MOD 2 - The Crescent overpass and active transport links

The introduction of an extended, elevated overpass at the Crescent has significant impacts on safety, amenity, local foot traffic and access that have not been addressed and have not been subject to the same rigour as the initial design and plan with respect to EIS and peer review.
The limited improvement to traffic flow from the addition of the overpass described in MOD2 do not justify the increase in budget or additional risks established by the modification.
The proposed modification should be rejected.
Concerns include;
1. The overpass creates a significant visual and physical barrier and removes direct active links to the foreshore from its users, cutting communities off from the foreshore and the proposed revitalisation of the entire Bays Precinct.
2. The proposed modification results in unsafe and indirect access across FIVE sets of pedestrian lights at The Crescent to reach the foreshore/railyards from Johnson street
3. The proposed modification has no updated Urban Design and Landscape Plan (or peer review ). The original EIS had both. The modification considerably changes the design intent of the approved EIS design.
4. The addition of an extended, elevated overpass is at odds with the aims of the Dept of Plannings to minimise the visual impact with (otherwise) much of the traffic in tunnels. The overpass will have a negative visual impact from the parkland and harbour.
5. There will be significantly reduced safety and increased risk with pedestrian and cyclists access removed from The Crescent to Bicentennial Park.
6. Traffic changes will limit movements around the suburb and create further congestion in the local streets of Annandale, Forest Lodge, Glebe, Lilyfield and Rozelle. MOD2 has not provided for additional planning to deal with these traffic changes. The impact will revert to Council.
The limited improvement to traffic flow from the addition of the overpass described in MOD2 do not justify the increase in budget or additional risks established by the modification.
The proposed modification should be rejected.

I support the need to create continuous traffic movement from Johnston Street pass the intersection with the City West Link. If that could be done as a tunnel rather than overpass that would be preferred.

The loss of the greenlink is however regrettable and the proposed new pedestrian/cycle link needs to be of a high standard comparable to the previous approved link.

I do have concern about the potential loss of right turn from the street just before Johnston Street intersection with the Crescent in favour for a a new west only traffic flow. That effectively limits any local traffic accessing the Tramsheds shopping centre and Glebe from this part of Annandale. I request an alternate solution be explored and implemented to retain such access.

M4-M5 Mod submission

As a resident of Pritchard St living less than 100m from the Light rail I have a number of concerns with the proposed modification. That we are provided only 28 days for feedback as a community is disappointing and a little disingenuous.

In summary: the elevated ramp at the Crescent and the revised Johnston St/Crescent intersection has significant safety impacts and restricted our access to the foreshore – issues which have not been addressed and have not been subject to the same planning rigour (EIS, Safety Audits and peer review). Im not sure what this is the case.

As an overall comment, the very limited improvement to traffic flow (along the Crescent and down Johnston St) from the addition of the overpass described in MOD2 do not justify the significant increase in budget or additional risks established by the modification.

The proposed modification should be rejected.
Concerns include:

1. The overpass creates a significant visual and physical barrier and removes direct active links to the foreshore from its users, cutting communities off from the foreshore and the proposed revitalisation of the entire Bays Precinct.

2. The proposed modification results in unsafe and indirect access across FIVE sets of pedestrian lights at The Crescent to reach the foreshore/railyards from Johnson street.

To illustrate this point, the current pedestrian and Bike crossing is 15m. The Mod replaces this with a 100M, 5 crossing route which is clearly more dangerous, especially when you consider many of the users are infant and primary children from the nearby schools.

In addition, the proposed pedestrian access from Railway Parade across the Crescent will now be an alarming 120M in length (due to the resumption of the Buruwan Park. This cannot be considered a realistic option given the time is will take and the safety risk associated with this crossing.

3. The proposed modification has no updated Urban Design and Landscape Plan (or peer review ). The original EIS had both. The Safety Audit for the Johnston St and Crescent Intersection and the Railway Pde Pedestrian crossing - also do not appear to be available for review?

4. The addition of an extended, elevated overpass is at odds with the aims of the Dept of Plannings to minimise the visual impact with (otherwise) much of the traffic in tunnels. The overpass will have a negative visual impact from the parkland and harbour.

5. The previous design had a great Green-link on the east side of the Crescent which actually effectively connected the parks (Bicentennial and Railyard). This design should be applauded as it enables such a wonderful asset like the foreshore to be enjoyed by all Inner West local residents.

However Mod changes this green link into a “concrete link” whereby 1/3 of the link is now concrete and does not actually link green areas!

It will also be much more difficult for pedestrians and cyclists to access the new Rozelle Railyards from Bicentennial park with the greenlink being moved to the west side of the Crescent.

6. Noise impacts will be significant for residents in Railway Pde, Bayview St, Pritchard St and Annandale St with the extension of traffic lanes through Buruwan park. With no noise barriers, this can be expected to include significantly increased car and truck noise. No Noise assessment for this change appears in the report?

For the above reasons the proposed modification should be rejected.

Refer attachment

Application: SSI 7485
Dear Director Transport Assessments Planning Services,
I write regarding the proposed modification to M4-M5 Link, Mod 2 The Crescent overpass and changes to pedestrian infrastructure in North Annandale, Rozelle and Rozelle Bay Foreshore area.
I request RMS work with the community to explore alternate design options to the proposed new car overpass design and the changed pedestrian and cyclist links. I am seeking the reinstatement of the safe, direct access from the approved EIS GreenLink to create a continuous green open space connection from the Rozelle Rail yards and Annandale to the foreshore. The GreenLink was more than just a walk way - it put people central to the design, maximising safety, and providing much needed accessible open space for the community now and into the future Bays Precinct design.
I am requesting RMS put people back into the plan – I want you to reinstate your own vision as laid out in Transport for NSW Future Strategy 2056. Work with the community to design a feasible option that brings the best elements from the approved EIS design into the modification.
My key concerns with the M4-M5 Modification are:
● The significantly reduced safety and increased risk for pedestrians and cyclists with removed access over The Crescent to Bicentennial Park and the increased traffic along Johnson Street.
● Being required to cross five sets of pedestrian lights at The Crescent as my option to reach the foreshore from Annandale or from Rozelle light rail stop.
● Removal of direct active links to the foreshore, cutting the community off from the area and the proposed revitalisation of the entire Bays Precinct, including linking the Light Rail and Bus stops to a Ferry wharf and Metro station.
● Urban and landscape design that is being built before a finalised Masterplan for the area.
● Traffic changes that limit movements around the suburb and create further congestion in the local streets of Annandale, Forest Lodge, Glebe, Lilyfield and Rozelle with no planning to deal with these.
Alongside these issues my other concerns include:
My submission is asking RMS and the Project Team to:
● Reinstate the GreenLink connecting communities and green open space from Rozelle to Bicentennial Park.
● Relocate and design pedestrian and cyclist connections that are continuous, safe and direct.
● Design the modification infrastructure and active links in response to the character of the suburbs, the location of the foreshore and it’s potential future development.
● Provide pedestrian and cyclist paths that maximise people safety and do not force us onto busier streets, unsafe concrete plazas and caged walkways.
● Integrate active and direct connections to all active transport – including the future Metro West and Foreshore Ferry Wharf.
Sincerely
Rebecca D

I understand that the NorthConnex tunnel operators have requested a 400% increase (1mg/m3 to 4mg/m3) in the allowed level of pollutants known as VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) to be emitted unfiltered from the Wahroonga ventillation outlet.

It has been well documented that elevated levels of VOC’s, diesel particulates and other pollutants are a serious health risk, driving increased rates and severity of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, especially to children and the elderly. I also understand that this outlet is near a school - outrageous considering that children absorb pollutants at a higher level and are significantly more susceptible to their negative effects.

The WHO outlines the issues clearly, such as in this report: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/189051/Health-effects-of-particulate-matter-final-Eng.pdf

The NorthConnex operators MUST not be allowed to increase pollution limits and indeed these limits should be ZERO, in line with heath recommendations, and they should be required to place filters on all the tunnel outlets.

Sincerely

Dr Cat Dorey

The Mod 2 change is completely unacceptable.
I object to the removal of the right turn from Johnston St into The Crescent.
I object to the removal of the mural along The Crescent.
I object to the huge overpass for vehicles 8m in the air above the Crescent, destroying the existing connection to the foreshore.
There is no apparent thought of local amenity been given to the proposal - other than to shuffle cars through the suburb at increasing rates, as cheap as possible.

Fundamentals changes to the neighbourhood, traffic conditions, noise, access to school where my children attend. Unsightly, destruction to the local attractions as it stands and removal of cycle lane

I object to the modification which removes the Green Link for cyclists and pedestrians. I am a keen cyclist and often use the current overpass from Rozelle to Glebe. This year I was diagnosed with leukaemia and received treatment at RPA. I am now recovering at home but have multiple hospital visits a week. The doctors have advised me to exercise so I’ve been cycling from Rozelle to RPA via the current overpass and Johnston’s Creek which is a really pleasant ride and avoids the problems of parking and traffic. I am alarmed that these kinds of activities will be made harder without the Green Link and I can’t understand why the government is not trying to encourage walking and cycling to improve people’s health, reduce congestion and help reduce emissions contributing to climate change. With a huge and unpopular road project like the WestConnex, it is unconscionable to remove the one ‘green’ part of the project. I strongly object and would like you to reconsider, thanks Abigail Thomas

Please restore the promised green link between Rozelle and Annandale/Glebe so that pedestrians can move safely between Rozelle and the foreshore without crossing busy roads.

Until very recently I lived in Annandale for the last 12 years and had two children there. The youngest is still three. One of the things that’s unique about Annandale is that the parents walk everywhere with kids in tow on scooters and bikes and in prams. The Foreshore is part of the soul of the suburb and is our children’s “backyard” where they bike, scoot, play freely, walk dogs and the older children play sport. City living comes at a cost of the suburban backyard and that’s why the foreshore is the heart and soul of the community. I loved living here and the main reason we left was the imminent change from the Westconnex project and pollution for our children. But I want to be heard as I care deeply about this community and the impact of these modifications which is worse than I ever imagined,

Almost every morning and afternoon for the past 3 years I have walked the loop between Annandale North Public School and daycare “Crescent Early Learning.” Via Johnston St, Every morning I run into many other mums doing the same or taking their kids to/from Hilda Booler also in the park. The Rose St Steps are not a practical option for those with small children. I’m unclear whether the alternative crossing of the Crescent via “safe” pedestrian island pathways (such as at the bottom of Trafalgar) is even possible or safe under the new plans. The bottom of Johnston st is a heavily used pedestrian intersection and I would observe that every light phase at the bottom of Johnston to the foreshore has multiple groups of people crossing all day.
The right turn onto the Crescent is also the critical link between the schools and the foreshore. You mentioned in the meeting that only ca. 50 people do this at “peak” but I suggest you don’t consider “Peak” in a local community where mums are running around on their loops at various times of day. This might be all about helping commuters in your eyes, but it’s at the cost of a local community where people are doing the things the Government wants- like having children outside, walking, scooting and biking and the foreshore is where everyone goes for that.
I’m so sad that these plans are so centred on ‘peak traffic flow’ and are coming to a huge cost to the people who live there. The ramp is excessive and inappropriate, but if it has to be there please reconsider the plans in such a way as to promote pedestrian and cycle links
1. The road crossing at Johnston needs to be an underpass like at the Nelson St end of Annandale- which is always busy, but too far to be practical for the Northern end of the suburb ( I live on Nelson and do this loop twice daily) The current 5 phase crossing is ridiculous and impractical given the heavy use of the intersection by pedestrians and cyclists

2. There needs to be better consideration for local traffic- eg right turns to connect to Glebe and the tramsheds- which is where people most buy groceries, as malls are more complicated when you’re busy

3. Lots of people live in Annandale and bike to work, please make sure there are safe links for cyclists that are also practical and time efficient (ie not multiple light phases)

4. Filter the smoke stacks ☹

I have left the community as I was anxious about the impact of Westconnex but still care deeply for the suburb. I hope that the community will help you to see that you need to do more for them if this plan goes through. Spend some time there and see, this is not a place where people hop in cars to go everywhere, they walk, run, bike.

The proposed modification to the greenlink will have a significant impact on me and my families access to the city via bike or also walking. At the moment there exists a direct access from Railway Parade to the Crescent and from there we can access the pathways to the city or also Bi-Centennial Park. The proposal means this pathway will no longer exist and there is no viable alternative in the plans. I commute via this pathway either by bike or foot into the city. This proposal means this will no longer be possible without finding a much longer and less safe alternate.
There are a number of other residents in my area that will also be impacted.
In addition to my daily commute, my family including 2 young children access the parks via the same path way. We will no longer be able to access the parks directly.
The proposed plans show absolutely no regard for the residents of the area and I really hope the submissions and voices from residents are taken into consideration and an alternative plan is devised that will result in residents of Annandale and Lilyfield being able to access the parklands via the Rozelle light rail interchange.
Regards
David Leyshon

I strongly object to the grade separation design (MOD 2) of an over-bridge. The original design (tunnel) was aesthetically pleasing for the neighbourhood, harbour foreshore and local resident views. The MOD 2 design is thoroughly offensive, cuts off the direct access for the community to the green-way and harbour foreshore and will actually bring the noise and fumes hazards closer to residential areas

As a resident of Annandale for some 30 years, I am writing to express my dismay at, and strong disapproval of, the proposed ‘M4-M5 Link MOD 2’ modifications.

These modifications compromise people-oriented design principles, forcing pedestrians onto busier intersections, around longer, steeper concrete bridges and splitting the community from the foreshore.

I strongly object that the proposed ‘Green Link’ in the EIS plans, approved in 2017, is being cut from the foreshore to fit a car overpass into the Rozelle Interchange. The original plan included a safe, direct, continuous pedestrian and cyclist Greenlink from Rozelle over the City-West link to the foreshore.

The modifications mean that not only do we lose the precious green link, we also lose our direct and safe access to the foreshore, as well as having water and city glimpses replaced with an unsightly and intrusive concrete ‘plaza’ that acts as a visual and physical barrier between the suburb and the harbour.

As someone who walks to the foreshore park twice every day with my dog, I am also appalled that the modifications so patently fail those who access the foreshore on foot. Instead of having to cross one road, as I do now, I will need to make four busy crossings. The current crossing on The Crescent to access Bicentennial Park is 15 metres long. This would become 100 metres in total and the four crossings would be across three busy intersections (which will become even more busy with increased traffic planned for Annandale). I find this thought daunting – but I am considerably more concerned for schoolchildren, mothers with prams and toddlers, and the elderly and less mobile.

I urge you to reconsider the modifications and revert to the approved 2017 plans or, alternatively, reinstate the direct link to the foreshore from the Light Rail by pushing the overpass westwards and northwards, and the freeway a short way into the railyards. This would solve many problems, such as a green buffer between the overpass and housing, two lanes feeding onto the overpass instead of one (replacing three lanes currently) and removing the unsightly concrete monstrosity that will be the overpass and the 'green link' as viewed from Annandale. It might even result in the preservation of some of the largest and oldest trees in what was Buruwan Park and eliminate the need for that very long second pedestrian overpass too. It would also go some way to providing a safer alternative to the four pedestrian/cyclist crossings at Johnston St and The Crescent.

How can a flyover be consistent with an underground interchange?
As a local resident, I agree that traffic at this intersection is less than ideal however a grade separated right turn from The Crescent northbound to The Crescent eastbound could also be achieved by a sunken underpass which performs the same traffic movement.
Furthermore, a sunken underpass directly from The Crescent norhtbound under City West Link into the WestConnex and / or Western Harbor Tunnel would allow for more traffic capacity than for all three movements than an overpass solution. A sunken underpass would also allow for a broader landbridge type connection from Rozelle Bay to the proposed parklands on the redundant rail site.
I am an overall supporter of WestConnex but cannot see how this proposal is in any way shape or form required to be part of Stage 3b nor how it is consistent with the 2017 EIS and Planning Approval. If required, it should be considered as part of WHT design.

The new proposed layout would result in View Street in Annandale being the only availible road to turn right onto the cresent, currently you can turn right from Johnston. The only alternate will be going down wigram from booth street which it too far along. The impact of the traffic down our street will be considerable. The bottom part of View street is a single one lane/ one way road, with the front door of houses very close to the road.

The link to the foreshore should be part of the green way to link Annandale to the foreshore in a safe and easy mannor rather than an over pass / multiple crossings. The foreshore is an extension of our community here in annadale and the proposed structure will segregate the two in an unsightly way giving president to cars and concrete over the safety and accessibility of the people in our community.

I’m concerned that this style overpass will:
Have an unacceptable and unnecessary visual impact, and obstruct a significant local mural;
Make it more difficult for pedestrians to access Jubilee Park from Johnston St Annandale and the Rozelle Goods Yards in Lilyfield;
Destroy over 70 trees including the large, mature fig trees at Buruwan Park; and
Fail to solve Sydney's traffic congestion problem.

I have major concerns with the proposed modification, the modification seeks a change which is well outside the scope of the original proposal, including an elevated, extended fly-over that will
- have significant and extensive negative visual impacts. he M4-M5 links have sought to put much of the traffic underground. The late addition of an overpass is at odds with the earlier approvals.
- increase risk to pedestrians with the increased complexity of foot-traffic to access parklands from Annandale, with a single pedestrian (Johnson St/Chapman Rd) crossing translated to at least three, potentially 5 - depending on how the traffic flows are configured. These changes will also impact traffic flow - with a pedestrian requiring 3-5 calls on traffic to stop.
- increased distance and complexity for access to foreshore parklands from Rozelle. removing access by the community to their parklands
- increase the budget (although not revealed) through the more complex vehicle fly-over and pedestrian access
The impact of these changes have not been subject to the same rigour as the initial design and plan with respect to EIS and peer review.
The MOD speaks of limited improvements to traffic flow arising from the addition of the overpass, with the language referring to 'minimal' and 'not significant' improvements. The changes to traffic do not justify the increase in budget or additional risks established by the modification.
The proposed modification should be rejected.

I oppose the proposed modification to the design. The original concept design is acceptable and should be retained.

The executive summary cites that the vehicular overpass is a "potential design improvement". I oppose this notion on a number of fronts:
1. The overpass will be a visual detriment to the landscape. I could harp on about this but I'll keep it simple. Elevated roads are an ugly eyesaw. It's bad enough we have the Cahill Expressway at Circular Key, the Western Distributor at Darling Harbour as well as Blackwattle Bay (Fish Markets). What kind of numbskullery would want to build another overpass adjacent to what could be a beautiful shoreline. It beggars belief that a planning department would even consider this. Do we learn nothing from the past?!
2. It will make the connection of the foreshore with Lilyfield worse. The current design is far better and should be retained. The current design provides a direct link from the foreshore to the green areas at Lilyfield. What is proposed significantly worsens what could be a fantastic outcome.
3. The proposed modification now creates another bridge. Another eyesore in order to maintain some level of direct connection between the foreshore and Lilyfield. Only this bridge will be unvegetated. It will be longer, much longer. And it will look worse.
4. The 'people's mural' will basically be a forgotten relic. Hidden behind a noise elevated roadway, it will likely become a shadowed no mans land. Where graffiti becomes rife and the mural descends into something not worthwhile even having. Shame on you for even proposing such an outcome, for the sake of moving people in the most incredibly inefficient form of transport there is - cars!

In summary, this modification is no improvement at all. Planning is usually something reserved for forethought. It's obvious that very little thought has been applied here. What a shame it would be if we prioritised vehicular traffic over the liveability of the great city of Sydney. There's no point in getting somewhere quickly if you can't enjoy it once you're there.

I object to Modification 2 The Crescent Overpass SSI 7485 for the following reasons:
1) It will have an unacceptable and unnecessary visual impact, and obstruct a significant local mural;
2) Make it more difficult for pedestrians to access Jubilee Park from Johnston St Annandale and the Rozelle Goods Yards in Lilyfield;
3) Destroy over 70 trees including the large, mature fig trees at Buruwan Park; and
4) Fail to solve Sydney's traffic congestion problem.