MOD 2 - The Crescent overpass and active transport links

The modification substantially reduces pedestrian and cycle access from Annandale to Bicentennial Park. Pedestrians/cyclists now must either
- Cross three separate roads at the Crescent/CWlink intersection or
- Cross two roads at the Crescent/Johnston St intersection or
- Travel West across the green path, then join the circuitous overhead ramp.
The original design provided better access. Considering the options in Section 4.3.2, option 3 would also be an improvement. Even better would be if Option 3 were straightened out so that it reached ground near Chapman Rd.

My submission is regarding the planned "Upgrades to the intersection of The Crescent / Johnston Street ". The proposal removes two functionalities that are important to local residents and pedestrians. I believe these impacts have either been overlooked or erroneously assessed, and the proposal should be modified.

1. Right turn from Johnston Street into The Crescent (southbound) is not permitted as a result of the proposed modification. The proposal claims that " the number of traffic movements impacted are limited and alternative traffic routes are available". This assessment is clearly erroneous. The primary alternative route for vehicles on Johnston St wishing to head North/East to Glebe is to use Booth Street Annandale then Wigram Rd or Pyrmont Bridge Road. This 'alternative route' is the core of the pedestrian friendly Annandale village, with 3 existing pedestrian crossings. Deliberately funnelling additional through traffic through a suburb's high street is a poor outcome for amenity of the suburb, an important outcome which the assessment appears to have ignored. It would also be a poor outcome for drivers; with the pedestrian crossings, traffic along Booth Street is frequently very slow. A cursory review of 470 bus route data would quickly reveal the obvious existing issues with the 'alternative traffic routes. While the total number of vehicles using the existing right and turn may appear to be low, the capacity of local roads to absorb that traffic is very, very limited. The proposed design should be modified to preserve the existing ability to turn right into the Crescent from Johnston Street.

2. Reconfiguration of pedestrian access to the foreshore from Johnston Street, forcing an indirect series of road 3 separate traffic-light controlled crossings to replace the current single set is a particularly poor outcome for pedestrians. A significant portion of pedestrians in that location are vulnerable and under supervision; dogs, children on bikes and scooters etc. Forcing three seperate hold points for pedestrians in the (otherwise) short journey from Johnston Street to the park significantly increases the risk they experience on that journey. There appears to be no direct assessment of the local pedestrian impact at this location. It's a heavily used access point to the foreshore, and the final design shouldn't force this loss of direct foreshore access onto local pedestrians.

This project is going to be generating more induced demand on the roads. How about we look at a less destructive approach that has a higher focus on active / public transport and less on single occupancy vehicles.

I am completely in favour of the suggested changes. There is no issue with the ramp in particular. I feel that the government has gone out of its way to minimise the impact of this project by placing a very complex interchange underground. In fact, I would even support more of the interchange being placed above ground on the existing rail yards to save the State money. I cannot understand why/how people are complaining about any of this given that the current rail yard is incredibly ugly - a visible freeway interchange would even be an improvement!

The westconnex was all meant to be underground. The crescent overpass will create an eyesore next to the proposed park. Due to the tunnels the intersection should not be as busy and there would not be the need for an overpass. The view from my house would be looking directly at the overpass. Not a very attractive sight. Much more consideration should be given to this matter.

As a local resident I have been a supporter of WestConnex even though tunnels may well go under my house. However I am really upset by 2 aspects of this revised proposal.
1. The raised section of The Crescent will completely change the amenity of the local area by raising vehicles up above existing ground level creating an eye sore reminiscent of poor planning of the past. Alternatives such as going under must be explored.
2. The removal of the right turn at the northern end of Johnston Street will really impact the convenience of local residents but also impact other streets. It seems to forget we have a local community. There are already numerous restrictions on right turn into The Crescent form several of the north-south streets in North Annandale. Blocking the main one will just mean more traffic in View Street, Booth Street, the very narrow Wigram Road and others. Can you please confirm that View Street will maintain the right turn to enable travel between North Annandale and Glebe without travelling on Booth Street?

I object to the modified overpass for The Crescent because the newly proposed lanes of traffic going from Rozelle/Anzac Bridge toward Harold Park/Forest Lodge are designed to cause a traffic jam. There are now two lanes that merge into one! The proposal claims there will be no increased traffic along The Crescent and Ross Street Forest Lodge so it does not make any sense to have the two lanes merging into one. It will create a bottleneck at this large junction (see image 1).

Secondly, by removing the right turn from Johnson Street to The Crescent, you will remove access to the Tramsheds Harold Park precinct for people in Annandale. This will result in an increase in traffic on Booth St Annandale which is already congested.

I do not think that this overpass modification has been thought through with consideration to areas in the immediate vicinity of the overpass.

As for the shared pathways, they are so long and winding that are not designed for pedestrians or commuting cyclists. Their entry/exit access points seem to be in the middle of nowhere and do not seem to integrate with existing paths.

The proposed changes to the active transport links at the Rozelle Interchange are major and entirely negative and hence do not adhere to the Future Transport 2056 Strategy published by the NSW State Government. Further, the proposal itself concedes that the benefits the changes provide are minor and cannot therefore justify the compromises made to the active transport links. In light of this, the proposal should be soundly rejected.

In this response I will explain what the proposed changes are, why they are unsatisfactory and why they contravene the Future Transport 2056 Strategy. The conclusion drawn will be that the proposal should be rejected.

Changes to active transport links
====================
To summarise, the proposed changes to active transport links are:

* Realignment of the Green Bridge to the west of The Crescent and alongside the Rozelle light rail station
* Addition of a long, shared path that spans from the east of The Crescent, over a newly added overpass along with several lanes of traffic, and meets the northern end of the Green Bridge

Why they are unsatisfactory
=================

First, it’s necessary to mention that the proposal is light on details regarding the Green Bridge and the shared path, and so this response is based on the available information. This concession by no means weakens the response as the burden of details should be placed on the party seeking amendments to an already approved proposal and not those providing feedback.

Largely there are only minor objections to the changes of the Green Bridge. It appears that the width of the path on the southern side of the Green Bridge is insufficient given the gradient. This gives rise to safety concerns with cyclists riding downhill conflicting with pedestrians walking up the ramp.

The main concerns of this response are with the shared path and the claim of the proposal that it provides an equivalent link as that of the approved Green Bridge, from the eastern side of The Crescent to the Rozelle Rail Yards (Executive Summary p. xiii). The concerns are summarised as:
* The shared path is some 500m (10 min walk) longer than the approved green bridge (estimated, as this detail is not provided in the proposal)
* The shared path is too narrow, considering its gradient and curvature, to be safely and comfortably shared by pedestrians and cyclists
* Its shape makes navigation difficult and frustrating
* The distance between the entrance and exit points, combined with poor line of sight along the path, would make it feel unsafe at night

All of these compound to make a shared path that is unsafe, frustrating and annoying to use, for both cyclists and pedestrians, which would drastically hinder its uptake. This is in direct conflict with the claim of the proposal that the amended design provides equivalent active transport links. They are equivalent only in the sense that both designs join the same points on a map, but are entirely different in every pertinent way.

Future Transport 2056 Strategy
===================

The Future Transport 2056 Strategy emphasises the need to encourage uptake of active and public transport:

“The provision of safe and accessible footpaths, designed for all ages and abilities…” (p. 19)

“A successful transport system that encourages greater active and public transport can deliver positive outcomes in terms of physical and mental health, social capital and social and economic participation (p. 41)”

“Deliver complete cycling networks, pedestrian space and interchanges that safely support a wider range of devices (p. 63)”

“Walking and cycling have significant benefits for customers and the wider city (p. 88)”

“The NSW transport network will support healthy communities and encourage active transport like walking and cycling” (p. 88, emphasis mine)

“Complete walking and cycling networks to and within centres and invest in safe, direct and continuous green corridor connections…” (p. 88, emphasis mine)

“Encourage customers to use the transport system differently by shifting to walking, cycling or public transport” (p. 97)

It is clear that the NSW State Government and Transport for NSW have an objective to increase active transport participation, and future infrastructure should be in line with that goal.

The best way to encourage active transport is by building safe, accessible, convenient green links and infrastructure. The approved EIS design achieves this, the proposed changes do not. The proposed changes are expected to have negligible impact on traffic and congestion (Executive Summary p. xi), and while it is claimed that the active transport links are equivalent, I have above shown that to be demonstrably false. I cannot see nor fathom what reasoning would justify modifications that have no benefits, and produce outcomes that fly directly in the face of Sydney’s future transport plans. The proposal must be rejected.

I am making a second submission after attending a public consultation meeting on 28/08/2019. I'd reiterate that my position is unchanged - the proposal should be rejected because the benefits to drivers are too insignificant to justify the changes to the active transport links. However, after the public consultation I feel a bit more informed and have more to add. It seems clear to me that you are not seeking feedback as to whether or not the plan as a whole is a good idea - it was made clear that the overpass is basically non-negotiable - but that you are looking for feedback as to what additional requirements you might need to meet or address.

In this second submission I'll first explain what kinds of goals the detailed design should strive for in regards to active transport links, as the concept design presented in the proposal is sub-par, and the options analysed appear to have been constructed without clear goals for what they should achieve. Secondly I'll raise some concerns with the existing cycling/pedestrian infrastructure that must be remedied and certainly not repeated. Finally, I'll express my extreme disappointment that cycling and active transport are to be sacrificed for the sake of private vehicles; that the RMS are happy to seek amendments to the active transport requirements (that they be "direct") but not to the intersection performance requirements (achieve a grade greater than "F") of the EIS, with no justification.

It appears the goals for the active transport links (and the criteria they're assessed against) is to connect two points on the maps with a shared path. I would heavily suggest that stronger guidelines be followed. The original requirements of the Green Bridge, as per my understanding, were
* To connect the Rozelle Rail yards to the Glebe Foreshore
* To be direct

I feel these requirements can be amended to
* To connect the Rozelle Rail yards to the Glebe Foreshore
* To connect entrance and exit points of active transport bridges as straight and direct as possible to provide easy navigation and good visibility, which will improve uptake and safety
* Sweeping curves should be avoided without adequate vision, as they enable cyclists to travel at speed around blind corners, presenting a safety concern
* Active transport bridges should be wide - 4.5m (the proposed width) should be considered a minimum, with 6-8m sought where possible.

This second requirement is automatically satisfied for the amended Green Bridge. The new shared user bridge could be altered to provide additional ramps eastbound either side of the eastern end of The Crescent. The purpose of these ramps would be to provide an eastbound crossing of the crescent that doesn't require traveling west, and vice versa a westbound crossing that doesn't require traveling east, which make the bridge much more intuitive to use and navigate.

Some concerns with the current cycling infrastructure that must be addressed are
* Ground level paths should be separated from traffic by at least 1m
* Ground level paths should provide adequate waiting space/cycle turn bays so that cyclists using the crossings do not have to wait in a cycle lane
* Where cyclists must wait at a median to continue crossing, sufficient space must be provided
* Light sequencing for cyclists/pedestrians should be improved (both the Crescent and James Craig Rd intersections require cyclists/pedestrians wait for two (2) cycles of lights)
* Cyclist/Pedestrian beg-buttons should be positioned on the left

Finally, it is extremely disappointing that the intersection performance ratings produced by the traffic modelling appear to be the only justification for the proposed amendments, considering all the implications they have on active transport, to merely achieve a grade or two higher. The RMS are happy to seek amendments for their active transport obligations, but are not prepared to consider amending their traffic-flow obligations. One might even suggest that investing more in active and public transport would indeed "future proof" these intersections without the need for the proposed amendments, however, this possibility is not considered. I would suggest more investigation be carried out to ensure that the proposal is actually of net-benefit to the community, rather than assuming that traffic-flow is the sole measure by which transport projects be assessed.

The modification design is substantially different to that promised in the EIS. The EIS design was a completely underground interchange. This revised design has a large overground ramp that will be non environmentally compliant for numerous reasons including visual impact and noise/acoustics. There will inevitably be expansion joints and the noise generated by those will not be mitigated. The fully underground solution can be delivered - it’s only a question of money. As an engineer with infrastructure experience I can vouch that the underground solution can be delivered; it’s only a question of money.

The Crescent Overpass modification, in my view, should not proceed as:
- it would introduce a raised road structure at the western end of Rozelle Bay creating a significant visual barrier between the Rozelle Bay foreshore, Annandale and the proposed Rozelle Railyards open spaces
- the overpass would impede outlook from the Rozelle Bay Light Rail stop
- the overpass would greatly diminish the potential value and quality of the Pedestrian and Cycle Green Link
- the overpass prioritises vehicular movement in an area which has great potential to be a pedestrian and cycle focussed waterside environment
- the overpass would exacerbate the existing freeway-like conditions of the City West Link which, with the introduction of WestConnex, should be reduced to a more local road with slower traffic speeds and improved crossing opportunities
- the Pedestrian and Cycle Green Link would not connect directly to the Rozelle Bay foreshore (east of the Crescent) as is the case in the approved project
- the proposed Shared User Path bridge would make connections to the foreshore less clear, more circuitous and would require pedestrians/cyclists to go to an increased height over vehicles than is the case in the approved project
The Cahill Expressway, Brisbane Riverside Expressway and other elevated road structures at foreshore locations are widely seen as poor planning outcomes and not to be repeated. The Crescent Overpass modification represents outmoded thinking and should not be supported. The approved project, whilst far from ideal is preferable in every respect.

1. The Crescent overpass.
This is a gross over reach for a suburban street. An 8 metre high flyover, obscuring the mural on the viaduct is inappropriate. This whole interchange was meant to be underground so as not to blight the landscape. The Crescent and Johnston Street are already at capacity during both morning and evening peak periods. They are essentially gridlocked. If you haven't figured this out several years ago, then no amount of 'minor' modifications will change this fact. You are trying to make The Crescent off City West Link in to a 6 lane road, destroy existing parks and green space and propose 'unfiltered' ventilation stacks still. The Crescent will still only be two lanes once past the viaduct as will Johnston Street. Your plans won't change this and will only add to the traffic misery through Annandale.
2. Pedestrian and cycling green link.
This will now be on the wrong side of The Crescent and does not connect the green space from Rozelle Bay to the other side of the rail yards. Furthermore everyone will have to walk or cycle right through those 'unfiltered' ventilation stacks.
3. New shared user path bridge.
What a tortuous piece of rubbish this is. Who could be bothered using it? Face it, there is no 'connection' between Annandale & Rozelle. It's a fantasy dreamed up to sell this drivel.
4. Upgrades to the intersection of The Crescent/Johnston Street/Chapman Road.
Six lanes on The Crescent (you're joking of course), then down to two lanes on The Crescent and two lanes on Johnston Street but of course then reality strikes. These are single lane roads in reality. What are you thinking?
Removing the right hand turn from Johnston Street in to The Crescent will force traffic in to rat runs through Annandale ie Booth Street, Nelson Street & Trafalgar Street.
5. Additional purposes for the minor construction ancillary facility.
You have the entire Rozelle rail yards at your disposal. This is just a land grab with consequent loss of green space, amenities, parking and access to Rozelle Bay. I assume in all likelihood it will never return to public waterfront green space.
6. Anzac Bridge approach roads.
I can only assume that none of the designers of this proposed facility has ever used Anzac Bridge in the morning or evening peak periods. It's beyond a joke, bumper to bumper with cars regularly trying to cross 4 lanes of traffic to get to their destination. No fun at all and you think this will make life better? Really?

I am writing as a local resident of Annandale and a regular user of the Johnston St / Crescent crossing, writing to seek amendments to the proposed WestConnex M4-M5 Link MOD 2 - The Crescent overpass and active transport links.

I note one of the NSW Premier’s key priorities is to create well-connected communities with quality local environments, matching the delivery of new infrastructure with improvements to quality of life.

Mod 2 fails to meet this challenge because the design will decrease existing amenity for people walking at the junction of The Crescent and Johnston Street by removing an existing signalised crossing on the eastern edge of this intersection.

I would urge you to consider the desire line of people who live in Annandale, west of Johnson Street. To reach the Glebe foreshore and Bicentennial Park today they only need to cross the road (the Crescent) once. Under the Mod 2 proposal this crossing will be removed, and residents will either need to make a circuitous extended walk west via the proposed new green link and flyover, or east via five different individual crossing stages. This is a sub-optimal outcome in the 21st century.

People who cross the Crescent from the east side of Annandale today use a pedestrian crossing and then a signalised crossing to traverse Johnson Street. However, people walking can also be frequently seen crossing the east side of the Crescent, where no safe crossing exists today. Just because this arrangement is poor today, it does not mean a future arrangement should also be poor or include more delays for people on foot.

When faced with an inconvenience like five successive crossing stages, people will take matters in to their own hands and cross via the shortest means. Naturally, this will create additional danger on the roads and this proposed design seems to actively encourage dangerous behaviour.

I note the Executive Summary of the modification states that a traffic assessment has been completed for this proposal, however it only references motorised traffic. It appears no assessment of pedestrian movements at this site has been considered. This is not acceptable when you consider that the existing crossing is a popular walking route for children attending Annandale North Public School and for local families going to the park and foreshore.

It might be argued that the retention of the eastern pedestrian crossing might impact other traffic, however this traffic is currently able to cope with the existence of this crossing. Furthermore any perceived impacts should be considered alongside the other benefits for vehicles being delivered by the rest of the Westconnex and Rozelle rail yard works.

I note Transport for NSW’s Movement and Place Framework which considers appropriate designs for different types of road. The junction of Johnson Street and the Crescent adjoins local parks, foreshore walks, our local high street, a nearby school and TAFE and a nearby Light Rail Station. Although proposed to be a feeder road for the new motorway, this location is clearly a vibrant street with both a high demand for movement as well as place with a clear need to balance different demands within available road space.

I strongly urge you to reconsider the design of this junction and ensure safe crossings of the Crescent to the foreshore are provided on both sides of Johnson Street.

SHARED USER PATH BRIDGE AND GREEN LINK

I welcome the addition of a new Shared User Path Bridge and the Green Link, however additional care should be taken with their design.

I note the elevated Shared User Path is proposed to be 4.5 metres wide. The Shared User Path Bridge will connect two key areas of parkland in a densely populated area. It is not apparent if pedestrian traffic modelling has been undertaken.

Considering the potential volume of foot and bicycle traffic on the Shared User Path Bridge 4.5m is not wide enough for a bi-directional route.

As it will be elevated, connect popular parklands and be used by families and potentially inexperienced and younger riders, a wider pathway should be built, with occasional break out spaces for viewing / passing. The user’s experience at night should also be considered, with appropriate lighting, signage and “help buttons”.

In short, this path must be wide enough for cyclists travelling in opposite directions to be able to safely overtake two pedestrians on each side plus room for error / comfort.

Lastly, the indicative designs for the proposed Green Link do not provide enough detail on how this link will be green. Previous renderings have shown a wide, elevated public space complete with trees and shrubbery. The inclusion of natural and green elements should be clear from the outset of this design to ensure the maximum new tree canopy is provided and to help offset the loss of Buruwan Park.

I am a 64 year old living on Johnston Street. My husband & I moved here because we loved the fact that there was a wonderful park at the end of our street where we could walk our dog & get some exercise ourselves. On inspecting the revised plans it appears that we'll have to negotiate 3 sets of lights, waiting at each one for it to change in order to access a park that is 800 meters away! If I lived on the other side of the street it would be 5 sets! It is totally unreasonable that our access to our park will be so compromised. If we wish to visit the Tramsheds to do our groceries we'll have to drive half way around the world to get there, as the right hand turn onto The Crescent is going to be removed! We were told that the Rozelle Intersection would be underground! What's happened to that promise! Why are you ignoring the locals & our quality of life?
Please reconsider your plans for the intersection at Johnston street & The Crescent, & keep in mind the community's right to access the Glebe foreshores.
Marie Riordan
Annandale resident

Dear Sirs,
I am strongly opposed to ‘MOD 2 - The Crescent overpass and active transport’ due to the following:

Destruction of visual amenity - this project has an opportunity to leave a positive legacy in the area by connecting the suburbs and improving the amenity of the former industrial areas on the Blackwattle bay foreshore and the Rozelle rail yards. Widening the City Westlink and the insertion of an overpass will destroy this once in a generation opportunity.

Unacceptable noise implications - noise walls should be built adjacent to the City Westlink to protect Rozelle residents from increased road traffic noise that was previously shielded by the industrial area previously occupied by Gillespies / Swadlings etc. the construction of a road bridge will make matters even worse and should not be approved.
An overpass is not in line with the political assertions made that the interchange would be below ground.

Ultimately the works are surrounded by the residential areas of Lilyfield, Rozelle & Annandale so the visual amenity of the design and increased nuisance to residents needs to be given priority over what is essentially scope creep on what has already been approved.
Sincerely.

Following from the previous submission, I need to add that I also strongly oppose the modification as the air quality assessment demonstrates that it worsens the air quality and increases pollution on my street.
As we have a newborn I strongly oppose any degradation in air quality for health reasons for my family.

This modification completely ignores the conditions of consent given for this project and threatens to impose even more on the landscape and liveability of our local area.
The proposed overpass is totally out of step with local development in Annandale and will impose unnecessarily on a local heritage mural and destroy Buruwan Park. Sufficient consideration hasn’t been given to obvious alternatives such as a slot cut and cover trench running under Whites Creek to push traffic underground instead of overground.
Further, global experience of major toll road construction has demonstrated conclusively that projects like this increase air pollution, encourage more car use, fleece road users with exorbitant tolls and eventually fill the increased road capacity they create.

Visual impact and obstruction of ‘people’s mural’
This modification proposes to impose hugely on the local landscape in Annandale. A new elevated overpass is completely at odds with local development standards and would impose hugely on the local landscape.
The overpass will also obstruct Rodney Monk’s heritage mural which decorates the northern side of the light rail viaduct along The Crescent. That mural was commissioned by the Leichhardt Council in 1980, inspired by political and social movements in the inner west.
This proposal should be replaced with a slot cut and cover trench running under Whites Creek to push traffic underground instead of overground and avoid the massive imposition of an overpass and destruction of the ‘people’s mural’.

Destruction of mature fig trees at Buruwan Park
This modification proposes to rip up Buruwan Park and all the vegetation at that site including several beautiful mature fig trees.
Removing this vegetation and greenspace will impact the liveability of our suburb by removing shade, making our local area warmer and destroying the green barrier they provide between the City West Link and residences. If these trees are removed and replaced with saplings, it could take up to a decade for tree cover to return to this site.
Any modification to this proposal should make every possible effort to save these trees and vegetation. At a bare minimum, these trees should not be removed at least until a full Urban Design and Landscape Plan has been completed.

Pedestrian access to Bicentennial Park
This modification prioritises the needs of motorists, trashing the experience of local pedestrian traffic and making harder for residents to access the public waterfront.
Pedestrians walking from the Western side of Johnston Street will have to use an astonishing four pedestrian crossings in order to reach Bicentennial Park (see diagram below).
This pedestrian arrangement should be modified to allow pedestrians to cross direct from Johnston Street to the Park.


Unfavourable relocation of the green link
This modification would abandon one of the centrepieces of the original design: a pedestrian and cycling green link to connect the Rozelle Rail Yards to Bicentennial Park.
If that green link is relocated to the west of the intersection of The Crescent and City West Link it will cease to actually be a ‘green link’ as it would no longer connect two greenspaces.
These changes ignore the original conditions of consent given for this project.

Increased local traffic in Annandale
This modification would remove the option to turn right out of Johnston Street into the Crescent which will increase traffic through local streets including Piper Street and Booth Street. These changed conditions will mean increased noise and emissions for residents in Annandale.

We object strongly to the proposed traffic overpass as part of the Rozelle Interchange (Westconnex) at the Crescent Overpass. As home-owners in this area, we are greatly concerned about the negative impacts that this proposed change to the road construction will have on this uniquely historic part of Annandale.

This new development (that is, an overpass rather than the original tunnel) will detract from the aesthetic qualities of the area, creating an extremely negative visual impact and will have significant additional noise and pollution impacts on the residents. In addition, the heritage wall that abuts The Crescent will be obscured by this overpass, which is proposed to be 8 metres high, detracting from the wall's heritage significance. It seems to us that the only reason for this new proposal is cost cutting, an extremely short-sighted move that will change the nature of this area for ever. It is likely to be regretted in the future, just as the Cahill Expressway is now seen as an eyesore for the city. As local residents were assured that traffic would be enclosed in a tunnel, this is a betrayal of their trust. Residents are already having to endure significant levels of noise, disruption and inconvenience that will last for over 4 years. This proposed overpass will only add to their misery. It seems as if profits for private companies are being, once again, taking precedence over local amenities.
The proposed The Crescent overpass will significantly impede the water views from this part of Annandale, severely impacting the unique charm and appeal of this area. We would like to register our strong objection to this proposal which will be not just an eyesore but will also severely detract from the area's amenity.

1) It is almost impossible to make a submission on your website, creating an account and trying to find the appropriate links.
2)This modification does not appear to take into account the needs of the local community with regard to pedestrian/cycle access and loss of green space.
3) There will be a huge increase of traffic in the area impacting on the local neighbourhood involving additional pollution/noise /environmental deterioration.
4) If this project in its present form is to go ahead there must be a dedicated cycleway included in the construction.
5) The direct impact on residents living in the Glebe/Forest Lodge/Annandale area will be hugely damaging for them and imposing a visual eyesore.
6) It is not at all clear how long the construction process will last and given past experience of construction of this nature in Sydney, (eg WCX, light rail etc) time blow out and expense blow out is inevitable.
7) Commuters will be extremely disadvantaged during construction and the subsequent impact on the local environment will be huge.

I would like to lodge my objection to the proposed modification to the Crescent overpass. The changes to the pedestrian walkways indicated in the proposed modifications (chapter 4 in the August report) would have a significant impact to the pedestrians in the area. The changes are justified purely on the basis of improving traffic flow, but the changes to the pedestrian walkway and cycle ways (particularly the landbridge between Rozelle rail yards and the crescent) will create a disincentive for pedestrian and cycle traffic, at a time when the government should be encouraging alternative modes of environmentally friendly transport.

The modifications will mean that school children that regularly utilise Bicentennial park will have to cross 3 major roads, instead of the 1 seen in option 1 and outlined in the EIS.

Moreover, the loss of the landbridge between Rozelle rail yards and the crescent would mean a significant loss of amenity for the project, that would not be replicated by the green link in option 4.