NorthConnex

I endorse the attached SCAPS Group submissions.
Do it right ! Include filtration in the tunnel exhaust stacks.
In my view, the tunnel exhaust is similar to the smoking rooms found at international airports where the air around them reeks of smoke. Primary school arithmetic should tell you that the amount of exhaust from thousands of trucks and cars coming out of a few badly placed exhaust stacks is not acceptable.
Ignorance may have been an excuse for blunders of the past causing ill health, such as tobacco smoking, asbestos, etc.

Compulsory acquisition of Council reserve behind Lisle and Savoy Courts WPH (part 2):

Further to my original submission of 6 September 2014:

* Please retain the open plan look of the reserve, i.e. no brick walls or significant metal fences

* Please restrict the area required for the increased sized drainage and increased detention pond capacity to the absolute minimum.

* NorthConnex Pennant Hills showroom staff advise that vehicle access for the retention pond will enter and exit via Oakes Road, not the two pedestrian pathways from Savoy and Lisle Courts. Please honour this statement.

* A significant number of pedestrians, with a high percentage being young children, from the surrounding streets, use the pathways and the reserve. Increased traffic in these two Courts will put these people at risk.

* Please retain the pathway between Savoy and Lisle Courts for pedestrian access.

* Savoy Court being a dead-end, is used by children on most days as a play area. Any additional vehicular traffic, especially trucks, puts these children and their carers at risk.

* Please retain as many of the trees and as much of the current grassed area as possible in the reserve.

* Why is a compulsory acquisition of the whole reserve necessary at all. Logically, why not wait until the increased drainage & retention capacity design has been completed and then acquire the minimum area required, leaving the significant majority of the reserve to be maintained by Hills Shire Council as current.

* If RMS has to acquire the whole reserve please ensure a dedicated plan exists to maintain the unused part of the reserve in good condition.

* Please do not simply use the unused part of the reserve as a dumping area for goods and materials.

* What is the capacity of the current retention pond? Can it cope with the 25% extra run off created by the M2 upgrade?

* Can the current retention pond itself by increased to prevent the need for an additional retention pond?

* It has come to my notice since my original submission, that a major sewerage line crosses the reserve near the current retention pond area.

* The creek in the reserve should not be piped - it supports the local wildlife of multiple breeds of frogs, native birds, including owls, kookaburras, lorikeets, king parrots, duck, bush turkeys and cockatoos (& unfortunately myna birds) plus local residents pets and lizards & several varieties of snakes.

* Please restrict any increased detention and drainage requirements to the area west of the creek

* Please allow community input once the design of the increased drainage and detention has been determined.

* I again refer to the 22 July 2014 visit to the reserve by Garret O'Connor (Project Director, M2 Upgrade at Transurban) and Amber Cameron (NorthConnex Place Manager) where Garret O'Connor stated that "The vast majority of the current reserve (i.e. east of the rear fence of 18 Lisle Court) is unlikely to be impacted, including the current pathways and the M2 boundary fence from the end of 12 Savoy Court's rear fence to several metres West of the bridge over the runoff creek." - pdf copy of his approved visit summary is attached.
Thank you,
Richard Munro

I endorse the attached SCAPS Group submissions.

I endorse the attached 3 submissions put forward by the SCAPS group and I am sure that this type of blatant disregard for the people who will by driving through this putrid concoction in the tunnel and those who live within range of the poisonous gasses that will spew from the stacks, will be seen by all as a maniacal parallel to the tobacco companies. The law one day will catch up with those who knowingly treat people with such contempt, so I implore you to act accordingly and do the right thing while the project is still in it's infancy.

See attached

See attached

In relation to the attached letter, I object to the noise wall being moved at any time. Any construction near my home will impact and disrupt our household.

Furthermore, I attended "The Health Impacts of Air Pollution" Seminar at Barker College last Thursday 4 September 2014. The information I gained is more than enough to know that stacks should not be placed in residential areas let alone being unfiltered!

I object to my family, friends and neighbours being statistics of the future.

see attached

see attached

see attached

I endorse the attached SCAPS Group submissions.

I strong oppose this proposed development. The developers demonstrate a shocking contempt for public health and safety, arguing ( http://northconnex.com.au/misconceptions.php ) that no filtration is necessary for stacks venting a 10km tunnel. This is clearly absurd. The health risk for those living near a tunnel exhaust stack has been highlighted in government reports ( http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh42.pdf and http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/air-quality-monitoring/docs/air-quality-tunnels-guidance.pdf ), community submissions ( http://www.rag.org.au/tunnel/lbw19oct04.htm ) and by health professionals - doctors - in recent public forums and mainstream media ( eg http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/doctors-fear-health-impact-of-northconnex-tunnel-pollution-20140831-10a6o0.html ). My family has already suffered significant trauma as a result of air pollution from the Rhodes remediation XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. The relevant authorities assured me that XXXXXX was operating 'inside regulatory boundaries', and even if this was correct ( it was not - XXXXXXX regularly exceeded the maximum allowed concentrations of toxins released ) it only goes to demonstrate that our regulations in regards to air pollution are not strict enough. I note that there is no publicly available information on air quality for our region ( http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/AQMS/aqidaily.htm ) so I wonder how it will be possible for anyone to monitor the change in air quality as a result of this project going ahead. I note that the proposed exhaust stack will be 15 metres, below the level of some houses in the area ( http://northconnex.com.au/misconceptions.php ) and suggest that all those houses above the level of the exhaust will suffer extreme smoke inhalation. If the project is to go ahead, the stack should be MUCH higher than 15 metres, which would make the dispersion of the plume occur much faster prior to the plume making contact with the ground, which would have a direct effect on the concentration of pollutants at ground level. I further suggest that each exhaust should be filtered. I find the developers comments that there are 'no filtered stacks in Australia' to again show appalling contempt for public heath, and point to examples in Japan where practically all exhaust stacks are filtered ( http://www.rag.org.au/tunnel/graphics/japan_road_tunnel_ventilation.pdf ). The dismissive comments by the developer demonstrates that they cannot be trusted with public heath issues, and IF allowed to develop XXXXXXXXXX, they must be FORCED to filter their stacks. There should be comprehensive monitoring - including of PM2.5 levels - PRIOR to the opening of the motorway, and then at a number of locations including AT the exhaust points. Money should be allocated from the revenue generated to put towards further research into the effects of PM10 and PM2.5 levels on LONG TERM health, and into funding medical care for those who suffer adverse affects as a result of the project ( which, I was told by a Thiess insider, was what happened with the cleft palate cluster my family lived in ). The community experience of the M5 tunnel demonstrates the monumental differences between what the developer claimed in relation to traffic levels, pollution levels, the need for filtering, and their own competence, and the actual results of massively increased traffic, pollution, and ineffective retro-fitting of tunnels after construction. We must learn from this lesson. Further to my points on minimising the health impacts of those who would suffer as a result of the project going ahead, I would now like to express my strong opposition to the project going ahead at all. This unsolicited proposal is not in the best interests of anyone XXXXXXXXXXXXXX. The level of funding of public transport relative to roads is a national embarassment. The old adage of "more roads, more cars ... more cars, more roads" certainly appears to hold true. The developers suggest that their project will DECREASE overall pollution, however this completely ignores the effect that opening more roads has on traffic levels. Of course opening more roads will entice even more road use. The answer to traffic congestion, both along Pennant Hills Road, and ANYWHERE in a large CAPITAL CITY in a developed country, should be major investment in public transport. The pathetic failure of all recent state governments to invest in public transport infrastructure should not be used as an argument for this unsolicited development plan. In an age where governments are moving to place more restrictions on smoking tobacco in public places, we should also be moving to place more restrictions on large developers concentrating toxic exhaust fumes and pumping them into densely populated residential areas, schools and hospitals.

Heavy vehicle going through local roads

I endorse the attached SCAPS group submissions.

See attachment comments

8 September 2014

Director - Infrastructure Projects
Department of Planning and Environment
Number: SSl 13_6136
Major Projects Assessment
GPO Box 39
SYDFNEY NSW 2001

NorthConnex Application Number SSl 13_6136

I am a retired school principal living in Lochville Street in Wahroonga.

Please find below my submission in response to the exhibition of the EIS for NorthConnex.

Firstly, I would like to state I object to the project as described in the EIS.

I am extremely concerned regarding the following issues and request that these be considered by
NorthConnex and the Department of Planning. These are:

1. Placement of the northern ventilation stack in the centre of a densely populated residential
area in Wahroonga and thus exposing 9300 school children to pollutants spilling out of the stack. Other similarly affected groups include multiple aged care facilities, hospitals, businesses and homes.

2. There are multiple large scale research studies that suggest the impacts of air pollutants on health are serious. These include increased death from heart disease, increased risks of lung cancer, stroke, poor lunch growth in children, increased asthma, and recent research suggesting low birth weight for pregnant, increased autism, and congenital heart defects. These studies confirm air pollutants have long term inflammatory effects on humans and cause the above health problems.

To address my concerns, I request that the following actions are undertaken:

1. Due to the significant health concerns of the current design, I request the Department of Planning does not approve the project in its current form.

2. I request the Department of Planning require the tunnel to be extended to the industrial areas to the north of Hornsby, thus effectively moving the stack at the entrance away from heavily populated Wahroonga.

3. I also request that alternative transport options to ease congestion on Pennant Hills Road be considered such as an orbital surface route and improvements to rail-freight network thus making a tunnel link to Newcastle obsolete.


Yours sincerely,


Lai Choo Poon (Ms)

Address: 23 Lochville Street. Wahroonga, NSW 2076

Refer to attached file for my submission and objections to the NorthConnex EIS.

Refer to Attached submission for my objections to the NorthConnex EIS

Bennett Clayton submits that there is a vast body of evidence linking diesel exhaust emissions to downstream health problems.
There is a great deal of evidence that modern Euro 4 and 5 diesels emit more of the unregulated PM 2.5 particles, than older style Euro 1 vehicles. These PM 2.5 particles are particularly associated with asthma and breathing difficulties, and in some cities, people will not go to work if PM 2.5 reading (available as an app) is too high.

At the time of writing the PM2.5 in Beijing (measured at the US embassy) http://aqicn.org/city/beijing/us-embassy/ is 65 , London is at 72ppm
(moderate, with only sensitive people likely to be affected),
but 2 days ago it was 248 , and London 195
(Health warnings of emergency conditions. The entire population is more likely to be affected.)

Sydney at the moment is at 9.7 measured in Liverpool, but has had a high of 49.
(All data is in normalised AQI format)

We can only guess at what the local level in the area of the stack may be, collecting and dumping 9 km of PM 2.5s in one location.

Bennett Clayton proposes that changing the bus and truck fleet from diesel to cleaner and cheaper LPG fuels, as a 20 year transition to renewable fuels would address the problem of the tunnel stacks, as well as the more general problem of particulates in and around our cities.

This technology has been tested, trialled and proven in Melbourne, does not have the running, maintenance, range, and refuelling issues associated with CNG vehicles, would employ many people in a new industry, while improving our fuel security by using a local fuel.

The infrastructure has existed for many years servicing the taxi and private fleet. The cost of conversion would be relatively small, given that the conversion would be performed as part of a regular engine rebuild, and would be a fraction of buying a new emission compliant vehicle.

If this practice were to be adopted, the question of health problems would be addressed, and the location of tunnel stacks would be non controversial.

The downstream health costs of regulated emissions from diesel buses in Sydney is attached. The health costs from PM 2.5s is estimated.
This paper was written by Bennett Clayton, and was presented some years ago, and was accurate at the time of writing.

Document uploaded