NorthConnex

Att: Director -Infrastructure Projects
Department of Planning and Environment
Application number -SSI 13_6136
Major Projects Assessment
GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001.

REF [Unclassified] S20140805a: Comment and Solution for NorthConnex Southern Interchange.

Dear Project Directors,

Refer to the upload pdf file in attachment 1,

Figure 1 is the Fact sheet (July 2014) proposed solution by NorthConnex for Southern Interchange. An estimated (1480/day) heavy tunnel trucks will drive through the proposed Suburban Streets (from Aiken Road, Oakes Road, Karloon, Eaton Road and back to Eaton Southern Tunnel Site) during the tunnel construction for next 3.5 years (mid 2015 to end 2018).

Section A is the comments. (A1) contains 9 points of Risks/Impacts Analysis. (A2) contains 3 points of NorthConnext good works/benefits.

Section B is road (Timing Schedule) inspection at junction of Pennant Hill Road, Eaton Road and Copeland Road.

Section C. is a proposing alternative solution to fix all major Impacts/Risks for all parties.
(C1) requires NorthConnex uses construction (C3) cost to build an additional (Tunnel) Truck Link at middle of pennant hills road (between Aiken and Eaton road) that delicates for the heavy (tunnel) truck to turn left from pennant hill road to Eaton road site only. (C4). is the visible outcome/benefit of this proposal.

My Dear Director -Infrastructure Projects, Department of Planning and Environment, Would you please consider this proposal?

Best Regards,


A Resident in West Pennant Hills (2125).

Reference NorthConnex Factsheet July 2014 Southern Interchange

Construction heavy vehicle route along Aiken Road, Oakes Road, Eaton Road and Karloon Road.

I object to the use of this route for heavy vehicles for the following reasons;

1. The roads are not designed for heavy vehicles. Karloon Road has a weight limit restriction for vehicles.

2. The volume of traffic would be a significant impact on the daily lives of the residents. Particularly given the hours of use, the number of days and the total period.

3. The route has two steep gradients which would require the heavy vehicles to increase their noise and emissions. In particular the gradient on Karloon Road has had a number of cases of heavy vehicles being stalled or unable to climb the hill. These areas would mean that the residents near the hill would be subjected to greater disturbances. These gradients and low speed roads would increase the operating costs of the heavy vehicles.

4. It would be more sensible to allow a right hand turn for heavy vehicles heading south along Pennant Hills Road near the M2 intersection. Pennant Hills Road flow would still be affected if the proposed route was used.

5. The traffic movements into Eaton Road is more than 1 vehicle movement every minute. (1480 + 330)/(24 *60) = 1.25 vehicle movements per minute. At Eaton Road is a set of traffic lights which cycle at greater than 1 minute. A traffic flow of this volume is not sustainable at this intersection.

6. Traffic along Karloon Road and Eaton Road would be significantly affected by the addition of 1.25 vehicles per minute at the Eaton Road intersection. Changing the traffic light phasing would have a significant affect on Pennant Hills Road.

Overall I would have question the validity of the EIS given the fundamental mistakes in this aspect of traffic flow.

We purchased from the RTA at 18 Coral Tree Drive Carlingford 19years ago last month, to which the RTA offered compensation to the previous owners and the whole of the street that bordered on the M2 and then onsold the houses to recoup some money. Why is this not being offered to us? You are telling us the noise barrier is to be moved within 3-6 metres of our property.

We intially purchased with the knowledge of the M2 proposal including plans, the location of noise barriers, landscaping of the embankment and a reasonable distant between our property boundary and the M2 with no further works to be done.

The Vegetation has taken 19 years to grow behind us and the landscaped area is approx 22 metres from our boundary and the trees are only now after 19 years covering the existing noise barrier.

The current Northconnex project was never a consideration when we purchased our properties and the Northconnex project will remove all this vegetation and trees, wildlife and the existing embankment. This also means the traffic flow will increase along with noise levels and omissions coming from the tunnel exit which in no way will be travelling back to the stack on Pennant HIlls Rd. With already suffering asthma this is only going to make the condition worse.

We have also been put in a position where we can not sell with out losing a considerable amount of money as no one is going to want to buy with the unknown in their backyard plus we now have to stay for many years until it is finished and then who in their right mind would want to purchase with a motorway on their back fence.

No consideration has been made to anyone in our street in regards to loss of property value, losing our outlook which at present is a tranquil bush setting with plenty of wildlife and native birds.

This current proposal affects us not only financially, but also environmentally and possess great risks to our health especially to myself who already suffers asthma.

The pollution, noise levels, and loss of enjoyment of our property will be intolerable. Also, the dirt removal will be dusty and noisy to which i have already mentioned having asthma, what about the cleaning aspect?

We are also concerned about the trucks travelling in our already congested street due to m2 bus parking.

My son also is sitting his HSC next year and all this disruption is making him anxious , who is going to control the noise while he is studying for his exams next year?

OTHER PLACES YOU COULD MOVE THE EXIT:

Why can the tunnel exit not come out under the golf course and meet with the M2 at the Pennant HIlls Juncton or better still move past Carmen Drive to the bushland that is occupied by NO RESIDENTS!!!!!!

If compensation or property resumption is not offered by the RMS the PROJECT SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED for construction or an alternative tunnel exit location should be considered.

I find it most disturbing there is no on/off ramp part way along this proposed tunnel for locals who live above and in its surrounding areas to be able to access the tunnel on completion. We are the ones who are going to experience the most discomfort during construction, however we are unable to reap the benefits of travelling along this tunnel. Have you ever travelled along Pennant Hills Road through Thornleigh and Pennant Hills in peak hour traffic? It won't help me in my travels to the Hills M2 Motorway at West Pennant Hills. For those of us who live in a bush fire prone area our lives will be more at risk than before. We will not be rewarded for putting up with the imposition of trucks traversing our roads 24/7 in order to dump the soil that has been excavated for this tunnel. Please re- consider a further on/off ramp as a plus for the tunnel.

Please see my attachment

Dear Sir/Madam,
I recently attended the Air Quality Public Forum at Hornsby RSL on July 29th because I was very concerned with the health issues associated with placing a major ventilation stack in the middle of a highly populated suburb.
The presentation was slick with all the 'right' facts and figures being rolled out to the general populous. However, it was the question time which captivated me more. The backlash to the current stack location proposition and its impact on the schools, hospitals, the homes for the elderly and the surrounding homes and units was incredible. Question time could have lasted for four hours instead of the allocated one hour, and we probably still would not have addresses all the audience's concerns!
To locate the northern stack where it is currently proposed is shortsighted, and a bad design. Quite frankly I cannot understand how in any way imaginable it could be seen as acceptable. Are we trying to shorten the lives of the people who live in the built-up surrounding area.?
What happened to sound engineering practices where one tries to minimise the impact on people's lives yet provide world class, longterm engineering solutions?
There is an unsolicited Transurban proposal I have seen called Equilibria which appears to me to be so much more environmentally friendly than this proposal. The tunnel fumes are dispersed closer to the National Park, away from the more populated areas. This would mean the local population around the current mega stack would have reduced long term health issues and with this proposal here is even a sound financial imperative through the sales of approx. 2000 additional dwellings which would help pay for the tunnel.
Please consider alternatives to the current Connex northern stack
location. Maybe even have Connex rework their current design and extend the northern tunnel opening further north by approx. 2kms and relocate the tunnel stack up near the Hornsby Industrial Estate and National Park?
Please be forward thinking planners so we don't all live with sickness and regret, in the future.
Thanks.
Kind regards
Martyn Walker

See attached

See attached

I object to this path being chosen, as opposed to paths which have lessor impact on homes. (please see attached) I am also currently experiencing problems with a property in the NWRL corridor. It is costing $1,000's and taking unreasonable amounts of time to assess. These costs and waiting time need to be recognized, as affecting the value of homes affected by the corridor, both in resale and expense on existing owners. These expenses and delays were not present before the Rail Corridor was created.

see attached

See attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

Dear xxxx,
I am writing to you as my local member to raise my serious concerns about the planned location of
the northern ventilation stack for the NorthConnex tunnel.
The planned location of this ventilation stack is in a residential area with many schools and elderly
facilities within close proximity.
My concern is that this ventilation stack will pump out huge amounts of unfiltered pollution from
nine kilometres of the northbound tunnel through a single outlet into the local community and this
will put our children and the families at risk of harm. The process seems to be extremely rushed with
a very unexpected announcement on 16 March, an EIS being put together over a four month period
(very short timeframe for such a large project) and an expected approval in September.
In the 2008 National Health & Medical Reasearch Council Report (NHMRC): Air Quality in and around
Tunnels, it states that "People who live near tunnels or their stacks may be at risk if the presence of
the tunnel alters the ongoing quality of the neighbourhood ambient air. Risks to cardiorespiratory
health may arise if there is exposure to contaminated air from road traffic emissions, including
tunnel emissions. Important indicators of this risk are NO2 and particulate levels. A particular
concern is the association between impaired lung development in children and emissions from
traffic. Particulates and volatile compounds including benzene may produce an increased lifetime
risk for cancer."

What concerns me even more is that the research conducted in the NHMRC report does not include
tunnels anywhere near the length of the proposed NorthConnex 9km tunnel. The tunnel is planned
to have a substantially high amount of heavy vehicles, which in turn have much higher emissions of
airborne particles - approximately 75% more according to the NHMCR report.

It is also a fact that Asthma Australia has raised serious concerns around the M5 tunnel and has been
critical of the design and the NSW Governments ongoing management of the health issues reported.

In summary I strongly oppose the current planned location of the NorthConnex ventilation stack for
the following reasons:
- There has been no genuine effort made by RMS, or any other sponsor of this project to
engage the community in Wahroonga/Waitara properly and this has been acknowledged by
the NorthConnex project team during their recent presentations
- The process is being rushed and this will inevitably lead to mistakes in planning and the local
community will suffer consequences of this for decades to come
- The unfiltered emissions represent a substantial and material risk to our children and the
rest of the community
- Whilst the project team say that the ventilation stacks will be designed to meet strict air
quality standards, in reality there will be no consequence to the operators if these standards
are not met but the local community will suffer considerable and life threatening health
issues - The mental health of many family members in the community will be at risk due to factors
such as lowering property values, health fears for themselves and their children, friends and
neighbours selling their houses and moving away which will disrupt the community, etc.

I urge you to reconsider your support of the current design for NorthConnex and use your position in
office to push for a design that is better for the local community in Wahroonga and Waitara.

Please remember that you are paid to represent this community and that is all I am asking you to do.

I look forward to your response.

xxx, 8 August 2014

Re: Interaction of project with existing public transport services.

Though the project links with the M2 and the M1, there seems no enhanced facility at either junction for commuters to exit the motorway system in order to park and transfer to rail services [north] or express bus services along the M2.
Indeed, the project design appears only to promote the entry of traffic into the tunnel system rather than enhance any sophisticated transfer to other, more suitable forms of transport for those attempting to reach the city.

Re: proposed mitigation measures to address air quality in the vicinity of the portals.

The EIS demonstrates that air quality for residents along Pennant Hills Road will improve at the expense of air quality in the vicinity of the portals. The area of poor air quality along the Pennant Hills Road corridor is, as expected, in a ribbon extending no more than a block or so on either side. The project proposal is for all the waste air in the tunnel to be expelled through a single stack at the end. Fig 7.28 in the EIS shows an extraordinary spread of adverse emission in the vicinity of the northern stack. This compares unfavorably with the smaller area at the southern end. This imbalance is most likely due to the uphill gradient when traveling north. Why does this have to be? Why can't the northern portals be further north to allow for a more level gradient? This would also produce an exit at a point where extra width might be available for merging traffic.

The EIS modelling suggests particulate levels in ug/m**3 but attempts on p544 to compare with health standards quoted in ppm - not very helpful!

Figures 11 - 34 [pp75 - 121] of the EIS Appendix G shows the inefficiency of the stacks to spread tunnel pollution widely enough to reduce concentration of adverse gases. Figures 35 - 38 [pp153 - 159] simply confirm that pollution confined presently to a narrow, mainly industrial and retail corridor along Pennant Hills Road will be spread over a broader residential area around the proposed stacks.

Surely there needs to be some sophisticated form of filteration on the Northern Stack or relocation away from such a densely populated area.

Why isn't an effective filtration option being mandated by the government in order to protect its citizens?

Not only is is the local residents effected, but some of the larger schools attract children from a huge catchment area. This is a big deal, to a lot of people.

I am very concerned about the north flume not being filtered, and interested why the government are even entertaining proposed air quality monitoring stations that are so far away from those who will be impacted. Lindfield? Terry Hills? Prospect?

I trust the government will step in to protect their citizens and insist upon effective filtration and suitably located air monitoring stations.

see attachment