I am very much concerned about the health issues raised for young children going to school in the area from breathing in unfiltered exhaust fumes on diesel engine trucks.

Dear Sir or Madam
As resident landowners in close proximity to Pennant Hills Road and daily users of Pennant Hills Road, we support the Northconnex proposal in its objective of removing congestion and the associated environmental and safety impacts from what must be one of the worst roads in Sydney.

It would appear from the concept information contained in the EIS that the proposed route of the Northconnex tunnel is in close proximity to our property, if not partly underneath.

Given the soil condition in this area and susceptibility for movement, we request that a pre-existing condition of our dwelling and associated structures is undertaken and that the RMS, its contractors and Westconnex owners/operators agree to rectify any damage caused to our property as a result of this project.

Suitable conditions should be imposed on the approval requiring this to be addressed.

Yours faithfully
XXXXXX

NorthConnex Application Number: SSI 13_6136

Below is my submission in response to the exhibition of the EIS for NorthConnex.

I strongly object to the project as described in the EIS and as a local resident living less than 500 meters from the proposed stack in Wahroonga I wish to express strong concerns about the following issues.

1. It seems absolutely outrageous to suggest that it's OK to collect the fumes from several kilometers of a heavily used tunnel and then exhaust it all in one spot in the middle of a densely populated residential area. How could anyone conceive that this would be OK? I absolutely support the tunnel itself, but can't comprehend the placement of the tunnel opening and exhaust stack. The opening and the stack should clearly be located further out of suburbia. It seems that a process of fully exploring alternative options has been short circuited to satisfy the political agenda for expedience, which is in turn overriding considerations of public health. In close proximity to the proposed tunnel entrance and exhaust stack there are multiple schools, thousands of school children, multiple aged care facilities, hospitals, businesses and homes.

2. There seems to be no scientific doubt about the poisonous and carcinogenic nature of exhaust fumes with particular emphasis on diesel fumes. Surely this proposal is putting residents in harm's way and is setting the stage for significant health problems in years to come.

3. I'm concerned about the air quality within the tunnel which is shown in the EIS to potentially exceed standards for pollutants such as NO2, and haze from particulate matter at the ends of the tunnel.

4. I'm concerned that the justification for not providing filtration for the stacks weak and hard to believe.

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

1. The air quality and human health impact assessment need to be revised to address the issues raised above.
2. An independent options assessment process should be undertaken to assess alternative locations for the ventilation stack and portals.
3. To undertake a Life Cycle Analysis and assessment for the provision of filtration
4. A long term health study on children and residents in areas impacted by stack discharges be included as part of the conditions of approval.
5. A comprehensive air quality monitoring program is developed and implemented.
6. An independent review of the ventilation system is undertaken to ensure that NorthConnex's claim of no portal emissions is justified.
7. Portal emissions from NorthConnex in the future are banned.
8. The Submissions Report/Preferred Project be exhibited to allow the community to respond to the revised information contained in the report.
9. The Department does not approve the project in its current form as it clearly does not meet the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development as required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.


Scott Kirby
24 Highlands Ave Wahroonga 2076

Northconnex Tollway EIS Submission.
I am totally against the proposed Northconnex Tollway .
Traffic congestion
When NorthConnex is opened, the RMS admit that the tunnels will only take 30% of the traffic off Pennant Hills Road so Pennant Hills Road in peak hour will still be a very busy road.
Eventually the NorthConnex Tollway will induce more traffic and both routes will end up as clogged as Pennant Hills Road is now.
All this extra traffic will have to find its way through the rest of Sydney's streets after it exits the end of NorthConnex and this affects me.
It would be much better to use the money to build more public transport where the peak hour traffic originates as well as fix up the rail freight system in NSW to move the through truck traffic onto rail.
There is a huge need for more heavy rail lines capable of being connected into the rest of the rail system, unlike the North West rail line under construction.
Cost
The enormous cost associated with tunneling the NorthConnex tollway will suck up all the state funds which might otherwise be used for schools, hospitals and useful forms of peak hour transport.
Time waste
On the train line that parallels this road, it is possible to read a book, catch up on ones' emails or work while traveling. Compared to the train, using this road in peak hour will be a time waster.
Fuel security
Building another road makes Australia more car dependent rather than less and hence more dependent on foreign energy sources as our own crude oil sources in Bass Strait are exhausted. These foreign sources are increasing in price and becoming more insecure as demand in China increases and they, in their turn, run out.
Safety
Road transport is inherently less safe than any of the forms of public transport and will lead to increased death and injury in the State.
Air pollution
Encouraging more traffic raises the level of CO and NOX in Sydney's air and more diesel trucks raises the level of PM10, PM2.5 and smaller particle sizes which are increasingly found to be harmful.
The air intakes for both tunnels will be the inwards portals both of which are right at points where there are major roads and hence higher levels of pollution which will be reflected in the final levels of pollution in the air exiting the tunnel stacks.
The EIS figures (Table 7.101) show that NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 pollution levels will be very much above safe levels in the air at the exit ends of the tunnels. This air will be vented only 7m above ground level and will under some weather conditions quickly reach ground level and surrounding homes.
It would be much better for the surrounding community if the Japanese method (progressive in-tunnel particulate and NOX filtration stations) were used.
Land use issues
Increased motor vehicle use increasingly abrogates the streets from the other users, pedestrians, cyclists and in particular local children who, when I was a kid, could safely venture outside their front gates and play in the street. Not any more!
Large public parks, which date from the last century and before, being built on what are now major roads, are now surrounded by traffic and isolated from their communities.
More and more of our cities' real estate is devoted to car parking and car travel. In my area this land is valuable - at least $3000/m^2 - and each car parked uses 11m^2 of street or garage space with lost rental potential of about $10,000 per annum. This is in addition to car depreciation and running cost.

11 September 2014

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

Via online form: http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6136

NorthConnex Application Number: SSI 13_6136

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 have grave concerns regarding the following issues and request that these be considered by NorthConnex and the Department of Planning. In regards to the NorthConnex tunnel, I am concerned about:

1. As a doctor and reproductive endocrinologist I am particularly concerned about the potential health effects of pollution on the residents in a densely populated residential area. Air pollution may have a negative impact on pregnancy itself.

2. Further to this some studies have described a negative impact of air pollution on fertility. A recent study has reported an increased risk of sperm aneuploidy with air pollution (1). Sperm aneuploidy may cause embryo aneuploidy and decrease fertility and increase miscarriage rates.

3. A recent study from Spain has drawn a link between air pollution and a decrease in fertility rates (2). Significant epigenetic effects may be related to the exposure of pollution. While decreasing fertility it may also raise the prospect of negative effects on the resultant offspring.

4. Just like the other health specialists I am concerned about the 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 lung growth in children, increased asthma, and recent research suggesting low birth weight for pregnant women.

5. Placement of the northern ventilation stack in the center of a densely populated residential area in Wahroonga, where 9,300 school children will be exposed, as well as multiple aged care facilities, hospitals, businesses and homes.

6. The placement of the northern ventilation stack in a valley in Wahroonga where there are often low wind speeds, which will result in poor dispersion and exposure to community to high levels of tunnel emission.


7. I am concerned about the project including future provisions for portal emissions in densely populated areas, which will result in emissions remaining at ground level, and hence exposing the local population to pollutants. I am also concerned that NorthConnex's claim that there will be no portal emissions from the current proposal cannot be verified.

8. I am concerned about the large amount of diesel emissions which will be emitted from the NorthConnex tunnel, as it is being designed for heavy freight to bypass Pennant Hills Rd. Diesel emissions have been classified as carcinogenic by the World Health Organisation, and also contain a larger number of fine particles which penetrate deep into lung tissue and remain there causing inflammation.


9. I am concerned that a full and transparent options assessment process was not undertaken to assess alternative designs for the project. Unlike other tunnel projects in Sydney there are alternatives for locating the stack and portals in non-residential areas.

10. I am concerned that the justification for not providing filtration for the stacks is cursory and unconvincing.

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

1. The air quality and human health impact assessment need to be revised to address the issues raised above.
2. An independent options assessment process should be undertaken to assess alternative locations for the ventilation stack and portals.
3. To undertake a Life Cycle Analysis and assessment for the provision of filtration
4. A long term health study on children and residents in areas impacted by stack discharges be included as part of the conditions of approval.
5. A comprehensive air quality monitoring program is developed and implemented.
6. An independent review of the ventilation system is undertaken to ensure that NorthConnex's claim of no portal emissions is justified.
7. Portal emissions from NorthConnex in the future are banned.
8. The Submissions Report/Preferred Project be exhibited to allow the community to respond to the revised information contained in the report.
9. The Department does not approve the project in its current form as it clearly does not meet the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development as required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

References:
(1) Jurewicz J1, Radwan M, Sobala W, Polańska K, Radwan P, Jakubowski L, Ulańska A, Hanke W The relationship between exposure to air pollution and sperm disomy..Environ Mol Mutagen. 2014 Jul 3. doi: 10.1002/em.21883.]
(2) Nieuwenhuijsen MJ1, Basagaña X2, Dadvand P2, Martinez D2, Cirach M2, Beelen R3, Jacquemin B4. Air pollution and human fertility rates.
Environ Int. 2014 Sep;70:9-14. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.05.005. Epub 2014 May 28.




Sincerely


Dr Robert Lahoud
Clinical Director IVFAustralia
Level 2, 176 Pacific Hwy,
Greenwich 2065

Dear Director
I am writing to you to state that my husband, daughter and I all strenuously object to the above project as described in the EIS for NorthConnex.
We have lived in Wahroonga for 21 years and our daughter attends school in the local area.
We are very concerned to find ourselves possibly living 500 metres from a ventilation stack in the proposed plan.
There are many primary schools in this area with young children attending who will be exposed to high levels of tunnel emissions and pollution which will surely contribute to or cause health problems.
There will be a large amount of diesel emissions from the tunnel as it is being designed for heavy freight to bypass Pennant Hills Road. Diesel emissions are carcinogenic and cannot be ignored.
We are concerned that there are viable alternatives for locating the stack and portals in non -residential areas and they are being ignored.
We are not at all convinced that there should not be filtration provided for the stacks.
We would request that an independent assessment process should be undertaken to assess alternative locations for the ventilation stack and portals.
Also an air quality monitoring programme should be developed and implemented.
The department should not approve the project in it's current form as it does not meet the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development as required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

I support the project with the following comments:
(1) Adequate noise walls are required along the M1 southbound exit onto Pennant Hills Road (as the current timber walls are totally inadequate).
(2) Has the unfiltered northern ventilation stack location been looked at placing it further northwards closer to the Asquith light industrial area or national park.

In the noise and vibration section of the EIS, I note that in Figure 7-14, on the M2 just east of Yale Cl Bridge, there are existing noise walls shown north of the road that don't actually exist. I know this as I drive the M2 most days and our house in Westmore Drive is affected by noise from this section of the M2, so we are aware of the lack of noise barriers in this location.

We attended a community forum and enquired about this and were told that these existing noise walls were mapped by some form of aerial drone or photography. My concern is that given that we know the some of the "existing" noise walls shown do not exist, have they been factored into the modelling of operational noise, and if yes, the predictions at many receivers may be wrong. I would also question the locations of other "existing" noise walls shown in the figures and assumed to be factored in to the operational noise model.

On page 435 of the EIS, it also states "Noise barriers currently line both side of the M1 Pacific Motorway and the Hills M2 Motorway.". Which given the above, and from looking at the figures, is not an accurate statement.

I would request that the correct locations of the noise barriers be identified, presumably through design information from the M2 construction, or an actual site visit, and the locations be fed into the noise model for an accurate estimation of noise impacts at properties along the M2.

Kind regards,

11 September 2014

I wish to maintain my privacy in this submission and request the department to delete all my personal information before publication.

I declare that I have never made any reportable political donation in the previous two years.

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

Via online form: http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6136

NorthConnex Application Number: SSI 13_6136

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

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

I had been suffering various life threatening respiratory diseases since I was seven years old I would not want other people to be exposed to such risks especially children at all.

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

I have a high level of concern regarding the following issues and request that these be considered by NorthConnex and the Department of Planning. In regards to the NorthConnex tunnel, I am highly concerned about the 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 lung growth in children, increased asthma, and recent research suggesting low birth weight for pregnant women, increased autism, and congenital heart defects. These studies confirm air pollutants have prothrombotic and inflammatory effects on humans which cause the above health problems.

To address my concerns I request that the stack and portal exit should be located in non-residential areas.

Hence I also will endorse the Submission by the Community Against Polluting Stacks (CAPS) group. I have viewed this submission.

Hence I also will endorse the Submission by the Ku-ring-gai Council. I have viewed this submission.

Hence I also will endorse the Submission by xxxxxx. I have viewed this submission.

Name: xxxxx
Address: xxxxx

11 September 2014

I wish to maintain my privacy in this submission and request the department to delete all my personal information before publication.

I declare that I have never made any reportable political donation in the previous two years.

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

NorthConnex Application Number: SSI 13_6136

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.

XXXX I do not want other people especially young children to be exposed to x risks and go through x painful diseases.

Hence I have a high level of concern regarding the following issues and request that these be considered by NorthConnex and the Department of Planning. In regards to the NorthConnex tunnel, I am concerned about:

1. Placement of the northern ventilation stack in the centre of a densely populated residential area in Wahroonga, where 9,300 school children will be exposed to toxic pollution, as well as multiple aged care facilities, hospitals, businesses and homes.

2. The placement of the northern ventilation stack in a valley in Wahroonga where there are often low wind speeds, which will result in poor dispersion and exposure to community to high levels of tunnel emission.

To address my concerns I request that the stack and portal exit should be located in non-residential areas.

Hence I will endorse the Submission by the Community Against Polluting Stacks (CAPS) group. I have viewed this submission.

Hence I will endorse the Submission by the Ku-ring-gai Council. I have viewed this submission.

Hence I will endorse the Submission by Linda O'Neill of address XXXX. I have viewed this submission.

FULL NAME: XXXX
ADDRESS: XXXX