King Georges Road Interchange

Our submission is contained in the pdf file uploaded below

My submission contains a number of concerns that I have discussed with a number of neighbours.

General
* The alternatives given only focus on `do nothing' or `defer delivery as part of WestConnex' - this forms the basis for all discussion about alternatives throughout the document, and does not provide alternatives to Westconnex itself or alternatives to free up congestion at the KGR interchange
* The EIS refers to the King George's Road upgrade as a stand alone project and as part of WestConnex - in some sections justification for the project is to assist in delivery of WestConnex, in others it is justified as a separate piece of work. In some sections this appears to be a way of highlighting the best possible justification rather than a comprehensive/integrated approach to the assessment
* There is no mention of potential second airport in Sydney and what this might do to alleviate traffic predictions into/out of existing airport and port

Traffic and Transport
* There are no regular bus routes along the M5 - is there an opportunity to increase bus services to reduce numbers of cars on the road and therefore free up space for freight vehicles?
* Assessment doesn't detail proportion of freight vs car traffic
* There is no detail how predicted increase in jobs will impact traffic and transport
* Levels of improvement in traffic as a result of the project are not more than 5%. This project has an enormous cost for only a predicted 5% change in traffic.
* How are changes in travel patterns accounted for? Has this modelling been based on past patterns of growth? It could be envisaged that travel patterns could change in the future

Noise and vibration
* The project is defined as redevelopment of an existing road for the purpose of the EIS, but is clearly referred to as part of WestConnex in other areas of the EIS. This represents an inconsistent approach to assessment and classification.

Socio-economic
* Assessment of business and employment references WestConnex, whereas other areas of assessment do not e.g., community values, local amenity, access and connectivity
* All socio-economic environmental management measures are related to construction, none provided for operation

Air quality
* Page 22 summarises community concerns about air quality for existing M5 tunnel and a filtration trial that was carried out, however the assessment of air quality further on for the project does not refer to this in detail and uses information from all OEH stations to make a general statement about NSW and Sydney - there is no local assessment provided despite a comparison being made between predicted impacts and current situation

Cumulative impacts
* Does not consider cumulative impacts of the full Westconnex project, only future M5 portion
* Refers to "connections to St Peters and airport", does not refer to a tunnel to St Peters specifically
* This EIS was written before a planning application has been made for Westconnex M5 portion so only lists potential key issues and does not include any assessment/consideration of them
* Only refers to traffic and transport impact of Westconnex as it relates to the M5, not whole Westconnex

Sustainability
* This paper does not provide any measures to reduce greenhouse gases, only refers to sources and quantities
* Only mentions noise pollution, not air
* Climate change resilience - only mentions potential impact of sea level rise on the project area, no discussion of whether increasing road transport is appropriate
* ESD considerations only mention project, no detail is given regarding full impacts of WestConnex
* Does not cover economic costs/benefits to future generations in discussion on inter-generational equity
* Potential impacts to air quality are restricted to construction
* Assessment against the objects of the EP&A Act only discusses the project, not the full WestConnex project

General

* No consideration is given to genuine alternatives to WestConnex, or to other means of easing congestion at the King Georges Road interchange. Only "do nothing" or "defer delivery as part of WestConnex" are considered when discussing alternatives to the plan proposed, which is too limited to form a valid basis for this proposal.
* The manner in which the EIS refers to proposed upgrade is inconsistent. At various times throughout the document, it is referred to as standalone project, while at other times, it is referred to as part of WestConnex. In some sections, it appears the choice of reference has come down to whatever happens to be the most expedient argument in favour of whatever element of the project is being discussed, which suggests that this proposal has not truly been assessed in a comprehensive or integrated manner.
* No mention is made of the potential second airport in Sydney, and how this might alleviate traffic projections into and out of the existing airport and port.

Traffic and transport
* The EIS claims this upgrade will improve traffic by no more than 5%. This project has an enormous cost for such a small predicted change.
* No consideration has been given to whether introducing new or increasing existing bus services along the M5 could reduce the number of cars on the road, and therefore free up space for freight vehicles.
* There is no assessment of the proportion of freight vs car traffic.
* No information has been provided as to how the predicted increase in jobs will impact traffic and transport.
* The EIS does not detail how changes in travel patterns are accounted for, what data the modelling has been based on, or whether travel patterns could change in future.

Noise and vibration
* The project is defined as redevelopment of an existing road for the purpose of the EIS, but is clearly referred to as part of WestConnex in other areas of the EIS. This represents an inconsistent approach to assessment and classification.

Socio-economic
* The project is defined as redevelopment of an existing road for the purpose of the EIS, but the assessment of business and employment are tied to WestConnex. It appears this has been done in order to inflate the benefits.
* Other areas of assessment do not refer to WestConnex - e.g. community values, local amenity, access and connectivity. It appears this has been done to conceal the negative impacts of the project proposed.
* All socio-economic environmental management measures are related to construction. No such figues are provided for operation, which should be a mandatory element of any EIS, as the effects of this will be felt far beyond the initial construction period.

Air quality
* Page 22 summarises community concerns about air quality for existing M5 tunnel and a filtration trial that was carried out. However, the air quality assessment that appears later in the EIS for this project does not refer to this in detail. Instead, it uses information from all OEH stations to make a general statement about NSW and Sydney - no local assessment is provided.

Cumulative impacts
* The EIS does not consider cumulative impacts of the full WestConnex project, only the future M5 portion. However, because this EIS was submitted before the planning application for the WestConnex M5, it only lists potential key issues, and fails to assess them.
* Refers to "connections to St Peters and airport". It does not refer to a tunnel to St Peters specifically.
* Only refers to traffic and transport impact of Westconnex as it relates to the M5, not whole Westconnex

Sustainability
* The EIS does not provide any measures to reduce greenhouse gases, which would be expected to increase if road usage increases as a result of this upgrade. Instead, it refers to sources and quantities.
* Only noise pollution is considered - not air. This is a major omission.
* The reference to climate change resilience only mentions potential impact of sea level rise on the project area. No consideration is given as to whether increasing road transport is appropriate in this context.
* ESD considerations only mention project. No detail is given regarding full impacts of WestConnex, which is inconsistent with benefit-focused sections of the EIS, which did include the wider impact of WestConnex.
* The economic costs and benefits to future generations is not included in the discussion on inter-generational equity.
* Potential impacts to air quality are restricted to construction. No reference is made to the impact on air quality during operation, which will be long-term.
* Assessment against the objects of the EP&A Act only discusses the project, not the full WestConnex project. Again, this is inconsistent with the benefit-focused sections of the EIS, which did include the wider impact of WestConnex.

WestConnex is a poorly planned transport concept that is not going to help solve Sydney's traffic problems.

The EIS hasn't not properly or fully considered the alternatives to expanding the road.

We need more public transport alternatives and more money should be allocated for this. The Public Transport System is already over capacity, Money should be spent on building better public transport and NOT a M5 tolled tunnel.

WestConnex is not the integrated world class transport system that Sydney deserves. There are no park and ride areas at railway stations, so people can't drive to stations get out of their cars and travel by train. Kingsgrove really should have a park and ride area. If Kinsgrove did, then many cars would be taken off the road, making the "New M5 unnecessary.

This proposal will seriously impact the biodiversity of bushland at the junction of King George Road and the M5.

The WestConnex tunnel will add to Sydney wide and local pollution. Recent scientific evidence says there is NO SAFE LEVEL of exposure to Ultra Fine Particulate Matter, especially from diesel exhaust. It is dangerous to all, but particularly the young, aged or those with pre-existing health conditions.

Sydney deserves a transport system that is not going to increase dependence on car and road transport, and at the same time degrade the quality of our air and seriously impact on out health.

In the current plan, as I understand it, the following are true:
A) The M5 shoulder will be permanently closed to cyclists
B) There is no commitment to upgrading or improving the existing pathways, although there is a plan to review their current condition

The WestConnex project is a great opportunity to enhance the shared pathways of the South West area of Sydney. Enhancing the shared pathways will:
A) Promote healthy living and family activity for the people of South West Sydney and others by providing safe and effective infrastructure that can be used for running, jugging, walking, and cycling.
B) Cyclists who would otherwise use the M5 shoulder will have a comparable alternative if the shoulder is closed
C) Stimulate additional use by those who currently choose not to use the available infrastructure due to its current standard
D) Would be a key part of one day providing a pathway from the M7 pathway through to the city

It would be a great shame for this project to go ahead without a pathway upgrade as such an upgrade is unlikely to happen outside a construction project on the freeway. The M7 is a great roll model in this case as are many of the construction projects in Brisbane and other forward thinking cities. In theses cases road infrastructure construction is embraced as an opportunity to upgrade pathway infrastructure at the same time. The WestConnex project should also do this.

I request that upgrading the Southern pathway to the same standard as the M7 pathway be included as part of the WestConnex project. The upgrade should be from Penshurst Rd to Bexley Rd. Upgrading to the standard of the M7 would include:
A) Ensuring consistent and adequate width of the path from end to end
B) Resurfacing to provide a smooth stable surface where the surface is currently unstable
C) Construction of overpass bridges like the one over Bexley Rd to exist also over Kingsgrove Rd, King Georges Rd and Cooloongatta Rd
D) Bicycle exit from M5 east bound just after Penshurst Rd to allow loop around under M5 on to southern pathway
E) Bicycle entry to M5 west bound just before Penshurst Rd to allow re-entry from M5 southern pathway

Alternatively the path upgrade could be extended to Bonds Rd or Belmore Rd and then these could be the entry/exit points for cyclists plus also provide more usable pathway for other healthy activities.

I understand that land space for a foot bride at King Georges Rd is limited. I propose therefore that the bridge be built between the concrete island of the westbound exit and the concrete island of the westbound entry. Shorter bridges would then just need to cross the westbound exit/entry lanes themselves. Please see "Bridge route for King Georges Rd crossing.pdf" attached.

This upgrade would also be greatly advantageous to pedestrian around the M5 area.

The WestConnex project is a rare opportunity to give the people of South West Sydney improvement in not only road infrastructure but also pathway infrastructure. We should not squander this opportunity to make a difference for the long term. Stats have been referenced to show low activity on the M5 shoulder and pathway. Stats would have shown very few people walking, running, jogging, or cycling in the M7 area prior to the construction of that pathway but once it was available many people now use it. We should build for what people will use if it's available not for what people do use because of the limitations of what already exists.

I'm happy to discuss any of the details

I support improvements being made in the poor design of the M5 East but do not feel that this proposal is the best option available. It tackles the shortness of the King Georges Road exit and entrance ramps in a very expensive way but does nothing for the problems caused by the right exits. Attached is a rough outline of a design that would tackle all of the problems without having to reconstruct any bridges over the M5. It will also allow faster travel times in both directions, but particularly west-bound, as it results in three running lanes for most of the M5 East.

The Interchange upgrade can be largely justified on its own. However as for the M4 EIS there is no justification of the WestConnex especially economic justification or work on the Ring Road (King Georges Road) proposed which largely negates most of the benefits of the proposal.

In this respect, it is interesting to note in the Traffic Study assessment of future traffic for the "Do Minimum case" that east of King Georges Road there is a forecast decrease in peak traffic flow 2014 to 2027 of 6% with an increase of only 8% in daily flow !!!! So Way are we planning the major costly work east of King Georges Road - note expansion of road is based on peak flow not daily flow - so why are we inducing extra traffic towards the Airport by this costly WestConnex scheme !!! In contrast forecast peak flow west of King Georges Road is 14% and daily flow 22%. This increased traffic is hence obviously destined for King Georges Road where no improvements appear to be planned to address issues at squeeze points along that road.

Uploaded PDF

See attached document.

I am making this submission on the request of a neighbour. The document attached is a scan of the letter they have provided for consideration. The email address above is mine, as the residents have not provided me with email details.

See uploaded document.