Liverpool resident ALLAN CORBEN worked for 47 years in the transport and logistics industry, 13 of those in the rail/container transport business. A member of the Liverpool City Council No Intermodal Committee and community group Residents Against the Intermodal Development (RAID), he argues here that if an intermodal has to be built, it should be as part of the Badgerys Creek airport:
It was interesting to read in the media last week that the Federal Government had agreed to enter into a partnership with a private organisation (SIMTA) to develop the Moorebank Intermodal.
The majority of media releases were worded in a manner to suggest that the development had been approved to allow construction to commence.
I’m of the opinion that the wording was such to give those involved in the opposition to this proposal the impression that the development was done deal, so as to have the opponents (local community) cease their opposition.
Both the Federal and State Governments, together with SIMTA, are deliberately ignoring a number of critical facts covered below:
Traffic: It is well known that the Liverpool road network is near capacity.
In an article published on June 4 the Federal Government is quoted as rebuffing critics who say it will clog Western Sydney roads with trucks.
But in a speech on the intermodal proposal made by NSW MP Ms Melanie Gibbons in the Legislative Assembly on the same day, she made the following statement: “I have read through the information provided by the company for the next period of community consultation. It says that, should there be an accident on the M5 or Moorebank Avenue, the facility will need to close while the accident is being cleared”.
Somewhat conflicting comments from the same people!
I’m sure that transport companies servicing the site, warehouse tenants and their customers would be less than impressed with this prediction. Although a traffic model completed on behalf of our community has shown that there are many roads and intersections that will require substantial upgrades, the proponent has only acknowledged one upgrade, Moorebank Avenue, but not till 2029/2030.
[social_quote duplicate=”no” align=”default”]This is regardless of the fact they intend to bring up to an extra 10,000 truck and 5,700 car movements on to the local road network every day.[/social_quote]
One of the main selling points by the proponents has been that Moorebank will take thousands of trucks off Sydney roads each day, which is absolute garbage as all it will do is relocate the trucks to Moorebank, where they will enter the Sydney road network.
The fact is that it will remove trucks in the interim from the M5 between Port Botany and Moorebank, but this will only be a short term reduction.
The reason for this is due to the handling capacity of the Port Botany freight line. It has been suggested (government has refused to reveal capacity) that the line has a maximum capacity to handle 1.2 million containers a year. If we consider that Port Botany currently receives 2 million containers a year and is predicted to handle in excess of 4 million in future years, how will the additional 2.8 million containers be delivered? Simple – on the back of a truck.
Noise: The proposed intermodal site is located in the middle of a number of residential suburbs that are home to many thousands of people. It is a known fact that residents living within a radius of three kilometres of the Port Botany container terminal are suffering from sleep disturbance, yet the proponents and government are obviously of the opinion that residents who live within a radius of 400 to 1000 metres from the proposed site will not be impacted by sleep disturbance.
The government claims that the warehousing on what is currently SIMTA’s site will act as a buffer zone to the suburb of Wattle Grove, but anyone who has been exposed to the level of noise created by this type of operation knows, the warehouse will barely reduce the overall noise level. The people living in the elevated suburb of Casula (400 metres on the Western side of the site) look directly down into the proposed area, with no chance of avoiding the noise level whatsoever.
When asked how the proponents would mitigate the noise level, MIC said it would be up to the successful company appointed to develop the site to address.
Air quality: It is well know that Liverpool is one of the most polluted areas in Sydney. Yet the proponents intend to bring 10,000 plus diesel trucks, ancient diesel locomotives and thousands of car movements into the site area every day.
Alternative site: With the announcement of the Badgerys Creek airport, it was suggested that the ideal site for the intermodal would be to amalgamate the two projects. This would eliminate the need to spend many millions of dollars upgrading the eastern area of the Liverpool road network and totally eliminate noise and air quality issues.
This suggestion has been completely dismissed by the government and the proponents as not possible due to there being not sufficient time due the urgency of the predicted increase in import container arrivals and no rail line into the Badgerys’ site.
Time frame: There have been two changes that suggest that the urgency to build Moorebank no longer exists. Firstly, the Chullora terminal has announced that it has increased its handling capacity from 300,000 to 600,000 and secondly the predicted annual increase in import containers of 7 per cent, as advised by the proponents, has not been achieved and, in fact, is only in the area of 4 per cent. Where’s the hurry?
[social_quote duplicate=”no” align=”default”]Now that both developments have amalgamated into one, the EIS process should commence again on the overall development.[/social_quote]
We’ve seen the previous government waste billions of taxpayers’ dollars rushing into decisions that were an absolute waste of resources and money and we cannot allow the current government to follow suit. I’m afraid that the government, or some senators and MPs believe that Moorebank is the ideal location because the proposed site is next to the rail line and a motorway.
