NorthConnex

See attached

See attached

See attached

If this project is really about reducing traffic on Pennant Hills Road, why has the concept of extending the M7 through to the M1 not been thoroughly investigated?

Of course it would require a second Hawksberry river crossing but we need forward thinking governments not a pile of investors looking to make money through quick fix tunnel building projects

This option would bypass a significant residential sector of Sydney thus keeping the metropolitan roads safer and reducing pollution in these beautiful tree lined residential areas.

This option would also drastically reduce the distance and travelling times to cross from Liverpool to the central Coast.

We live here for a reason!!!!

The EIS, prepared for Northconnex, declares that with the completion of the tunnel and the subsequent removal of much of the traffic generated pollution from the Pennant Hills Road corridor, there will be an improvement in the health outcomes of those people living and working in that area. Currently the pollutants are dispersed over many kilometres.

It is not an acceptable option to funnel the accumulated pollutants generated along the nine kilometres of replacement road - ie; the tunnel, via a pair of stacks into the middle of another suburban area. How ridiculous!

If the government apporoves the tunnel design based on the current EIS then there will no doubt be law suits arising as a result of health problems caused by unfiltered pollution fallout from the proposed emission stacks.

Whilst most people would agree that easing congestion as proposed by the NorthConnex tunnel is of benefit to all; no-one can agree that there is any benefit to having a Pollution Stack with an outlet directly onto residential homes and schools in a built up urban area. This proposal is using the residents of Wahroonga as guinea pigs from a health point of view. At the air quality forum, at the Hornsby RSL, the project director for NorthConnex said he can guarantee this is not about money. Therefore, surely, an alternative option is to build the pollution stack in a bushy, unpopulated area?

As a resident of Wahroonga I am opposed to the tunnel project due to the impairment to quality of life and risk to residents health from increased traffic and air pollution. I am also opposed to the proposed conversion of Carrington Oval to a car park for vehicles associated with the construction.

At the Air Quality forum in Hornsby on 29/07/2014 a lot of talk was given about the size of patricles and studies in New Zealand even to the extent of this being duplicated (boring) by different speakers.

To the best of my knowledge there are No 9 KM tunnels in New Zealand. However there are lots of very long tunnels in Europe and as such I do not belive the topic was addressed properly with the European tunnels and findings from them not being mentioned or possibly even avoided.

If you are making an Environmental Impact statement that will affect many residential areas one would have expected that you would be able to produce the following:

1. The amount of fallout in Kg/per hour of toxic substances being spewed from your two stacks and at peak / non peak times of travel.

2. The number of Tons/ week/month/year that will be emnitted from the stacks

When someone at the forum did try to ask about the weights of pollutants being emitted his question was not answered properly. He was fobbed off becuase he was struggling with his english, but he had very valid questions.

3. With all the predictions you have been calculating there has been no presentation showing potential areas in Sqaure Kilometers that will be affected by fallout from the stacks.

You have Arial pictures of where stacks will be located but these shoulld be shaded over showing where pollutants are more likely to cover subject to different wind directions.

4. You have not explained why there have only been two stacks applied to this project rather than additional stacks along the course of the tunnel. This surely would then even out the amount of pollutants that would be emitted at each location.

Can you please give a cast iron guarantee that the existing three general purpose northbound & southbound lanes on pennant hills road will be retained as is. The idea that taking trucks etc off this road reduces the need for these three lanes is ridiculous, as traffic volumes are ever increasing.

I read with interest in the EIS the push for cyclists, public transport etc. The number of these in porportion to cars is absolutley minimal. Please don't say you have studies to show otherwise. You only have to stand and look at peak hour to see the few number of buses & bikes on the road.

We do not want the dveloper driving the reduction in general purpose lanes, as happened with the lane Cove tunnel, just to satisfy their need for profit.

So in conclusion I re-iterate can you please give a cast iron guarantee the all three lanes will be kept as general purpose lanes.

I strongly object to the positioning of the North Connex stacks. It is clear the data in the EIS is unacceptable lies! How can data obtained at Lindfeild and Prospect possibly reflect Wahroonga?
Move the North Connex stacks further north away from residential areas, away from schools and hospitals.

The aim of NorthConnex, as with other major road infrastructure project must be that of getting heavy vehicles out of residential streets.

The transport lobby will argue for that and did so a couple of decades ago when lobbying government to build the Western Sydney Orbital (M7 Motorway).

However, trucking companies and private heavy vehicle owners have subsequently sought to avoid the toll on the M7 to travel between the M2 and and M4 motorways.

This is particularly noticeable at nights when, due to the lesser number of other vehicles using the main route through Seven Hills and Prospect, heavy vehicle drivers can expect to encounter fewer (if any) red traffic signals. Heavy vehicles, especially those pulling a 'dog', exceed the speed limit in this situation. Added to that is that they are noisy!

We can predict the same scenario with the proposed underground M1-M2 NorthConnex. . Some transport companies will instruct their drivers to avoid tolls, particularly at night, because fewer vehicles will be expected on Pennant Hills Road. Private heavy vehicle drivers will act likewise.

There must be a means to discourage heavy vehicles from using residential streets/roads when major infrastructure such as the M7 and the M1-M2 Northconnex have been built to accommodate such vehicles.

Perhaps it is a bit of a 'stretch' to suggest that inspection stations be established in residential streets/roads and a toll be applied on heavy vehicles which, because of their destination, should have been using the Motorways. However, some measure needs to be employed.

Perhaps on Pennant Hills Road, after operation of the M1-M2 NorthConnex, Roads and Maritime Services can override cross-street signalled intersections so that vehicles travelling along Pennant Hills Road will encounter more occasions of having to stop at red signals, particularly at night.

Perhaps too, such a measure can be trialled at nights between Seven Hills and Prospect before construction and operation of the M1-M2 NorthConnex.

We really urge that something be done to ensure major infrastructure achieves what is intended from it - to get heavy vehicles out of residential areas.

Please see attached PDF File

I am in support of the NorthConnex tunnel for relieving Pennant Hills Road of current congestion.
I oppose the proposed location of the Northern smoke stack, being in such a heavily built-up residential area, including many schools and a hospital, and strongly request it be moved to an industrial area, as well as fitted with a modern and effective filtration system.
I am concerned that based on NorthConnex's presentation of the current science and modelling - reassuring us that there would be a 'negligible impact' on air quality and health - the air quality monitoring has been conducted in Lindfield and Prospect - areas which are not relevant to where the proposed smoke stacks will be. Therefore, the long-term health effects cannot be accurately forecast for residents in the local area.
I appreciate that the project needs to be commercially viable in order to be built, but not at the cost of the health of local residents. Some mention was made at the 29th July meeting in Hornsby of the increase in respiratory problems of residents near the Lane Cove Tunnel smoke stacks, however, this was quickly dismissed by the panel. Mention was also made of how the EIS stated that measuring PM1 would be a better indicator for this tunnel, for which only PM2.5 and PM10 have been included. Again, answers were given which left me feeling like there are some significant gaps in this EIS.
As a local resident this is too big a risk to take on the health of our children and future generations, and we implore our government to take action and address these issues!

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

This will ruin the suburb of Wahroonga which is known for its beauty and tree lined outlooks. I am particularly concerned about the air pollution for our children in the surrounding schools.

To Whom It May Concern,

We purchased our home at 16 Coral Tree Drive, Carlingford approximately 18 years ago. At that time the RTA were offering compensation to all property owners in Coral Tree Drive for property that bordered the proposed M2.

We purchased our home with knowledge of the M2 proposal including:- plans, the location of the noise barrier, embankment and distance between our boundary and the M2.

The completed project provided us with a landscaped embankment approximately 22 metres from our boundary. Vegetation covers the entire area with existing trees over 10 metres in height.

The current NorthConnex M1, M2 project was not a consideration at the time we purchased, this project if approved will result in the removal of the entire embankment, trees and vegetation between our property and the M2.
The motorway will run adjacent to our boundary with substantial increases to traffic flow, resulting in increased noise and pollution.

The loss of value to our home is in the vicinity of $200,000.00 confirmed by local real estate agents.

The current proposal affects us economically, environmentally and posses a significant health risk for family member with Asthma. as a direct result of the removal of hundreds of thousands of tons of dirt from the existing embankment for construction.

The pollution, noise levels and loss of enjoyment of our property will be intolerable.

If compensation or property resumption is not offered by the RMS the project should NOT be approved for construction.