M7 Motorway (Mod 6 Widening)

It is already noisy and Widening the road will increase the noise pollution,and increase risk of accidents.

As a Resident of Middleton Grange since 2015 I must state that the road infrastructure is absolutely disgusting.
I don’t know how the developers, councils alongside the state gov can approve of such disasters in the first place without planning anything properly.
Typically cramming blocks of land on top of one another and with small roads not even a truck could pass through.

The M7 widening is well over due and and in my opinion this should have been done originally when it was built to compensate for a rapid growing city.
I ask that the teams/departments involved with the project to look into bettering existing roads near/alongside M7 etc.
Further improvement can be done on roads such as
15th Avenue, West Hoxton
More entry, exit points at Middleton Grange
Devonshire Road/Elizabeth Drive Austral/Kemps Creek
Wallgrove Road/Elizabeth Drive Intersections
The Widening of M7 must be done I am all for it.
But please do not hike the prices of the tolls no one can justify paying ridiculous amounts for Motorways promised to cut travel times. Please don’t state this will as I still think this won’t help congestion across the orbital link, especially once airport opens up.

I am using this platform to get a message across not just regarding the M7, but the suburbs between the M7 and Western Sydney Airport. As we will be feeling the consequences a lot more with traffic congestion.
All these sub divisions happening in Austral etc have roads with no proper storm water systems, still travelling on roads that are over 30+years old with over hundreds of pot holes.
Housing estates are popping up left and Center with no proper roads to compensate.
Please consider and plan properly

While having over 10years experience with this motorway including both operations and commuting, motorist exhibit frustration when reduced speeds are required to perform maintenance / repairs in assets. While taking into consideration the safety requirements to perform these activities along with a varying level of intervention required per asset, could consideration please be made to the on going maintenance that will be required throughout the life of the motorway. Placing electronic assets behind jersey barriers will provide both increase improvement to safety for the technician performing the works along with negating the need to perform speed reductions, refusing frustrations.
This could also sharpen response times for maintenance in assets along with reduced delays for motorists.

Should a gantry system be used to install over head vsls signs, this system must act as an access point to be able to perform repair work to electronic signs without the need of traffic control devices, removing the technician from potential impact of vehicle from the road while all work is done over head with next to no disruption.

Consideration to maintenance and safety for the technicians performing the maintenance along with disruptions must be considered and engineered out with this upgrade. This could serve as a standard for up comming Elizabeth drive widening

I very much support the project make it 4 lanes each way please, or at least 2 km merging lanes for all entry and exits. The roads are critical to city growth, and larger freeways promote a greener environment, free flowing traffic instead of 20km parking lots. Do it properly for dont skimp out it will cost double for the same outcome in 20 years. I look forward to seeing the forcasted costing and studies that conclude 1 additional lane each way

Can you please maintain the shared path open at all times during the M7 widening construction period and include new shared paths as part of the design
Thanks

I strongly object to the Westlink M7 Widening project, which will remove access to 26 kilometers of well surfaced, well graded, safe road from use by cyclists. When the M7 was built, it was intentionally constructed with smooth, debris-free shoulders of adequate width and safe treatments at interchanges, specifically marked for the purpose of safe cycling.
As a result, the existing M7 shoulders are well known and well used by cyclists riding for fitness, training and transport, as confirmed by the heatmap shown on Strava at https://www.strava.com/heatmap#17.26/150.85248/-33.80999/bluered/ride (attached), which clearly indicates significant use of both the shoulders and the shared path.
The shared path is exactly that - shared, with pedestrians, children, prams, scooters, joggers, runners and family and recreational cyclists. The shared path is inappropriate and dangerous for cyclists wishing to train for fitness, due to these other uses and due to the frequent, low speed corners, side entrances and narrow sections.
The modification report states: "To address potential safety risks to cyclists, the proposed modification would introduce restrictions which would prohibit cycling on the shoulder of the Westlink M7 mainline between the M5 Motorway and Richmond Road". In other words, the design of the proposed widening will make the road dangerous for cyclists, so cyclists will be banned. This is a lazy, irresponsible approach to road modification design, and would be a decision to deliberately remove existing, publicly funded infrastructure.
In the current publication Cycling Aspects of Austroads Guides (https://austroads.com.au/publications/road-design/ap-g88-17):
Section 2.4.5 discusses the need “to provide more than one cycling facility on the same route to allow for differing skill levels” and defines the “Advanced” rider level (experienced commuter, experienced sports rider, experienced touring rider). It states that “Facilities should be designed and well maintained to facilitate reasonable and high riding speed” and includes sealed shoulders as suitable infrastructure for this rider type.
Section 2.7 states “If bicycle facilities such as cycle tracks or bicycle paths are poorly designed without appropriate directness and priority, on-road bicycle lanes or suitable road shoulders may still be required in addition to off-road facilities.”
I submit that the M7 Widening project must not be approved until such time as the design includes the continued provision of a safe, sealed wide shoulder suitable for cyclists along the entire length of the M7, as currently exists.

I support this project however it should have been done from the original construction/design. Plans need to be made that have area and vehicular growth in mind. This needs to be done with the upcoming plans

I am fully supportive of the need to add an extra lane to the M7 in both directions. However the bottlenecks at the M5 and the M2 are still two lanes so this will create a further hold up.

The M7 needs to be made toll free. This road is mismanaged, this is evident by two landslides on the motorway which have permanent speed restrictions because they can't be bothered fixing them in a timely manner.

The motorway needs to be seized by the state and the tolls eliminated.

I support this project however there are two points I would like to make.

I believe adding an additional lane is a really ineffective solution to the current traffic issues on the M7. The road is already struggling to cope with traffic and adding an additional lane will certainly assist but by the time it is completed it will provide little or no relief. Widening with an extra 2 lanes in each direction would at least provide extra future capacity and is more inline with the Governments objective of providing infrastructure for the future. An extra one lane each way will barely provide infrastructure for the current environment. At the very least it should be 4 lanes each way between the M4/M7 Interchange and the M7/New Airport exit interchange as this section of motorway will be under significant pressure when the airport opens. The proposed additional lane will not cope with the anticipated traffic increase once the airport opens.

The other concern I have is the Northbound M7/M4 interchange where an additional exit lane is proposed from the M7 to the M4. I have attached a diagram of the interchange and I have numbered the relevant lanes that I wish to talk about.

There is already congestion at this interchange because of the short Northbound on-ramp from Old Wallgrove Road. Traffic entering via this very short on-ramp have to merge to lane 1 of the M7. Some of the traffic in lane 1 will exit at the M4 and other traffic will continue on the M7. At the same time vehicles travelling northbound on the M7 in lane 2 are attempting to change to 1ane 1 so that they too can exit toward the M4.

Under the new proposal traffic travelling northbound in 1ane 1 of the M7 will be required to exit at the M4. This means that traffic entering the M7 from the short Old Wallgrove Road on-ramp will not only have to deal with traffic already on the M7 changing lanes but they will then need to change to lane 2 of the M7 if they wish to proceed straight ahead. With the exit to the M4 being widened to 2 lanes it is also highly probable that some traffic in lane 3 of the M7 will cut across to lane 2 so as to take the exit on the lane I have labelled on the attachment as E2. At 80kmh this is likely to cause significant issues not unlike the issues experienced at the M4/Church Street exit where people are making last minute lane changes to exit.

The issues outlined above will significantly slow traffic in this section of the Motorway and add to the likelihood of crashes or other incidents.

The original design of this section of Motorway was poor to begin with and these proposed changes will only make a bad situation worse. While more expensive perhaps the safer option is to have a dedicated exit lane to the M4 start before the Old Wallgrove Road interchange and run parallel to the M7 on the western side of the Old Wallgrove Rd on-ramp so as to avoid the issue of traffic having to merge and then change lanes in a very short space.

Alternatively traffic entering the from the Old Wallgrove Road on-ramp could be forced to exit at the M4. Traffic from Wallgrove Rd wishing to travel north on the M7 could enter via a new on-ramp connection which could be built on the northern side of the M4 connecting with the existing M4 eastbound exit for vehicles exiting the M4 to travel north on the M7.
There are no doubt other solutions also available.

Thank you for considering my submission.

This project is long overdue. However there should be at least 4 lanes each way on the M7 along with upgrades to existing surrounding infrastructure. A wider motorway means nothing if vehicles are not able to enter/ exit effectively