NorthConnex

attached

attached

Hi

Attached is my NorthConnex submission.

Thanks

Jennifer Madden

Please see attached submission.

attached

attached

NSW EPA submissions attached

I endorse the attached SCAPS submissions.
Regards,
Kim.

I fully support and endorse all of the SCAPS Group submissions.
Thanks,
Pete.

please see attached addendum to earlier submission

Please see attached documents

Objection attached

This submission follows one I have previously made, so that I may submit one further attachment and make one more suggestion.

(The reader may like to note that the attachment in this and my previous submission are drawn from documents I have copied from the SCAPS Concerned Resident Group Website. Since I agree wholeheartedly with every detail spelled out in their comprehensive submission documents I saw no point in reinventing the wheel and so, I have plagiarized their submissions in their entirety.)

Furthermore I would like to propose an alternate routing option for heavy vehicles to remove tunnel spoil during the construction phase: specifically that Pennant Hills rd be temporarily widened between Eaton rd and the M2 (possibly temporarily using the median strip, the curb/footpath, the golf course and or land for the proposed Southern Interchange Control Centre site) to accommodate one additional centrally located southbound lane to be used as a truck turning / queuing lane with an additional set of lights midway along this section of road, timed to synchronise with the M2 and Eaton rd lights to allow trucks to enter the site and possibly even allow for a Southbound truck exit, negating the need to use residential streets at all. This option would function best with a truck holding / queuing area at an alternate location relatively close by to manage congestion caused by long truck queues along this busy section of road, particularly during peak traffic periods. (I would be only to happy to provide a diagram to any interested party if you would care to email me your request.)

Submission and objections as per attached pdf.

As the mother of young children and given that I'm already terminally ill with cancer, I feel passionately about the need for filtration on the Northconnex ventilation stacks, especially the one at the Southern interchange which is in close proximity to my home, as the emissions will contain a Level-1 Human Carcinogen as identified by the World Health Organisation. I implore you not to condemn my surrounding community, especially my husband and children to a fate like mine. There is no excuse for you to risk another human beings health or even their life by unnecessarily exposing them to a known carcinogen.

I beg you to reconsider this proposal and ask you personally to consider whether you would be happy to live in the immediate fallout area of this unventilated stack.

(As the reader, you may like to note that the attachments in this submission are drawn from documents I have copied from the SCAPS Concerned Resident Group Website. Since I am in complete agreement with every detail spelled out in their comprehensive submission documents I saw no point in 'reinventing the wheel' and therefore, I have duplicated those submission documents for inclusion herein.)

Attached is a PDF version of the submission emailed yesterday. This version retains the original formatting, is signed, has one minor correction and includes a map of where I live with my normal daily cycle to help overcome problems from diesel fumes shown. This is the preferred version.

John Marcer

Submission 2 - Further to my submission earlier this evening I would like to add on additional attachment.

Please, please, please, reconsider adding filtration to the ventilation stacks. Please don't play Russian Roulette with our health and possibly our lives!

(As the reader, you may like to note that the attachments in this submission and my previous one, are drawn from documents I have copied from the SCAPS Concerned Resident Group Website. Since I am in complete agreement with every detail spelled out in their comprehensive submission documents I saw no point in 'reinventing the wheel' and therefore, I have duplicated those submission documents for inclusion herein.)

The tunnel is supported, but suggest changes to the north entry & exit and associated intersections.

SUMMARY:
* The intersections in Wahroonga near the north entry and exit could be designed to minimize traffic lights.

* Traffic lights at the Pacific Hwy / M1 overpass can be eliminated. A huge advantage.

* Left turns at all intersections can be done without traffic lights.

* This means less stops & starts, significantly greater traffic volumes through the intersections, and less pollution.

* Road widening is already planned for NorthConnex at these intersections anyway.
Therefore any additional costs compared to the advertised plan should be minor, or zero.

DETAILS:
(...) See attached sketch.

1. Pacific Hwy northbound traffic new entry onto M1 freeway via left hand turns on 2 dedicated lanes, without lights, at Pierce's Corner and Pennant Hills Rd. (Currently this traffic is interrupted by traffic lights at the Pacific Hwy / M1 overpass).

2. M1 freeway southbound traffic turning left onto Pacific Hwy / M1 overpass to use 2 dedicated lanes, without lights. (Currently this traffic is interrupted by traffic lights).

3. Pacific Hwy southbound traffic use 1 dedicated lane, without lights, thru the Pacific Hwy / M1 overpass. (Currently this traffic is interrupted by traffic lights).

4. M1 freeway southbound traffic turning right at Pacific Hwy / M1 overpass, of which there is very little and today uses only 1 lane, would instead continue under the Pacific Hwy / M1 overpass, and exit in a similar location and manner to which traffic from the tunnel would exit. This can be achieved, since the new tunnel exit will allow a right hand turn onto Pennant Hills Rd. (The current 1 lane exit ramp on the Pacific Hwy / M1 overpass can either be disabled or used as a loop, {like the loops at the intersection of Pacific Hwy / Ryde Rd}, so that traffic can loop back onto the M1 to return north, since there are no southbound M1 exits at Asquith or Ku-ring-gai Chase Rd for Bobbin Head / Ku-ring-gai National Park).

5. The above 4 items eliminate the need for traffic lights at the Pacific Hwy / M1 overpass.

6. Pierce's Corner southbound traffic turning left into Pacific Hwy, to get 1 lane dedicated, without lights. (Same as today). This traffic can then continue along through the Pacific Hwy / M1 overpass without traffic lights, or it can turn left onto the ramp to join the M1 northbound.

7. Pierce's Corner traffic from Pennant Hills Rd northbound veering left into Pacific Hwy to get 1 dedicated lane, without lights. (Same as today.)

8. M1 freeway southbound traffic turning left into Pennant Hills Rd, and tunnel exit traffic turning left into Pennant Hills Rd, to get 2 dedicated lanes without lights. (Currently this traffic is interrupted by traffic lights).

9. The Pennant Hills and the Pierce's Corner intersections would have changes in the way lanes are allocated, but road widening and changes are planned for these for the tunnel anyway.

10. The current Pacific Hwy / M1 freeway overpass & underpass both have ample space to facilitate all the above without any structural modifications.

11. P.S. Possible benefits in the Tunnel entry located at "A" shown on the attached sketch, and the Tunnel exit located at "B". This minimizes traffic lights for traffic flows entering or exiting the tunnel.
END

12 September 2014
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 the NorthConnex Project.
Firstly I would like to state that I strongly object to the project as described in the EIS.
The main reasons that I object to the project in its current state are briefly outlined below and I request that these reasons be considered and addressed by North Connex and the Department of Planning.
1. I currently have young two children who attend a pre-school and a primary school that are located 468 metres and 777 metres respectively, from the proposed placement of the northern ventilation stack. That the proposed stack will be unfiltered raises many issues that I believe have not been thoroughly researched or addressed in the planning stages of the project and the subsequent EIS.
2. I am gravely concerned for the short term and long term health impacts for my children, and all the other children (born and unborn) who live and/or attend school and many other activities within the proposed area. That they will be living, studying and playing in such close proximity to the unfiltered stack will expose them to levels of pollution generated from the high traffic volume on a day to day basis. I am also concerned about the health impacts for the wider community especially the elderly and those who have existing health conditions or are more susceptible to illness due to environmental influences e.g. asthmatics or other lung conditions.
3. I am not confident that the potential health impacts on children and the wider community have been sufficiently researched for the specific area in which the northern unfiltered ventilation stack will be located. What these health impacts could potentially be range from asthma, lung disease, heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, chronic diseases, birth defects and premature death to name a few. Where is the assurance and research that convinces me that there will be no damage to the growth and development of my childrenʼs lungs and brains? Scientific evidence shows that there is no safe limits of exposure to air pollution substances so why is the project not proposing filtered stacks that could at least decrease exposure and minimise some of the health risks? Japan has done it with their tunnels, so it is achievable.
4. Whilst I understand that there has been research and modelling conducted regarding the air quality in the proposed tunnel and the resulting emissions from the tunnel stack, the questions I wish to have addressed are:
a. What assumptions underpin the research/modelling? b. What is the predicted mix of pollution in terms of particle size, chemical composition,
toxicity level, quantities etc that our children and community will be exposed to in a
24 hour period, weekly, monthly, yearly, over ours and their lifetimes and subsequent
generations? c. Has the inevitable increase in traffic flow, congestion, accidents, hold ups been
factored into the modelling? What impact will these periods have on pollution levels both within and outside of the tunnel? How much are the health risks and impacts increased by these increased periods of pollution?
d. What happens if the assumptions made to date are incorrect? Where to then? e. Why have placing filterʼs on the two stacks not been considered? Does the cost of
filtering outweigh the cost of public health and safety?
f. How do we teach our children about environmental issues such as sustainability and other environmental concerns when we are not leading by example and placing filters on the stacks to at least compensate for some of the pollution that is released into the environment? Combatting traffic congestion on Pennant Hills Road is extremely important but how we do it is of critical importance.
g. Can we not look at world best practice and make an investment in pollution removal for now and the future?
h. Have alternative sites for the unfiltered stack been considered that are not in a residential zone? if so where are the alternative sites and have the alternatives been researched and analysed? If not, why not?
To address my concerns I request that the following actions be undertaken:
1. Due to the many potential health concerns that have not been adequately researched or addressed in the current project plan, I respectfully request that the Department of Planning does not improve the project as it is currently presented.
2. Due to the many concerns and unanswered questions that have been raised I respectfully request the Department of Planning in conjunction with the contractor and community to conduct more specific research, modelling and collection of data specific to the Wahroonga, Pennant Hills and surrounding areas in relation to potential health impacts, pollution dispersion in relation to the specific topography and geography, quantities of pollutants emitted over varying periods and length of time, local and seasonal meterological conditions and atmospheric chemical reactions. This data should then be used to test assumptions and models to ensure that the end plan is a true representation of the complex interplay of all the factors involved in improving the transport options in these areas.
3. That the Department of Planning, the contractor and the community take the time to look at all alternatives properly and transparently, and demonstrate due diligence with the intention of developing and implementing a proper plan that will seek to achieve the Best Outcome for all parties and one that has Public Health as the No.1 Priority.
Thank you for your time and consideration in reviewing my submission. Margot McGibbon

See attached letter