Moorebank Intermodal Precinct West - Concept & Stage 1

* This project will lead to increased heavy vehicle traffic around my suburb. M5 is already congested and is getting upgraded. It will be congested again in no time after this project.

* The air pollution is of big concern to my suburb where many young families are residing

* The noise pollution will be so high with goods trains running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Thank you for negating your duties as a responsible leader in our community by considering the intermodal at Moorebank. I wonder if an intermodal was proposed on the doorsteps of all the politicians and decision makers who support this proposal would be approved... Of course not, so why then consider it for a highly populated suburb where every aspect would be negatively impacted, traffic, environment, noise and welfare of young children. Yes let's approve the intermodal so as we can increase the risk of accidents and deaths on our roads. If you approve the intermodal at Moorebank you are a dispicable entity with no consideration for young children like my children who would have to grow up in an unsafe suburb. Thank you for putting my young boys respiratory problems at risk. With the increase traffic and air pollution and toxins will mean we and other respiratory related problems will place a strain on the healthcare system when it could be avoided. No matter what 'impact study' is made it's common sense that there is no positive impact and if you think otherwise or state that it is minimal then let's construct the intermodal outside your front door. No? I wonder why. Don't build the intermodal at Moorebank, go regional like badgers creek, it will marry nicely to the airport out there and create more jobs where it's needed. Build the intermodal in a highly dense family based suburb and increase the risk of children being run over from school, more car accidents where children are the victims of semi trailer accidents. The blood is on your hands if you approve it.

I strongly object the proposal very close to residential area for the following reasons:

1. Traffic congestion: We've been waiting for ages for the M5 lane upgrade, it was near chaos all these days but we coped with it for there is a valid reason and some specific end date for the upgrade completion. With the Intermodal here Inside Moorebank, the traffic because of containers increases causing
Congestion.
2.Noise levels: With movement of so many containers and trains, the noise levels increases drastically making it impossible for us to do our normal activities. These distractions will lead to unrest and so finally effects our health.
3. Pollution. This comes as a package deal with so much increased traffic.
4. Infiltration of harmful insects: only a few days back I've seen on TV how foreign infiltrated fire ants bit a few people and the ill effects of it. This happened Inside the vicinity of an Intermodal. Millions of Containers from across the world are handled Inside Intermodals and it is impossible to fumigate all these, thus leading to infiltration of some foreign poisonous insects.

With already most of us suffering from so many health issues this additional pollution adds 'salt to wound'.

Hurstville City Council has reviewed the EIS on the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal and considered the impact the proposal may have on the Hurstville LGA. While there are not expected to be any immediate environmental impacts within the Hurstville LGA, Council has concerns regarding the environmental impacts the project may have on the Georges River. The Georges River forms the southern boundary of the Hurstville LGA and is one of Hurstville's primary natural assets due to its aesthetic, recreational and biological value.

Potential impacts on the Georges River include:

* Decline in Water Quality
The MIT is likely to have significant adverse impacts on the water quality of the Georges River at each stage of its development and operation including site preparation, construction and operation. The clearing of large tracts of existing riparian vegetation and the loss of the riparian corridor to facilitate construction will expose and mobilise topsoil and have immediate impacts on the water quality of the Georges River adjacent to and downstream of the site.

Upon completion of the development, the will be a significant increase in the area of impervious surfaces across the developed 220ha site. This will lead to a dramatically increased rate of stormwater entering the Georges River from the site, increasing the potential for erosion and reduced water quality downstream of the site. Section 3.3.3 of Technical Paper 6 from the EIS states that "the results for each layout shows that the rates of runoff from the developed site far exceed those for the existing site due to the considerable increase in impervious area, with a 300% increase in peak flows for the sub-catchments".

The quality of the stormwater runoff, due the industrial nature of the site, is also of concern. It is likely that run off from the site will contain industrial pollutants and elevated levels of nitrogen and phosphorous which can lead to degraded water quality and algal blooms which will negatively impact aquatic ecosystems.

The EIS states that a specific water quality monitoring program for Georges River has been established for the project. This monitoring program commenced in July 2013 and will run for two years. It is considered that two years is not an adequate period for a monitoring program to assess long term impacts and it is recommended that the program be extended over 2015-2018 to enable monitoring to also take place during the construction phase of the development.

* Loss of Biodiversity
The development of this site will see the existing riparian corridor cleared which will result in a significant loss of biodiversity. This clearing also includes the removal of endangered and threatened ecological communities already identified on the site. The loss of riparian vegetation, to enable construction, will also have an immediate impact on the water quality of the Georges River and is likely to lead to increased sediment loads entering the river and bank erosion.

Hurstville Council, as a member of the Georges River Combined Councils' Committee (GRCCC), supports the GRCCC's submission on the EIS in so far as the negative environmental impacts the proposal will have on the Georges River in the areas of reduced water quality and the loss of vegetation and biodiversity.

Hurstville Council calls for adequate mitigation measures to be put in place to prevent environmental degradation to the Georges River system.

Hello,

The link to this document:
2014-10-07 Moorebank Intermodal Terminal Project_Appendix H (Part B).pdf

at URL http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=5066
is broken as per attached file.
Please fix it.
Thanks

Qui

As in attached document

I oppose the Moorebank Intermodal proposal and Environmental Impact Statement for the following reasons.. Pl. refer the attached Document.

File attached.

My submission is sent as an attachment

Application Number: SSD 5066/EPBC 2011/6086
Project name: Moorebank Intermodal Environmental Impact Statement.
Name: Beverley Corben.
Address: 13 Woolmer's Court Wattle Grove 2173.
Phone: (02)9825 1173
Email: [email protected]

I oppose the Moorebank Intermodal Proposal and Environmental Impact Statement for the following reasons,

Proposed site: The idea of building an Intermodal terminal at Moorebank would have been an excellent idea 30 to 40 years ago, but not in 2014 as the proposed site is surrounded by many thousands of residential properties housing tens of thousands of people. Many of the homes are situated on land purchased from the Federal Government. The site is also surrounded by many schools, child care and aged care facilities.

Alternative Site: With Badgerys Creek airport coming on line, it makes sense to locate the intermodal at the same site. Badgerys Creek will require substantial road infrastructure to support the airport and the requirement for the Intermodal could be absorbed in that cost. At a MICL community meeting, the CEO Ian Hunt claimed that Badgerys Creek was too far away to be viable. Badgerys Creek is 29.4 km further south west from Moorebank with Badgerys Creek being only 21.9km from Eastern Creek which represents a large part of the area that most containers are destined for. Railing the TEU's to Badgerys Creek from Port Botany would increase the rail travel component by approximately 39kms. It would also reduce the road transport distance by approximately 7km. It should also be noted that Badgerys Creek site isn't located in the middle of residential development and doesn't have anywhere near the massive traffic congestion that is currently evident in Liverpool.

Rail line: The Port Botany freight lines have only a capacity in the vicinity of 480,000 TEU's P/A. MICL claim that two passing lanes on the current rail lines will rectify this restriction and increase the capacity to 1 million. My question is, is it possible to achieve the 1 million TEU's. I also question the massive cost that will be involved in the construction of two rail bridges that will need to be built over the Georges River to allow the Port Botany rail movements to enter the terminal. I would suggest not much change out of 1 billion dollars.

Terminal TEU's The SIMTA Concept plan has been approved on the basis that they are limited to 250k of TEU's + 250k subject to the ability of the road network to handle the volume of HV traffic. This being the case the same restriction should be applied to the MICL proposal. The same should also apply if the operations of SIMTA & MICL site are combined.

Rail viability: MICL claim that Mooorebank is sufficiently far from Port Botany to make rail a viable alternative to trucks although it is on record that Infrastructure NSW recommended that state public funding for additional Intermodal terminal capacity in Sydney including in relation to supporting Moorebank and that infrastructure be minimized until there is greater clarity on whether the short haul rail freight market is viable. From my background in the industry, rail short haul viability has for many years been questionable. To locate the Intermodal to Badgerys Creek would increase the rail component of the freight movement by approximately 39kms with the possibility of improving the rail viability. It would also reduce the road cartage distance by approximately 8km.

Traffic: The proposed developments originally stated that the number of heavy vehicles coming into the area as 2600, now MICL are stating up to 8000 + by 2030. It's a fact that the Moorebank Ave/M5 south bound interchange is not suitable to handle the thousands of extra heavy vehicle movements per day. Heavy vehicles will not be able to accelerate up to the speed limit of 100 KPH to safely merge or weave with the through traffic due to the motorway being an uphill grade from the interchange to the Hume Hwy overpass. This has been acknowledged by the MICL CEO Ian Hunt. This interchange is an accident black spot waiting to happen. MICL clearly have no interest in the required road network upgrade, in fact, in their glossy brochure handed out at a community meeting they make a broad statement about several intersections but point out that the intersection of Moorebank Avenue and Bapaume Road to be unsatisfactory. No mention is made concerning the Moorebank Ave/M5 Motorway interchange which will be the most challenging upgrade, yet MICL just fob it off with comments like, quote, "Development of the terminal is likely to have a small impact on vehicle speeds on the M5 Motorway (west of Mooebank Ave), M7 Motorway, Hume Hwy and other roads near the terminal" These continual types of comments made by

Air Quality: PAC SIMTA determination has already shown that PM 2.5 levels in the local area are close to or above the advisory criteria, MICL state that, quote "Air quality monitoring has demonstrated that the concentration of different airborne pollutants in Liverpool is generally well below guidelines"
Which is correct, SIMTA or MICL?
The MICL graphs showing the background and predicted levels of PM2.5 and PM10 are also questionable. In the case of both study results the predicted increase appears to be very low considering that there will be a minimum of an extra 39 additional train movements, 5700 car and 8160 diesel trucks movements coming into to the area per day + the many onsite operation equipment that will operate 24/7. It should be noted the proposed site is located in a basin which allows pollution to lie. It then has to rely on wind of some form to move it away. It should be noted that Liverpool area is one of the most polluted areas in Sydney.

Noise quality: Both SIMTA and MICL have acknowledged that mitigation will be required to control the noise levels so as to not exceed the guidelines, Residents in suburbs to Port Botany container terminal are currently experiencing sleep disturbance within a radius of 3kms of the terminal. It is considered that the same level of noise will be similar at Moorebank, yet MICL cannot advise as to how that noise will be mitigated other than to state that the mitigation process will be up to the successful company awarded the opportunity to construct and operate the terminal to address. In a recent reply I received from an executive of MICL the word mitigate or mitigation was used six times. It's easy to use the word, but ensuring that it happens is another thing.
Looking at the MICL noise study gives reason to question the accuracy of the data. An example is that receptor number R4 shows a dB(A) level of 47, yet a resident living in close proximity to the receptor has official documented evidence that he is currently receiving at his home a level of between 95 and 101 dB(A). This being the case, all other data must certainly be questionable.

Economics: Who pays for the massive upgrades to the 34 intersection including the Moorebank/M5 in cost, two massive rail spur lines over the Georges River, again many millions of dollars.

Container destinations: MICL claim that the majority of TEU's would be delivered within a radius of 20km from the terminal, a study carried out by a modeling firm on behalf of our community showed that two thirds of all containers ex Port Botany are destined for the western suburbs not South Western Sydney which is between 26 to 35 km west of the proposed terminal.

Train Movements: MICL state that there will be 297 + train movements per week in and out of the proposed terminal. Many of these movement will occur during the nighttime and early morning resulting in sleep disturbance issues on surrounding residents.

I oppose the Moorebank Intermodal proposal and Environmental Impact Statement.

I have uploaded my objections

I have uploaded my objections

Please find attached my objection to the Intermodal Proposal.

My submission opposing the Intermodal proposal is attached.

NO

Refer to attached PDF

I am strongly against any proposal for an intermodal of any type at Moorebank. The area just will not be aeble to cope with the increased traffic and the residents should not be exposed to the increase in air pollution which will surely result in health problems for all in the area. Please see my attached submission.

Regards,
XXXX XXXX
Wattle Grove

submission attached

Refer attachment