Outer Sydney Orbital Macarthur Action Group demand answers
THE weary Outer Sydney Orbital Macarthur Action Group, frustrated about the lack of information surrounding the M9 draft corridor, has demanded answers from the NSW Government.
Macarthur
Don't miss out on the headlines from Macarthur. Followed categories will be added to My News.
THE weary Outer Sydney Orbital Macarthur Action Group, frustrated about the lack of information surrounding the M9 draft corridor, has demanded answers from the NSW Government.
Twelve questions, which include what prime development land was specifically avoided by the draft corridor, has been sent to Transport for NSW.
An Outer Sydney Orbital Macarthur Action Group spokesman said these questions remained unanswered nearly 50 days after the bombshell announcement.
“Transport for NSW, and subsequently the NSW Government, have repetitively been asked questions, publicly and privately, since March 26 in response to the Outer Sydney Orbital Transport Corridor announcement,” he said.
“The questions are what the community require to make an informed decision on their submissions.”
The M9 Outer Sydney Orbital is an eight-lane motorway and freight rail line, proposed to snake through the vicinity of townships surrounding the Camden area, including historic Cobbitty village, with residents labelling the proposed route as “madness”.
MORE M9 OUTER SYDNEY ORBITAL COVERAGE
SHOWDOWN: Key government ministers invited to Camden
TOLL: Emotional anguish felt by community
POLITICIANS ON NOTICE: Community unite at forum
HISTORY: No longer ‘A Place to Call Home’
EDUCATION: University of Sydney welcome motorway
WHERE: Camden councillors urge route west
UNITED: Community vow to ‘bring the noise’
REACTION: “A bombshell we never wanted”
ANNOUNCEMENT” “This will impact on people’s lives”
A written response by Transport for NSW to the 12 questions, which have been previously raised at community drop-in sessions and forums, has been requested by midday Tuesday.
Key questions include; what developers, landowners, and organisations were consulted from 2015, details of a short list of option routes identified by Transport for NSW multi-criteria analyses and what design restrictions would be in place for tunnelling portions of the Outer Sydney Orbital route?
The Macarthur Chronicle has previously requested detailed maps of alternate route options from Transport for NSW, but was directed to broad maps on the Strategic Environmental Assessment.
A Transport for NSW spokesman encouraged the community to ask questions and be engaged with the process.
“Robust community engagement is a vital part of the process,” he said.
“All feedback from the consultation process, including submissions and corridor alternatives, will be considered before final alignments are determined.
“Engagement with the community and local councils in Wollondilly and Camden has identified a preference to consider other corridor alignments, particularly further west of established communities in Cobbitty and Ellis Lane.”
Questions for Transport for NSW
1. What percentage of the 1,200 submissions from the 2015 consultation period pertained only to the OSO Corridor (M9 Motorway & Freight Rail)?
2. The draft SEA (Table 9) summarises community stakeholder concerns from the 2015
consultation period — what has been done to address these pertinent issues that remain unanswered?
3. Where is the evidence of the 2015 community consultation, ie pop-up community information stalls and community drop-in sessions, pertaining specifically to the OSO for the Wollondilly community?
4: Who is on the list of key stakeholders, referred to in “Section 0” of the draft SEA, as “Section 0” does not exist. Namely, what developers, large landowners, and organisations were consulted from 2015 to 2018? What Government and developer owned land was avoided in the OSO Study Area?
5. Multi-criteria analyses (MCA) were twice completed during evaluation of options in the draft SEA. The first stage identified a long list of options — What are the details of the specific routes of each of the long list route options, provided in the 1:500000 scale map shown on p. 35 of the draft SEA?
6. The second MCA identified a short list of options, which were meant to be consulted on —
What were the short list of option routes, and what are the details of each of the short list route options?
7. The 2015 consultation documentation indicated “a freight line and motorway combined for
Outer Sydney Orbital would need a 140m wide corridor”. The draft SEA states a combined freight and motorway corridor will require a 200m wide corridor, thus a 43% increase on the original modelling — what has prompted this increase of 60m, and what will happen to unrequired land?
8. The 2015 documentation indicated “a motorway ... usually a total of four to eight lanes”. The draft SEA states “a motorway with up to four lanes in each direction” — what is the actual requirement?
9. The community has asked for concept road and rail elevation drawings, and indicative 3D
modelling of the entire orbital, showing potential road interchanges, bridge and viaduct structures — Transport for NSW indicated these are available — can they be released?
10. The draft SEA states repetitively that tunnels are not appropriate. Long tunnelling would be considered a fatal engineering flaw for a route option. The Hon. Andrew Constance, MP released a statement on 1st May, 2018 advising “all options for the Outer Sydney Orbital including tunnelling where required.” will be considered — are tunnels an option, and if so what are the design restrictions?
11. The draft SEA shows that 6 of the 8 long list route options cross the Hume to seemingly
connect with Appin Road — why does the recommended corridor stop at the Hume Highway?
12. The corridor has been proposed for both freight rail and motorway. Can the freight rail be removed from the OSO?
IN OTHER NEWS
