramatta is a testament to this.
Preserving the Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre and maintaining its accessibility to the community will boost the social economy of the area and contribute positively to community growth.
Linda Silmalis, in her Sunday Telegraph article (9 November 2014) says that `NEW housing sites for 11,000 homes will be unlocked today as the NSW government seizes on a building boom with one of the biggest land releases in Sydney this year.' On this topic, `State Planning Minister Pru Goward said the areas will help drive the housing construction boom, while placing downward pressure on house prices.' (Silmalis, L., 2014, `Grab your new home out west', Sunday Telegraph, 9 November 2014). Liverpool Council estimates that the land proposed for the Moorebank intermodals has the capacity for approximately 16,500 riverside dwellings, housing more than 40,000 people, and giving the community access to the Georges River. This will assist the government in meeting its targets, identified in the draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney, to develop housing for more than 1.6 million people. Affordable housing is a much better use of the land in this area.
Good, well considered, strategic planning is required to maintain New South Wales' status as the Premier State. This includes planning major infrastructure projects, such as an intermodal terminal, in the right location. The right location for this proposal is not Moorebank; Badgerys Creek is far better suited and situated to meet the Government's freight infrastructure needs.
Please reject this proposal on the grounds that it is not in the public interest of the residents of Liverpool or the wider community.