Moorebank Federal Intermodal Human Rights & Disproportionality of Resources

from our unnamed supporter:

I would like to discuss the concept of Human Rights & Disproportionality of Resources when individuals & small groups deal with very large entities such as heavy funded companies or Goverenments at all levels.

Examples are: 

The new system when proponents of major developments have years to plan a development. They have a army of specialists & consultants who prepared the necessary reports (almost invariably suiting the proponent). 

The reports are generally technical & sometimes written in industry specific gargon. In sort they have effectively unlimited resourses that are repaid by the taxpayer to overwhem anyone. Yet residents & other interested parties have generally only a few weeks to object & generally do not have the skills available to effectively evaluate the proposal. 

How can people who in a court of law be called “incompetent” & have full time jobs to support themselves & their families argue a case again heavy resourced entity who can employ highly technical people, as many as it takes, full time for asa long as necessry. 

What exacerbates the situation is that when the “dodgy” consultants reports are found to be incorrect it is too late. Too often the “experts” have been wrong & others suffered simply because they have disproportionate power.

There is a recent report in the media where it is claimed that residents had only a few weeks to reply to an 1,100 page technical document. To add to the problems they had to address the technical matters in thecnical terms. They have no hope & they is why a 1,100 page document was created. 

When Councils use ratepayers money to fight ratepayers in Courts. My concern is not the legitimate matters but when the Council is actually wrongly & win the case simply by bankrupting the ratepayer. The old saying is that “Council can spend as much of your money as needed to beat you”.

The same situation can occur with a business. This tactic has been used by some business to accure property. The relevant Governemnt authorities look the otherway during these processes because they don’t want to be involved in a David & Goliath fight.

The newest trend as seen in Queensland is specially excessive laws to protect Coal Seam Gas Miner’s from demonstraters. It must be a significant concern when the laws to protect a companies operation are so much greater than those intended to protect people.

I believe that larger entities such as larger corporations & governments are abusing human rights by denying individuals a right to have a say in matters that will; directly & adversely affect them.

Posted in Australia, carbon tax, container, diesel, health, IMT, intermodal, pollution, safety, SIMTA, trucks | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Residents voice suppressed by dodgy practices


Miners lobbied premier to pull plug on environmental  legal centre

January 10,  2013
Heath Aston

Heath  Aston

Sun-Herald state political editor

View  more articles from Heath Aston

NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell ... lobbied by the mining industry.NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell … lobbied by the mining industry. Photo:  Wolter Peeters

The mining industry urged the Premier, Barry O’Farrell, to scrap funding to  the Environmental Defenders Office – and months later the state government did  just that.

Documents released under freedom of information laws show the NSW Minerals  Council and the Australian Coal Association lobbied the Premier to cancel the  EDO’s $2.5 million annual public subsidy.

The government announced in December it had pulled the plug on the legal  centre by redirecting money to Legal Aid and forbidding state funding for  agencies “providing legal advice to activists and lobby groups” – the EDO’s core  business.

The EDO provides free legal services to communities involved in environmental  disputes with developers and miners. Increasingly, its clients are residents  groups fighting coal and coal seam gas proposals in rural NSW.


Read more:

Posted in Australia, Badgerys Creek, carbon tax, container, diesel, fight, health, intermodal, news, nointermodal, pollution, protest, safety, SIMTA, train noise, transport | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Send Moorebank to Newcastle


Why container policy has tunnel vision

Comment – Greg Cameron

All Sydney-bound container ships pass-byNewcastle, heading south. The containers can be unloaded inNewcastleat the former steelworks site, which remains vacant, and railed to a new, single, intermodal terminal (IMT) in north-western Sydney. There will be no need to carry containers by truck. In addition to improving performance of Sydney’s road system, Sydney’s stressed urban infrastructure will benefit as economic growth in northern regions enables decentralisation.

But with unlimited expansion of Port Botany container terminal, expanding Sydney’s M5 East is essential. The westbound tunnel is the most vulnerable section, with one heavy truck being the equivalent of six passenger vehicles (RTA, 2009). In 2010/11, trucks carried around 1.74 million TEU through the M5 East’s tunnels – 86% of all container movements; while trains carried 250,000 TEU – 14% of container movements.

Forecast growth in container movements related to Port Botany is seven million TEU a year by 2030. When a $172 million upgrade of Port Botany rail freight line is completed in 2014, it will increase the number of TEU that can be transported along the line from 700,000 to around one million a year. According to Sydney Ports Corporation, a 600 metre train will replace 68 trucks. On this basis, the number of TEU is around 84 per train and 1.3 TEU per truck.

If the Australian and NSW governments are planning for six million TEU a year to be moved by truck in 2030, there will be 4.6 million truck movements. If all trucks use the M5 East, there will be 2.3 million truck movements in each direction. Peak capacity in the westbound tunnel is 3,300 vehicles per hour and in the eastbound tunnel 4,000 vehicles per hour. The difference is attributable to the steeper up-grade and the proportion of laden trucks in the westbound direction resulting in a heavy truck to passenger car unit equivalence of six. For the eastbound tunnel, the equivalence is three (RTA).

2.3 million trucks using the westbound tunnel is the equivalent of 13.8 million passenger vehicles, or 48% of peak hourly capacity. For the eastbound tunnel, truck movements will be 20% of peak hourly capacity.

The Australian government’s IMT at Moorebank, 40 km from Port Botany, is proposed to handle one million TEU a year and will operate at capacity as soon as it is built, by 2017. It says all containers will be moved by rail.

In 2017, container movements related to Port Botany are estimated to reach 3.2 million TEU a year – 2.2 million by truck and one million by rail. The increase in TEU moved by truck is 29% (up from 1.7 million in 2011) using M5 East tunnels that already operate at peak hourly capacity more than half of the time.

It is unclear whether the NSW government has removed the cap on container movements at Port Botany Terminal of 3.2 million TEU a year. The planning condition of consent is clear:

“Port throughput capacity limits

A1.4 Port throughput capacity generated by operations in accordance with this consent shall be consistent with the limits specified in the EIS, that is, a maximum throughput capacity at the terminal of 1.6 million TEU per annum and a total throughput at Port Botany of 3.2 million TEU. These limits may not be exceeded by the development without further environmental assessment and approval. Sydney Ports Corporation shall prepare, or have prepared on its behalf, such further environmental assessment for the determination of the Minister.”

Source: Determination of a development application for state significant and designated development under section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

Frank Sartor MP, Minister for Planning, Sydney, 13 October 2005 File No. S01/02520

It is unclear if the NSW government has amended or varied the condition.

IMT capacity will need to more than double as a result of container movements increasing by 3.8 million TEU a year – from 3.2 million in 2017 to seven million in 2030.

The Australian government says, ”other potential IMT sites [to Moorebank] in Sydney would require substantial investment in additional infrastructure to link the national road and rail networks, and currently are not viable alternatives.”

The Australian and NSW governments do not have plans for additional IMT capacity beyond 3.2 million TEU, despite estimating that container movements will increase from 2 million TEU in 2011 to seven million in 2030. Moorebank IMT, obviously, is a stop-gap measure.

In March 2012, the National Infrastructure Coordinator said: ”The absence of a long term plan for Port Botany and Kingsford Smith Airport (especially their supporting landside transport network) is a manifest weakness in the city’s and the nation’s infrastructure planning. Planning for landside transport to these key gateways is fragmented between governments and their agencies, lacks ambition, and lacks effective commitment to deliver on agreed plans.”

The solution is to rail all containers fromNewcastleto a single IMT in north-western Sydney.

Although 98% of containers unloaded at Port Botany are destined for the Sydney metropolitan area, they contain goods that are trucked to northern NSW, where about 25% of the NSW population lives. There will be no need for trucks to carry imported goods from south westernSydneyinto northern NSW, when an IMT is built west of Newcastle to unpack containers with goods bound for the north. Containers that are currently unloaded in Brisbane and trucked to southern Queensland and northern NSW, can be unloaded instead at Newcastle, and moved north by rail.

A container terminal in Newcastle would enable lower cost of imported goods used in value-added manufacturing in northern areas of NSW; and provide, for the first time, low-cost access to a container terminal for exports. This will foster regional economic development and decentralisation. Greater use of regional infrastructure, compared with ever increasing demands on Sydney’s stretched infrastructure, benefits all NSW taxpayers.

In 2011, empty containers comprised more than 50% of the one million containers exported from Port Botany. The proportion of empty exported containers will grow over coming decades. Empties are a significant logistical problem for Port Botany but represent a major commercial opportunity for northern NSW communities in terms of low cost transport of exports.

Sydney’s potential F3-M2 link would become a higher priority road project compared with the M5 East expansion, because the imperative for expanding the M5 East is to carry more containers by truck. One of the ideas is an 8km tunnel underneath Pennant Hills Rd linking the northern areas and the city – a connection which motorists have been waiting for decades. The tunnel would complement a properly planned, single, IMT in Sydney’s north west.

The option of a container terminal at Newcastle was rejected by the NSW government in 2000 when, unexpectedly, it took ownership of the former BHP steelworks site.

This mistake can, and should, be rectified.

Greg Cameron is a public affairs consultant.  His research interest is how public policy impacts small business initiative.  His current main area of activity is in the public policy impediments to rainwater tanks becoming Australia’s principal source of urban drinking water supply.  His interest in NSW freight derives from his employment with BHP at Newcastle from 1994 – 1999 when that company’s container terminal strategy was a key component of its economic response to closure of the steelworks.



Posted in safety, shipping, slipper, train noise, transport, trucks, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Moorebank Intermodal container terminal madness a ‘high priority’:


August 13, 2012The MoorebankIntermodal Terminal (IMT) needs to be prioritized, a state report on government expenditure says.The NSW Commission of Audit Final Report, released last week, recommends the State Government give high priority to requirements emerging for Port Botany, Moorebank and the M5 expansion.

“It is clear that the transport precinct of Port Botany, Kingsford Smith Airport and the M5 must get priority attention,” the report says.

“This is not simply a NSW issue; it is of great importance to Australia.”

According to the report, the 2012-13 Budget commits $27.7 billion to 2014-15 on transport infrastructure – around 40 percent of the state’s total infrastructure budget for this period.

The report was released by NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell and aims to outline ways to improve public sector management.

The government established the Commission of Audit last year to develop a framework for the NSW public sector.

The commission of audit was led by Dr Kerry Schott and included 132 recommendations.

In its official response to the report, the NSW Government says it is committed to working with the Commonwealth Government and the private sector to establish a Moorebank intermodal terminal.

“NSW Government is a strong advocate of building an intermodal freight terminal at Moorebank as it is an essential component of the goal to double the proportion of container freight moved by rail through NSW ports,” the response says.

Meanwhile, the Federal Government has announced a board to oversee the construction of the Moorebank intermodal terminal is expected to be appointed by the end of the year.

The Federal Government says the process to appoint the board has started and that executive search firm Hudson Global Resources has been given the job of identifying suitable candidates.

The board will oversee the remediation of the site for the terminal, which will be built on land which currently houses the Department of Defence’s School of Military Engineering. The board will also manage the tender process to select a company or consortium to design, build and operate the new facility.

Although there is strong community opposition to the terminal, Federal Infrastructure and Transport Minister Anthony Albanese says it will generate $10 billion in economic benefits, take 1.2 million trucks a year off Sydney’s roads and inject $135 million annually into western Sydney’s economy.

“Over the longer term, this facility has the potential to transform the movement of freight along the entire east coast,” he says.

Albanese says there has been strong interest from the private sector in building and operating the terminal, with 40 major national and international freight and logistics companies attending briefing sessions in recent months.

Subject to planning and environmental approvals, the facility is expected to open in 2017. It is intended to improve freight container capacity and allow rail to transfer goods through Sydney.

The government says the terminal is needed to accommodate the growth in container volumes and to prevent traffic gridlock in Sydney around its port and on its roads. A port shuttle will operate when the terminal opens, with plans for an interstate terminal to be built in 2029 or sooner based on demand.

An environmental impact statement on the Moorebank terminal is due to be released at the end of 2012 or early next year.

Posted in asthma, carbon tax, diesel, heart, IMT, intermodal, nointermodal, safety | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Police promise greater scrutiny as more drivers are caught out – Industry News – ATN

Police promise greater scrutiny as more drivers are caught out – Industry News – ATN.

Posted in safety, shipping, transport, trucks, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Moorebank Intermodal diesel will cause cancer. The silent total killercoming to Liverpool

N° 213
12 June 2012
Lyon, France, June 12, 2012  ‐‐ After a week-long meeting of international experts, the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),  which is part of the World Health Organization (WHO), today
classified diesel engine exhaust as  carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), based on sufficient evidence
that exposure is associated with an increased risk for lung cancer.
In 1988, IARC classified diesel exhaust as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A). An Advisory Group
which reviews and recommends future priorities for the IARC Monographs Program had recommended
diesel exhaust as a high priority for re-evaluation since 1998.
There has been mounting concern about the cancer-causing potential of diesel exhaust, particularly based
on findings in epidemiological studies of workers exposed in various settings. This was re-emphasized by
the publication in March 2012 of the results of a large US National Cancer Institute/National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health study of occupational exposure to such emissions in underground miners,
which showed an increased risk of death from lung cancer in exposed workers (1).
The scientific evidence was reviewed thoroughly by the Working Group and overall it was concluded that
there was  sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of diesel exhaust. The Working Group
found that diesel exhaust is a cause of lung cancer (sufficient evidence)  and also noted a positive
association (limited evidence) with an increased risk of bladder cancer (Group 1).
The Working Group concluded that gasoline exhaust was possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a
finding unchanged from the previous evaluation in 1989.
Public health
Large populations are exposed to diesel exhaust in everyday life, whether through their occupation or
through the ambient air. People are exposed not only to motor vehicle exhausts but also to exhausts from
other diesel engines, including from other modes of transport (e.g. diesel trains and ships) and from power
Given the Working Group’s rigorous, independent assessment of the science, governments and other
decision-makers have a valuable evidence-base on which to consider environmental standards for diesel
exhaust emissions and to continue to work with the engine and fuel manufacturers towards those goals.
Increasing environmental concerns over the past two decades have resulted in regulatory action in North
America, Europe and elsewhere with successively tighter emission standards for both diesel and gasoline
engines. There is a strong interplay between standards and technology – standards drive technology and
new technology enables more stringent standards. For diesel engines, this required changes in the fuel
such as marked decreases in sulfur content, changes in engine design to burn diesel fuel more efficiently
and reductions in emissions through exhaust control technology.
However, while the amount of particulates and chemicals are reduced with these changes, it is not yet
clear how the quantitative and qualitative changes may translate into altered health effects; research into Page 2
IARC: Diesel engines exhaust carcinogenic
IARC, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon CEDEX 08, France – Tel: +33 (0)4 72 73 84 85 – Fax: +33 (0)4 72 73 85 75
© IARC 2012 – All Rights Reserved.
this question is needed. In addition, existing fuels and vehicles without these modifications will take many
years to be replaced, particularly in less developed countries, where regulatory measures are  currently
also less stringent. It is notable that many parts of the developing world lack regulatory standards, and
data on the occurrence and impact of diesel exhaust are limited.
Dr Christopher Portier, Chairman of the IARC working Group, stated that “The scientific evidence was
compelling and the Working Group’s conclusion was unanimous: diesel engine exhaust causes lung
cancer in humans.” Dr Portier  continued: “Given the additional health impacts from diesel  particulates,
exposure to this mixture of chemicals should be reduced worldwide.“(2)
Dr Kurt Straif, Head of the IARC Monographs Program, indicated that “The main studies that led to this
conclusion were in highly exposed workers. However, we have learned from other carcinogens, such as
radon, that initial studies showing a risk in heavily exposed occupational groups were followed by positive
findings for the general population. Therefore actions to reduce exposures should encompass workers
and the general population.”
Dr Christopher Wild, Director, IARC, said that “while IARC’s remit is to establish the evidence-base for
regulatory decisions at national and international level, today’s conclusion sends a strong signal that
public health action is warranted. This emphasis is needed globally, including among the more vulnerable
populations in developing countries where new technology and protective measures may otherwise take
many years to be adopted.”
Summary evaluation
The summary of the evaluation will appear in The Lancet Oncology as an online publication ahead of print
on June 15, 2012.
(1) JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst (2012) doi:10.1093/jnci/djs034; and
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst (2012) doi: 10.1093/jnci/djs035
(2) Dr Portier is Director of the  National Center for Environmental Health and the  Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USA).
For more information, please contact
Dr Kurt Straif, IARC Monographs Section, at +33 472 738 507, or;
Dr Lamia Tallaa, IARC Monographs Section, at +33 472 738 385, or;
Nicolas Gaudin, IARC Communications Group, at +33 472 738 478, or;
Fadela Chaib, WHO News Team, at +41 79 475 55 56, or
Link to the audio file posted shortly after the media briefing:
About IARC
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of  the World Health Organization. Its
mission is to coordinate and conduct research on the causes of human cancer, the mechanisms of
carcinogenesis, and to develop scientific strategies for cancer control. The Agency is involved in both
epidemiological and laboratory research  and disseminates scientific information through  publications,
meetings, courses, and fellowships.Page 3
IARC: Diesel engines exhaust carcinogenic
IARC, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon CEDEX 08, France – Tel: +33 (0)4 72 73 84 85 – Fax: +33 (0)4 72 73 85 75
© IARC 2012 – All Rights Reserved.
Evaluation groups – Definitions
Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used when there is  sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity  in humans. Exceptionally, an
agent may be placed in this category when evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is less than  sufficient
but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence in exposed
humans that the agent acts through a relevant mechanism of carcinogenicity.
Group 2.
This category includes agents for which, at one extreme, the degree of evidence of carcinogenicity in
humans is almost sufficient, as well as those for which, at the other extreme, there are no human data but
for which there is evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Agents are assigned to either
Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans) or Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans) on the basis
of epidemiological and experimental evidence of carcinogenicity and mechanistic and other relevant data.
The terms  probably carcinogenic  and  possibly carcinogenic  have no quantitative significance and are
used simply as descriptors of different levels of evidence of human  carcinogenicity, with  probably
carcinogenic signifying a higher level of evidence than possibly carcinogenic.
 Group 2A: The agent is probably carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient
evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some cases, an agent may be classified in
this category when there is  inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity  in humans and  sufficient
evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence that the carcinogenesis
is mediated by a mechanism that also operates in humans. Exceptionally, an agent may be
classified in this category solely on the basis of limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. An
agent may be assigned to this category if it clearly belongs, based on mechanistic considerations,
to a class of agents for which one or more members have been classified in Group 1 or Group 2A.
 Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans
and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used
when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence of
carcinogenicity  in experimental animals. In some instances, an agent for which there is
inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity  in humans and less than  sufficient evidence of
carcinogenicity in experimental animals together with supporting evidence from mechanistic and
other relevant data may be placed in this group. An agent may be classified in this category solely
on the basis of strong evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data.
Group 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.
This category is used most commonly for agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in
humans and inadequate or limited in experimental animals.
Exceptionally, agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is  inadequate in humans but sufficient in
experimental animals may be placed in this category when there is strong evidence that the mechanism of
carcinogenicity in experimental animals does not operate in humans.
Agents that do not fall into any other group are also placed in this category.
An evaluation in Group 3 is not a determination of non‐carcinogenicity or overall safety. It often means that
further research is needed, especially when exposures are widespread or the cancer data are consistent
with differing interpretations. Page 4
IARC: Diesel engines exhaust carcinogenic
IARC, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon CEDEX 08, France – Tel: +33 (0)4 72 73 84 85 – Fax: +33 (0)4 72 73 85 75
© IARC 2012 – All Rights Reserved.
Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used for agents for which there is evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in humans
and in experimental animals. In some instances, agents for which there is  inadequate evidence of
carcinogenicity  in humans but  evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity  in experimental animals,
consistently and strongly supported by a broad range of mechanistic and other relevant data, may be
classified in this group.
Evidence for studies in humans – Definition
As shown previously, the evidence  relevant to carcinogenicity is evaluated using standard terms. For
studies in humans, evidence is defined into one of the following categories:
Sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity: The Working Group considers that a causal relationship has
been established between exposure to the agent and human cancer. That is, a positive relationship has
been observed between the exposure and cancer in studies in which chance, bias and confounding could
be ruled out with reasonable confidence. A statement that there  is  sufficient evidence  is followed by a
separate sentence that identifies the target organ(s) or tissue(s) where an increased risk of cancer was
observed in humans. Identification of a specific target organ or tissue does not preclude the possibility that
the agent may cause cancer at other sites.
Limited evidence of carcinogenicity: A positive association has been observed between exposure to
the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible,
but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.
Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity: The available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency or
statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association
between exposure and cancer, or no data on cancer in humans are available.
Evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity: There are several adequate studies covering the full
range of levels of exposure that humans are known to encounter, which are mutually consistent in not
showing a positive association between exposure to the agent and any studied cancer at any observed
level of exposure. The results from these studies alone or combined should have narrow confidence
intervals with an upper limit close to the null value (e.g. a relative risk of 1.0). Bias and confounding should
be ruled out with reasonable confidence, and the studies should have an adequate length of follow‐up. A
conclusion of  evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity  is inevitably limited to the cancer sites,
conditions and levels of exposure, and length of observation covered by the available studies. In addition,
the possibility of a very small risk at the levels of exposure studied can never be excluded.
In some instances, the above categories may be used to classify the degree of evidence related to
carcinogenicity in specific organs or tissues.

Posted in asthma, Australia, carbon tax, container, diesel, health, heart, IMT, intermodal, news, nointermodal, pollution, protest, Qube, safety, shipping, SIMTA, slipper | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Moorebank Intermodal Backlash, Full story

SupplyChain website

Feds feel the heat on’ Moorebank plan



By Sean Muir | July 27, 2012

Community   backlash threatens to overshadow private interest in the government’s   proposed Moorebank Intermodal Terminal (IMT).

At   least 130 public submissions have been made objecting to the   terminal proposal, while about 37 major freight, logistics, construction and   project finance companies reportedly registered their interest in   tendering for the project at recent market briefings.

While   attendance at market briefings shows private sector appetite for the   project, A Moorebank Project Office spokesman says there is continuing   concern about it in the community.

“There   has been quite a bit of backlash – they realise that it is an important piece   of infrastructure they just don’t want it in their backyard,” he says.

The   spokesman says the government is working to iron out issues with the project.

“What   the government has decided to do is to put the project through the state and   federal planning processes because what they want to do is make sure it   captures every possible planning issue – and the reason for that is that   locally it has been quite a contentious issue,” the spokesman says.”

“Because   the project has gone through both state and federal planning processes there   are two different processes which both accept submissions.”

The   spokesman says the majority of submissions were made by residents concerned   about effects the terminal would have on air quality and traffic.

“All   they had heard was that all these extra trucks were going to come and it was   going to destroy the area,” he says.

He   says most issues raised will be addressed in the in project’s Environmental   Impact Statement.

The   spokesman says since the government decided to go ahead with the project   about two months ago, it has been able to communicate to the community   more positive news, including the creation of thousands of jobs as part of   the project.

“Just   building the project, stage one, you are looking at about 1600 jobs,” he   says.

“The   second phase will create about 900 jobs.

“Then   they are expecting about 1700 ongoing jobs at working the terminals and   supporting the warehouses that will also be on site.

“There   are some real benefits locally and I think that message is slowly getting   across to the locals as well.”

A   business case prepared for the government found the IMT would generate $10   billion in economic benefits, boosting productivity, slashing business costs   and taking 1.2 million truck trips off Sydney’s roads each year.

The   recent market briefings follow the government announcement in April that it   would proceed with the Moorebank IMT as a private-sector project through a   competitive tender process.




Comment by 18898568
posted 5     days ago
Sean, Does     this goose of a spokesperson realise what it will be like to live around     the Moorebank Intermodal?

Perhaps from his beautiful property in an affluent area paid for with tax     payers funds the world looks different.

Here surrounding the Intermodal madness residents are not so well healed     and struggle weekly to hold down their job, pay their mortgage, feed and     educate their children.

Would you like to die from diesel poisons and airborne emissions during     construction and operation?

Would you like to see more children die early in their lives or have     hideous diseases restrict their childhood development.
The multi billion dollar rail system from Port botany to Port Moorebank can     not cope with the predicted container numbers and future growth which will     require many more extra truck trips and many extra traffic gridlock areas     within a 20km radius.

This is a stupid idea created by stupid Inter-moron governments and pushed     along by greedy Inter-moron multinational business who want to only make     money.

Jim McGoldrick
Holsworthy NSW


Add Comment
Posted in asthma, Australia, carbon tax, container, diesel, fight, health, heart, IMT, intermodal, news, nointermodal, pollution, protest, Qube, safety, shipping, SIMTA, slipper, transport, trucks, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Moorebank Intermodal Liberals want it too…………………………………..


Posted in Australia, diesel, intermodal, news, nointermodal, Qube, safety, SIMTA, trucks, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment