1 | P a g e

Melbourne Metro EES Submissions, C/O Planning Panels Victoria, EES Inquiry and Advisory Committee 26th September 2016 Submissions of: Misho (Mihajlo Dusanovic), Vesna Rak-Dusanovic, Leona Dusanovic & Robert Dusanovic, Residing at: 35 O'Shanassy Street, NORTH MELBOURNE, VIC 3051 Submission Number: 250

Introduction: Presenting our submission today is not something that we do routinely and is out of our comfort zone, but we decided to be here for our children, and the future generations of Melbournians that will have to live with the consequences of this project. Our submission presents our point of view and is not a legal or technical document. We did seek a legal advice. We live in a quiet residential street of North Melbourne that is one of the most impacted by Metro Rail Project. Our submission is specific to the "Tunnel Precinct" between Arden and Parkville stations (Arden precinct). We love our area and wouldn't like to have to move. We also support Melbourne Metro Rail project as an essential piece of infrastructure that is necessary for 21st century Melbourne and its residents. Neighborhood Characteristics: EES Classification of general neighborhood characteristics above Metro Rail route (Chapter 3 Noise and Vibration) states: "As a large, busy and dynamic city, Melbourne hosts a range of activities – such as major construction projects, heavy vehicle traffic, train and tram operations and outdoor events – that generate varying types and levels of noise and vibration. Across the Melbourne Metro alignment, many buildings, facilities and places already experience continuous or intermittent levels of noise and vibration associated with being located near to major arterial roads, tram or train lines. The construction and operation of Melbourne Metro would occur within this context." We strongly disagree with that statement. Our Neighborhood is characterised by freehold or strata tittles with single or double storey residential buildings with living areas on ground or

2 | P a g e

below ground level. Many of them are Heritage listed buildings. Our streets are lined with mature, old Platanus trees. These characteristics are what i will refer to in this document as: "highly vulnerable residential areas". We have no heavy vehicle traffic or outdoor events. We don't live along main arterial road. We don't have any train or tram operations in the neighbourhood that produce "rumbling sound effect" similar to "ground borne noise and vibration". We are not subject to any ground borne noise and vibration at the present time. This generalisation of Neighbourhood characteristics needs to be rectified as it will impose unacceptable impact to the quiet residential areas. Design constraints for noise and vibration must relate to actual neighbourhood environment not to the generalised environment based on the worst case CBD environment. Community Engagement Noise Control Guidelines EPA Victoria 1254, adopted by EES, prescribes under the "Community consultation and work scheduling" (page 22) that: "Community consultation is essential for large-scale projects or high-impact works. Where the community will be significantly impacted, consult on the benefits and drawbacks of different scheduling, planning and remediation options." We attended two community information sessions organised by MMRA and one session with MMRA organised by local residents. We also raised a number of concerns in our letter to MMRA dated 09 December 2015 (Appendix 1) expecting our concerns might be met in early stages of the project through community consultation. MMRA’s response letter, dated 28 January 2016 (Appendix 2) provided responses of a general nature, not directly addressing the concerns. We repeated our concerns on subsequent MMRA information sessions, still no definite answers were provided. Responses from MMRA representatives across the board adopted a consistent attitude: "we don't know the answer yet, this is only the schematic stage, but trust us it is going to be ok". The focus was on limited, brief interaction with individual residents (divide and conquer). MMRA also provided some contradictory information related to predicted tunnel depth under our area, further eroding confidence and trust in MMRA (Refer: "Tunnel Depth" section). Following the meeting with MMRA initiated by North Melbourne residents (23 June 2016),

3 | P a g e

MMRA issued a letter to us, a couple of days prior to submission date (Appendix 3), providing some response, which will be discussed further in this presentation. Information sessions were one off, 2 - 2.5 hours long events, advertised to the affected parties (letter droop) and in general media so they did not attract broader community. In contrast to that, Western Distributor Project installed an information container located in front of North Melbourne library, Errol Street - main retail street, for a week (including a weekend). This is a much more transparent process. EES documents are very opaque and it is very hard for an "outsider" to scrutinise the document. At the same time, community request to MMRA for funding of independent specialists to assist local residents with interpretation of the documents was refused. We submit that:

• MMRA sets up an ongoing forum by which the collective consultation continues throughout the project;

• Community consultation is overseen by an independent body as the MMRA has a vested interest in not hearing criticism of the project and not being required to make amendments to the projects

Route alignment EES states on Page 13 of “Technical Appendix E – Land Use and Planning”: “The majority of works in this precinct would be located beneath existing roads and Crown reservations, which would result in minimal impacts on the built environment and existing land uses at surface level and the need for surface land acquisition.” Contrary to the statement MMRA’s selection of alignment line between Arden and Parkville stations runs under the most vulnerable residential neighbourhood of North Melbourne. It is also topographically the lowest part of North Melbourne (known to be flooded in the past). This section of the Melbourne Metro Rail tunnel, is currently proposed to be of varying depths - between 10 and 20 meters below natural ground level. There has been insufficient consideration given to community concerns and the impact on the residents of North Melbourne raised during the consultation phase in relation to the tunnel alignment (Letter to MMRA - Appendix 1 and MMRA response- Appendix 2).

4 | P a g e

We submit that: • The tunnel alignment route be reconsidered so it runs under major roads, commercial

precinct and publicly owned land and no longer passes under highly vulnerable residential areas of North Melbourne.

Poor Design Practice ”Best design practice demands that the best outcomes must be achieved with minimum negative impact or disadvantage incurred as an outcome. Best practice should achieve the highest quality outcomes through design, NOT through mitigation, retrofit or renovation.” The current tunnel design approach engages poor design practice involving: designing to the maximum allowed noise and vibration requirements, exceeding maximum allowed values/requirements and then relaying on very high attenuation/mitigation methods to meet the targets specified in the regulation. This design approach is highly likely to produce unsatisfactory outcomes causing ongoing operational vibration, noise and structural damage impact on residential building above and near the tunnel. We support concerns about MMRA's poor design practices outlined in City of Melbourne's draft submission concerns - "Noise and Vibration" Section - Paragraph 1.3.8 - Issues (page 16): The EPRs relating to Noise and Vibration should include a ‘Hierarchy’ of compliance as follows: Ƈ avoid impacts (best practice) Ƈ minimise exceedance where unavoidable Ƈ proactive planning prior to potential exceedance to minimise impact. The above approach should be adopted consistently with the EPRs" We submit that in order to avoid high impact risks: • Target levels of operational vibration and noise shall be set to be below threshold of

human perception ("not heard", "not felt") and • These targets be achieved by the design, not mitigation.

5 | P a g e

Underground Tunnel Depth Poor design practice described in the previous section and tight budget constraints (refer Appendix 3 -MMRA's briefing to North Melbourne Residents letter) resulted in a very shallow tunnel depth of 13m (approx.). This section of underground tunnel runs under topographically the lowest part of North Melbourne. The houses with basements or below street level living areas will be less than 10m above the top of the tunnel. Our residence also has a basement under larger section of the house. Bored piles that support out basement will be approximately only 7- 8m above the top of the tunnel. Provision of contradictory information related to predicted tunnel depth, under our area, further eroded confidence and trust in MMRA: • Approx. 17m (28/10/2015 Community consultation, North Melbourne), • Approx. 20m (Letter from MMRA 28/Jan/2016, Ref: DOC/16/4851 - Appendix 1), • Approx. 13m – EES documents – Section drawing – Arden tunnel precinct) If the tunnel remains at the proposed depth with highly mitigated train tracks it is likely that due to "wear and tear", poor maintenance or failure of mitigation, the maximum allowed levels of noise and vibration could be exceeded during the operation. At that time the lowering of the tunnel would not be possible. We submit that: • The depth of the tunnel be significantly increased under the residential areas of North

Melbourne. A comparable project in NSW specifies tunnel depth of 36-50m under residential parts of the project (Refer "Further update on Submission to transport for NSW on South West Rail Line Extension" issued on 6th August 2015, by Greenfields) http://www.oranparktown.com.au/assets/pdf/rail_link/Resident_Update_150806v2.pdf

Operational Noise and Vibration Operational noise and vibration (closely linked to the proposed depth of the tunnel) is the single biggest concern about proposed MMRP.

6 | P a g e

a. Existing Noise and Vibration Measurement Existing level of noise monitoring was conducted at 22 locations across the Melbourne Metro. Existing level of vibration monitoring was conducted at 39 locations across the Melbourne Metro. Chosen locations for Arden Precinct are relevant to proposed Arden Station location and are not “equivalent” to quiet residential streets in terms of existing ambient noise and vibration levels. The additional baseline measurements need to be taken during the day and night in quiet residential areas. The existing level of noise and vibration might impact the noise and vibration targets and predictions and need to accurately represent the current environment. EES also does not include measurement of existing levels of noise and vibration inside the affected properties. b. Classification of Vibration Condition Another important factor for accurate establishment of vibration targets is classification of "vibration condition". EES using British Standard BS6472-1:2008, classifies the predicted vibration as “Intermittent” despite the fact that Summary section of EES describe services as: “...continuous trains eliminating the need for timetabling.” Considering predicted train frequency in each tunnel of: one train every 1-3 min it will be reasonable to assume that the operational vibration condition will be described as “continuous”. The "Intermittent" classification doesn’t represent the condition of operational vibration accurately, and it might lead to misleading prediction and results. This might increase the risk of continuous issues with operational vibration. c. Operational noise and vibration MMRA sets operational noise and vibration design criteria to comply with the maximum allowed noise and vibration values allowed under selected guidelines, leaving no design contingency for unforeseen circumstances. In addition to that these maximum allowed values are achieved by mitigation interventions. We are not willing to accept any increase in noise and vibration level without compensation, as the lack of noise and vibration in good part informed our decision to settle in the pocket of North Melbourne area.

7 | P a g e

In the last letter to North Melbourne Residents (Appendix 3) MMRA states that: "Once mitigation treatments are applied to the tunnel, ground-borne noise levels during operation are predicted to be less than 30dBLASmax. During operation, vibration levels are predicted to be in the order of 0.04 m/s1.75 during the day and 0.03 m/s1.75 during the night. At these levels trains are not expected to be perceptible to people." Could we please have this information confirmed by MMRA. We submit that: • Vibration condition to be classified as "Continuous" rather than "Intermittent". • Additional measurement of existing external noise and vibration to be conducted by

MMRA on locations along the tunnel route in quiet residential streets of North Melbourne. These values to be used in calculation of noise and vibration targets for these areas to ensure that they are not exceeded by operational noise.

• MMRA to conduct and fund measurement of existing internal noise and vibration within

houses along the project area. The measurements shall be conducted in the centre of the most affected habitable room and then be repeated once the operation of tunnel commences to ensure that no additional noise and vibration is introduced by the operation.

• An independent government body shall be formed to monitor the actual levels of

operational and maintenance noise and vibration. This function is not appropriate for MMRA who have vested interest in the project or the operator - a private corporation (PPP project) who has to balance the interest of residents with the profit).

Tunnel Precincts - The Grey Areas of EES Impact on residents living above the “Tunnel Precincts” seems to be systematically overlooked in EES.

8 | P a g e

a. Discriminatory Design Constraints – Tunnel Precinct While the comfort of the passengers (service frequency, convenient interchange), ease of access to the stations (minimising boarding time, provided by reducing the depth of the stations) and operational constraints were taken into consideration by EES (EES - Executive summary - E4), the impact on the residents living above or near the underground tunnel is a "grey area" across the document. b. Lack of existing condition survey of "Tunnel precinct" Already mentioned is lack of understanding of neighbourhood characteristics of the area above "Tunnel Precinct" including type and structure of residential buildings. Especially concerning is the fact that measurement of existing external noise and vibration levels are limited to station locations only (refer “Noise and Vibration” section above). c. Lack of Planning Controls over “Tunnel precinct” City of Melbourne raises their concern about MMRA’s proposal to exclude tunnels from development plan that is subject to Planning Approval (City of Melbourne EES draft submission; Section 13.2.1 Approval of Development Plans (page 104)): "Although the Incorporated Document facilitates the use and development of land for the entire project including tunnels as well as station, portals and associated infrastructure, the requirement to submit a development plan for approval relates only to the parts of the project above and at ground level and up to ticketed areas." "The planning approval will be the primary statutory approval for the entire project. As such, it is submitted that it should require development plans to be submitted for the entire project."

d. Social Impact EES underestimates social impact on North Melbourne residents caused by construction and operation of the tunnel (noise, vibration, dust, release of toxic gasses), temporary displacement and traffic closure.

9 | P a g e

North Melbourne will be most affected by MMRP construction and potentially operational noise and vibration. Along the re-location, ear plugs and movie tickets were offered to remedy noise impacts during the construction. Closure of Grattan Street along with Western Distributor project (18000 vehicle per day) will cause a massive spillage of traffic on to North Melbourne streets

We submit that: • Government department responsible for the project brief, include "impact on residents

living above the Tunnel precinct" as a design constraint and define operational vibration and noise targets to be below human perception threshold

• EES to be updated to include above listed deficiencies and new design constraints • Further consultations shall be held with EPA, the state authority responsible for the

delivery of the project and the community to re-assess and discuss alternative solutions and minimise social impacts of the project

Proposed Planning Scheme Amendments MMRA informed, at the community meeting held in North Melbourne on 21/06/2016 that residents are unlikely to be entitled to compensation due to loss or limitation of future development opportunity on their land imposed by MMRA. The newly introduced Design and Development Overlay will, if not immediately, but definitely in the future limit development on affected land. Planning schemes are subject to changes and it is hard to predict what will future amendments allow. A land with the development overlay will always be more valuable than next door land without the overlay. We submit that: • The government shall take an active role in protecting the interest of its residents and

compensate appropriately affected residents for loss of potential development opportunities, imposed on them due to a state infrastructure project

Compensation and Damage Our family home is our major financial asset. The loss in market value due to: underground lands acquisition, operational noise and vibration, and reduced development potential has a

10 | P a g e

significant impact on our lives, and threatens our ability to plan for our futures. EES refers only to the Land and Acquisition Act – 1986 as the only legal instrument for compensation claims related to underground land acquisition. This act only covers a situation where land/title is being acquired. It does not cover those whose titles are not directly acquired but are however impacted by various aspects of construction and operation of Metro Rail Project. The Act provides a 2-year window to make claims after the project is gazetted. It fails to take adequate account of market blight on properties within the impacted area during 10 years of construction and for the life of the project. We request, as per the Major Projects Facilitation Act 2009, Clause 169, that affected residents are compensated for any financial loss or hardship, incurred as a result of the MMRP through all its stages. The Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 Clause 169 states: A project authority is liable to compensate any person who has—

(a) Sustained any pecuniary loss;

The following issues constitute a pecuniary loss: • Market blight - Home owners financially disadvantaged by the tunnel project for a

decade, unable to sell/capitalize on their investment in their property to finance their future plans: retirement, down-sizing, moving etc.

• Home owners unable to sell their homes for true value throughout that ten years; • Permanently reduced property value due to potential operational noise and vibration

issues • Permanently reduced property value due to DDO

Conclusion: MMRP presents a unique opportunity to add significant civic value to Melbourne, ranked one of the world’s most livable cities in the world, and is a critical to ensure Melbourne’s future is prosperous. We support the ambitions of the project; to make public transport more efficient and accessible in Melbourne, and support that the expansion of the underground rail loop is necessary to

11 | P a g e

satisfy the demands on public transport in and around Melbourne. However, we do not support the methods and procedures that have delivered the early stages of MMRP. Further to this we have concerns about the implementation of this project over the decade long construction timeline, and ongoing operational concerns. The ambitions are failed by a lack of values invested in the crucial design stages; disparity between the realisation (in early stages) and ambition of MMRP are already evident. Early stages of the project are symptomatic of poor design practices, motivated by cost cutting and compromised by individual political agendas. While such important civic projects serve to inspire trust and confidence in the city, residents and visitors alike, MMRP has stirred much doubt amongst the community. This will cause continuous and long term anxiety and loss to people affected by the project during the construction and operation. We submit that such serious issues be addressed prior to the project being gazetted and prior to the project commencement. Melbourne can’t afford a poorly designed Metro Rail project. We owe it to the future generations of Melbournians.

Appendix 1 – Letter to MMRA

Appendix 2 – Response Letter from MMRA

Appendix 3 - MMRA - Briefing to North Melbourne residents (July 2016)

Metro Tunnel Project: Briefing to North Melbourne Residents 1

METRO TUNNEL PROJECT BRIEFING TO NORTH MELBOURNE RESIDENTS July 2016 The Melbourne Metro Rail Authority (MMRA) would again like to thank everyone who attended the Metro Tunnel briefing session for North Melbourne residents on Wednesday 22 June 2016 and to acknowledge the concerns raised. At this session, we said we would provide you with further information on some of your key topics and areas of concern. This information is included below. MMRA is committed to engaging with you and keeping the North Melbourne community informed as planning for the project progresses. Further to the Metro Tunnel newsletter which you would have received in late May and as discussed at the session, the Metro Tunnel Environment Effects Statement (EES) is on public exhibition until 6 July 2016. During this time members of the public are invited to make a formal submission. You can submit your feedback online or in writing. All submissions will be considered by an independent Panel Inquiry and you can also elect to present to the Panel Inquiry.

The EES assesses the potential environmental, social, economic and planning aspects of the project, and the approach to managing the impacts. To help manage impacts, a number of Environmental Performance Requirements have been identified as part of the EES, and these will form part of the requirements applying to contractors constructing the project. A copy of the full EES documentation and the latest Metro Tunnel newsletter can be found on our website melbournemetro.vic.gov.au.

TUNNEL ALIGNMENT AND DEPTH The Metro Tunnels will travel beneath North Melbourne and will be constructed using a tunnel boring machine (TBM). TBMs have been used on many major tunnelling projects in Australia and around the world, including the Sydney Metro and the Crossrail project in London. TBMs are designed to respond to the specific geological conditions within which they are required to operate and these conditions are closely monitored on an ongoing basis by the TBM crew. A number of geological investigations have been undertaken in North Melbourne to help understand the types of ground conditions in the area. It has been found that the North Melbourne area is primarily made up of Melbourne Formation which is considered a generally competent formation. Areas close to the Arden station site are made up of layers of softer soils which create a more challenging environment for tunnelling. Further information on ground conditions can be found in the Ground Movement chapter 19 and technical appendix P of the EES. A TBM may take approximately 3-7 days to pass below a property, with the TBM generally advancing approximately 70 metres a week, depending on geology. The tunnels in North Melbourne will range between 10.5 and 25 metres in depth from surface level to the top of the tunnel, with the shallowest point being near Laurens Street close to where the Arden station will be. You can find a diagram with proposed depths on pages 47 and 48 of the EES Map Book. Each tunnel is approximately 7 metres in diameter. The project is aware that some properties may have basements. As part of investigations for the project, basement surveys of properties within close proximity to the tunnel alignment will be

Metro Tunnel Project: Briefing to North Melbourne Residents 2

undertaken. If your property does have a basement and is in close proximity to the tunnel alignment, please contact the project using the details at the end of this document. Tunnel depth There are a number of natural and man-made constraints that the project must negotiate when designing and constructing the tunnels between Kensington and Arden. These include things such as the Moonee Ponds Creek, the Kensington power station and the century-old North Yarra Main Sewer. These are some of the constraints that help to influence the alignment and depth of the tunnels. The tunnels must also meet certain gradients and curvations to allow for the efficient and safe operation of trains. A straight tunnel is preferred wherever possible for safety and efficient operation of trains. Where possible in the design of the tunnel alignment, curves have been kept to a minimum with the alignment designed to a certain curvature to allow for this operational requirement. It is also significantly more expensive to tunnel deeper. Changing the depth of the tunnels in North Melbourne would significantly alter the depth and design of both Arden and Parkville stations and affect the connection at the western tunnel entrance. In addition, the depth of Parkville station has been partly determined by the need to future-proof the station to enable a future connection for a north-south Clifton Hill line station. The stations must also comply with strict safety standards for emergency egress. These standards are harder to meet when stations are deeper because exit times for passengers within the station increase. Building deeper stations would also increase construction costs and timeframes, prolonging related impacts such as additional truck traffic associated with larger amounts of spoil removal at all construction sites across the alignment. Worldwide examples Tunnelling is undertaken all over the world to build both rail and road infrastructure. There are examples of many projects internationally where tunnelling has been undertaken at shallow depths under residential properties. These projects have faced similar challenges to the Metro Tunnel. Examples include:

• The Porto Light Metro in Portugal has tunnels that range from 2.5 - 4 metres in depth from surface level to the top of the tunnel. The tunnel runs under approximately 20 residential properties at this depth. The soil conditions in Portugal consist of weak residual soils making tunnelling in these conditions more challenging than the Melbourne Formation soil that the Metro Tunnel will need to travel through in North Melbourne.

• The HSL Paris–Brussels–Amsterdam train line tunnelled under both commercial and

residential properties (including a 15 storey building), with a cover of 8 metres.

• The Epping to Chatswood Rail Link in Sydney where there is at least one private residence which is located approximately 10 – 12 metres above the tunnel.

MMRA has sought to apply learnings from other tunnelling projects around the world, and has assembled a suitably qualified team of planners, designers and engineers to work on the Metro Tunnel. It is also important to note that during the process of boring, the TBMs line the tunnels with pre-cast concrete segments that seal the tunnel and support the ground around the tunnel. This technique can also be complemented with other ground improvement solutions to further support sensitive structures, and these solutions are being considered (where appropriate) as part of detailed planning for the project.

Metro Tunnel Project: Briefing to North Melbourne Residents 3

In addition, real-time monitoring of vibration, groundwater drawdown and settlement during TBM tunnelling will enable changes to the TBM operation to respond efficiently to anticipated ground conditions. Greenfields Development Company submission to the NSW Government The Greenfields Development Company is a private property developer. The company provided a submission to the NSW Government on the proposed South West Rail Link Extension. The South West Rail Link Extension includes a mix of both above ground structures and below ground tunnels and is still in the very early planning phase with the final alignment still to be determined. There is no evidence that the NSW Government has adopted any of the company’s recommendations, including tunnel depth recommendations for the project. The landscape and environment for the two projects is significantly different with the Metro Tunnel being in a well-established urban environment and the South West Rail Link Extension being in a new development / greenfields area. As part of the Metro Tunnel EES, a number of technical experts have undertaken studies to determine the potential impacts of the project. It would be unwise for the Metro Tunnel to adopt recommendations from a third party report prepared for another project; instead, the Metro Tunnel project is informed by expert assessments undertaken by specialists in various fields to assess potential impacts and guide development of the EES and the proposed Environmental Performance Requirements specific to this project.

ARDEN STATION A number of different locations were explored for the location of Arden station. One of the potential locations explored involved the station being positioned beneath Arden Street. The Arden Street station option would require the acquisition of commercial properties on the southern side of Arden Street, resulting in greater disruption. Positioning the station on Arden Street also would involve the relocation of a number of major services resulting in major disruption to the North Melbourne road network. Arden station is a launch site for two of the project’s TBMs. The Arden Street option did not provide enough room for a TBM launch site without causing major disruption to the roadway, private properties or public open space. Positioning the station within existing Government land reserved for transport purposes reduces the impact of acquisition on private businesses and years of disruption on the North Melbourne road network. The decision to locate the station in its current position was determined in conjunction with the Metropolitan Planning Authority and the City of Melbourne. The current proposed position of the station will best serve future growth and development in the area as part of the Arden-Macaulay urban renewal. Further detail on the exploration of various options for Arden station can be found in the Melbourne Metro Business Case on our website. CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS The Metro Tunnel project will primarily use current Victorian construction standards. Where Victorian requirements do not exist, the project will use current NSW construction standards / guidelines. Where no current Australian standards / guidelines exist, then current international standards / guidelines will be used. In regards to structural damage due to vibration, there is no Australian Standard which sets guideline targets for this. There are however international standards. For the Metro Tunnel the German standard was selected as best practice because it is more conservative than other international standards. In particular it sets vibration levels which ensure there are no adverse effects on above ground structures.

Metro Tunnel Project: Briefing to North Melbourne Residents 4

GROUND-BORNE NOISE AND VIBRATION Construction There is no Victorian guideline with respect to construction ground-borne noise. There is however a relevant NSW guideline which has been successfully applied to similar projects in NSW. This is the NSW Interim Construction Noise Guideline. The Metro Tunnel will adopt this guideline for ground-borne noise. The NSW guideline noise levels are: 35 dBLAeq,15mins during the night period (10pm to 7am) – this sounds similar to a very quiet conversation. 40 dBLAeq, 15mins during the evening period (6pm to 10pm) – this sounds similar to air-conditioning noise in a library. The project will endeavour to comply with these guidelines where possible. Due to the nature of TBM construction, there will be some occasions when ground-borne noise levels will exceed these guideline targets. Should an exceedance occur, management measures will be implemented by the contractor and these may include mitigation treatments or relocation. Between Arden and Parkville, construction ground-borne noise levels are conservatively predicted (levels are likely to be lower) to be up to 65 dBLAeq. Noise at this level would only last for a short period of time (1-2 days) as the TBM passes directly beneath a property and for the rest of the time the noise levels would be lower as the TBM moves further from the property. At 65 dBLAeq this noise level would be in the order of a dishwasher or washing machine. Vibration during construction is predicted to be up to a vibration dose value (VDV) of 2.1 m/s1.75. Vibration at these levels is predicted to be for a short time only as the TBM passes by and occupants of properties should expect to feel levels of vibration during this time. The predicted vibration levels are, however, well below limits that would cause damage to properties. Noise and vibration impacts have been assessed through the EES process. Although there is the potential for some noise and vibration impacts with respect to human comfort during tunnelling activities, impacts will only be for short periods of time while the TBM passes under properties. Operation There is no Victorian guideline with respect to ground-borne noise from operation of the railway. There is however a relevant NSW guideline which has been successfully applied to similar projects in NSW. This is the NSW Rail Infrastructure Noise Guideline. The Metro Tunnel will adopt this guideline for ground-borne noise. The NSW guideline noise levels are: 35 dBLASmax during the night period (10pm to 7am) 40 dBLASmax during the evening period (6pm to 10pm) It is assumed that there is no existing rail noise between Arden and Parkville stations. The proposed Environmental Performance Requirements detailed in the EES specify that the major contractor will be required to mitigate operational noise to these levels. Once mitigation treatments are applied to the tunnel, ground-borne noise levels during operation are predicted to be less than 30dBLASmax. During operation, vibration levels are predicted to be in the order of 0.04 m/s1.75 during the day and 0.03 m/s1.75 during the night.

Metro Tunnel Project: Briefing to North Melbourne Residents 5

At these levels trains are not expected to be perceptible to people. Please note that these predictions are designed to be conservative and it is expected that noise and vibration levels will be less than predicted. The below figure represents the predicted ground-borne noise levels during operation when mitigation treatment has been applied to the track. These results show that noise levels from the tunnel during operation will be below the preferred guideline target.

Noise measurements Noise and vibration measurements were undertaken at more than 60 locations along the alignment as part of the EES, including eight locations in North Melbourne. Noise measurement locations were specifically selected to: • Measure existing rail noise levels at residences in the vicinity of the proposed rail portals. • Measure background noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed locations for fixed infrastructure

such as ventilation shafts to determine the noise limits at noise sensitive areas (residential locations).

• Measure the existing noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed construction sites to determine the guideline noise levels for airborne noise associated with construction work undertaken outside of normal working hours.

Vibration levels were measured across the alignment to present a baseline. The project also undertook vibration measurements of trains travelling within the current City Loop to obtain data that was representative of the current train rolling stock, track and maintenance regime.

Metro Tunnel Project: Briefing to North Melbourne Residents 6

Internal vibration measurements were also undertaken in the vicinity of vibration sensitive equipment within hospitals and research institutions located within the Parkville area. It has not been necessary to undertake noise and vibration measurements above the proposed rail alignment between Arden and Parkville station. This is because we have assumed that existing rail noise and vibration is negligible and therefore would not affect any criteria used. Mitigation A number of mitigation treatments have been assessed through the EES to identify how best to manage impacts during the operation of the tunnel. One of these mitigation techniques is installation of a floating track slab along sensitive areas of the alignment such as between Arden and Parkville stations. Floating track slab is a mass spring system that once installed, achieves a high level of mitigation of ground-borne noise and vibration from trains. Floating track slab involves isolating the rail track from the tunnel structure by fixing the rail to a concrete slab which is supported on resilient mounting. This acts as an isolator between the passing train and the structure of the tunnel, therefore mitigating the levels of ground-borne noise and vibration from passing trains. Mitigation will be applied to the rail tracks to reduce operational impacts and ensure operations meet Environmental Performance Requirements set through the EES process (based upon noise and vibration standards and guidelines). Floating track slab has been used on many projects around the world including in the United Kingdom on the Crossrail project and in Singapore to mitigate the impact of the rail tunnel once operational. In Sydney, floating track slab was used as part of the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link. At the completion of the tunnel, vibration testing was undertaken at an older- style property that was approximately 10-12 metres above the tunnel. At this location, both vibration and ground-borne noise were below the perceptible range. When undertaking the measurements, the vibration level was so low that at the time of the test the consultants were even unsure whether the train had passed as they did not detect the vibration. All of the sites tested along this line had outcomes that were lower than the project ground-borne noise and vibration limits. At the Chatswood Interchange, the rail tracks even pass through and are supported by the lower levels of a residential tower building. Again the floating track slab provides mitigation for ground-borne noise and vibration. Ongoing maintenance and monitoring Once construction of the tunnels is complete, the contractor responsible for building the tunnels will be responsible for maintaining the infrastructure for 25 years. After this period the maintenance of the tunnels will be handed over to Public Transport Victoria. Should existing franchise arrangements be similar at that time, the franchisee (currently Metro Trains Melbourne) will undertake regular maintenance similar to the current arrangement for the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop (City Loop). At the completion of the Metro Tunnel project, and once the line becomes operational, the contractor will be required to undertake noise and vibration measurements to ensure that levels are within the specified Environmental Performance Requirements. If the levels exceed standards, further work will need to be undertaken to bring those levels back to within the prescribed levels.

RELOCATION DURING CONSTRUCTION Contractors working on the project will be responsible for offering relocation during Metro Tunnel works, on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the resident and in accordance with guidelines established as part of the EES process.

Metro Tunnel Project: Briefing to North Melbourne Residents 7

PROPERTY DAMAGE The levels of vibration currently predicted during construction or operation activities are not expected to cause damage to properties, including older/heritage buildings. Humans are more sensitive to vibration than buildings, so although vibration may be felt by humans, it is not likely to cause damage to properties. That being said, procedures will be put in place to protect properties and inform property owners in the unlikely event of property damage. Property condition surveys at the cost of MMRA via our contractor will be offered for all properties in the vicinity of the tunnels and stations, where that property has been identified as having potential to be impacted by the project. Structural building assessments may also be conducted on buildings that are identified as having potential to be impacted. Both property condition surveys and structural assessments will be undertaken before major construction commences (at no cost to the property owner/occupier). A monitoring program will also be implemented during construction to allow adjustments to construction methods, where necessary, to ensure no damage is caused to buildings and structures. In regards to tunnel operation, treatments such as floating track slabs will be applied to the rail tracks inside the tunnels to reduce noise and vibration and measurements undertaken to ensure they meet the Environmental Performance Requirements and noise and vibration guidelines. The City Loop currently travels under a number of residential and commercial properties and there is nothing to indicate that any damage has been caused as a result. In the unlikely event damage to your property is caused during construction or operation, the contractor will be required to undertake an investigation into the likely cause of any damage and also any rectification works to be carried out by the contractor. The property condition surveys and structural assessments will be relevant to this investigation. The project is currently seeking further clarification regarding property damage claims lodged some years after construction is complete. We will provide further advice on this matter in the future. STRATA ACQUISITION AND COMPENSATION Strata acquisition refers to acquiring land below the surface, where the tunnels pass under properties. Properties affected by strata acquisition will be formally advised once planning approval has been received and detailed design is undertaken. In October 2015, properties within a specified zone around the alignment were formally notified they may be impacted by strata acquisition. The strata impact area will continue to be refined as the design develops. It is intended that only land permanently required to build and protect the tunnel will be acquired. If part of the land beneath the surface of your property is required for the tunnels, it will be acquired by way of an Order published in the Victorian Government Gazette. Generally, strata acquisitions will not affect the current use of the properties at the surface. There may be limited instances where development of your property based on existing planning controls may be restricted, in respect of deep basement or foundations, due to the need to protect the underground tunnels. MMRA will discuss individual property impacts with these affected land owners, including any compensation implications. If you believe that you have suffered a loss due to the strata acquisition, a claim for compensation may be made within two years of the publication of the Order in accordance with the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 (s. 37). The time begins from the date the order is published in the Victorian Government Gazette.

Metro Tunnel Project: Briefing to North Melbourne Residents 8

A claim would need to demonstrate that you have suffered a pecuniary loss as a natural, direct and reasonable consequence of the strata acquisition. Design and Development Overlay The draft planning scheme amendment exhibited as part of the EES includes a Design and Development Overlay (DDO) that would be applied to ensure the integrity and operation of the Metro Tunnel infrastructure is not compromised by future development. Please note that this overlay is not intended to stop development in the area. The referral authority (initially the Secretary to the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources) will work with each planning permit applicant to ensure future developments can be constructed without compromising the integrity and operation of the Metro Tunnel infrastructure. How far underground a development may go will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

PROPERTY VALUES Impacts during construction are temporary and therefore surface property values are not expected to be affected during this period.

INDEPENDENT EXPERTS The engagement of independent experts is at the discretion of the individual. MMRA is not in a position to fund this type of engagement.

THE AGE ARTICLE The Age article ‘Shallow tunnel concerns residents’ published on 1 July 2016 inferred that MMRA had told residents that it would cost $2,500 to undertake noise and vibration assessments within homes. MMRA did not provide advice on the cost of such assessments. It was also suggested in the article that property owners / occupiers would have to pay for a structural building assessment if required prior to construction. This is not the case. This cost would be borne by MMRA via our contractor. In addition, it should also be noted that the EES assessment works from the assumption that the residential area in North Melbourne is not currently exposed to ground-borne noise. Therefore undertaking ground-borne noise and vibration measurements at individual properties in the area ahead of construction is not necessary.

NEXT STEPS As discussed at the presentation, the EES is currently on public display and we encourage you to make a submission outlining any concerns that you may have regarding the Metro Tunnel by 5pm Wednesday 6 July 2016. You can find details of how to make a submission at www.melbournemetro.vic.gov.au/ees We reiterate that MMRA is happy to meet at any time to discuss any issues, answer any questions and provide updates on the progress of the Metro Tunnel project.