Public Submission Response to :
Project SSD-5066 Amended DA / EIS Exhibition

Moorebank Intermodal Terminal

We refer to our original submission referenced as Response 208 in the Response document from MICL . ( attached )

At this time we limit our comments to the following but foreshadow specific explication at any future public consultation process.

In both the original EIS, and this latest document in response to submissions, the project (SSD-5066) is represented, for the purpose of its ultimate justification, as having location benefits that are unique and will carry high economic return to become a highly valuable national infrastructure asset once fully developed.

In factual, measured and argued submissions in response to the original EIS of project (SSD-5066) the location of Moorebank in East Liverpool is exposed as restrained with its unique geographical and land use limitations - a major Western Sydney regional traffic corridor, bridge reliant with river on three sides, Liverpool Military Area running 20 km to its immediate south - to destine it as a high cost / low return sub developed freight hub venture.

We make one specific reference to the published MIC Response to Submissions - Page 92. It makes reference to our submission( # 208) wherein we raised "(P92)... concerns in relation to the staged approval process and argues that environmental impacts should be assessed upfront".

This is an insulting conclusion. That particular "concern" was expressed by us in our submssion with the following.....

Using staged approvals "will be a dereliction of duty as local knowledge highlights for all to see the obstacles ahead and that no engineering can remedy the volumes of traffic into which the 1000's of daily truck movements need to merge and then wind out to their destination......The project is a major infrastructure development and must be fully implemented as modeled and planned to attain a positive return for the major investors. Unless it proceeds to its fullest planned intention then it is to be condemned as half baked... "

The concern was not of "environmental impacts"... It was directly that delaying until stage 2 the requirements and costing of infrastructure to address the observable limitations of the site and measured shortcomings of existing traffic flows will see the project be one of limited returns for all concerned.

$9 billion seems to be a national interest figure that justifies captains of industry and politicians to establish, without concern, a 24 hour seven day dirty and noisy industry in the close vicinity of established residential neighbourhoods and river bank reservations.

It is incumbent on the proponents to lay out up front, before a spade of soil is turned, how they will address the major infrastructure demands of the location and its limitations for the development to attain its planned economic return that is used to justify the extensive disruption to the amenity of local neighburhoods and river lands.

Thank you for the opportunity for us to present this view on behalf of our local citizens.

see attached

Please see attached