MOD 2 - The Crescent overpass and active transport links

To whom it may concern

Re:
WestConnex M4-M5 Link – Modification 2 The Crescent overpass

I have become aware of the proposed amendment to this plan, and am horrified. I am therefore writing to object to this proposed amendment, given that it is substantially different to the indicative design proposed in the original concept design, which promised — despite the potential damage to properties and loss of resumed substrata affecting property values — to offer an unobtrusive underground tunnel to avoid the traffic lights we were told WestConnex was designed to circumvent.

As a community, we were promised safe, direct pedestrian and cycling access across the Crescent by means of an above ground, vegetated green link, which would ameliorate the unprecedented concentration of unfiltered, toxic emissions from the three stacks at the Rozelle Goods Yard, and that current traffic conditions, including the right turn into Johnson Street, along with shared user pathways and considerate connection to the Bays Precinct Master Plan, would be maintained.

Instead, we now see — thanks to an approval without finalised or consulted design — that we will lose all of these, including convenient green link, the destruction of trees and Burawang Park, a massive spaghetti junction with no direct route for pedestrians or cyclists, no right turn into Johnson Street, resulting in even longer bottlenecks along the Crescent as drivers are forced to turn at the Bicentennial Park roundabout, and no vegetation on the proposed footbridge. Worse still, the unique and much-loved People's Mural on the Crescent, will now be obscured, with fears the wonderful troll under the bridge will be relocated or destroyed.

I need to get to RPA hospital every four weeks for a lengthy and unpleasant regular treatment. At the moment I walk from Balmain to the hospital, it is one of the few times available for reflection and to enjoy the lovely existing link between these Inner West suburbs - but it will be all but impossible if the scheme in its proposed state is implemented. I cannot be alone in suffering this lack of safe, green and convenient walking/cycling access.

Given how blithely, aggressively and summarily WestConnex has destroyed communities, parkland and homes, we can only expect this is likely — especially when we consider how abysmally WestConnex, Transurban and RMS have communicated with residents and homeowners.

This new, previously unexplained modification completely disregards the previous consent given to this project, and not only seriously degrades the amenity of this area and community, destroying its unique character, it does so in a completely ugly and unnecessary way, removing any greenery from the original concept, and rendering it potentially dangerous to commuters and to women and children after dark, especially given it now drastically increases the walk time from the proposed metro station. It also prevents direct access from Johnson Street to Rozelle Goods Yard and to Bicentennial Park, with pedestrians being forced to use four pedestrian crossings to reach Bicentennial Park — and further restricted from accessing or using the public foreshore.

Furthermore, we were told by SMC air quality experts that the entire point of tunnelling so dangerously close to our homes and schools was to ensure that emissions did not escape the tunnels. Building this ugly, unnecessary, undisclosed overpass completely undermines this argument. This project does not address issues of congestion on the Anzac Bridge, significantly increases traffic, exhaust emissions and costs to commuters, and the destruction of numerous trees, many of which are over 30 years old, and were specifically planted to create a barrier to the Crescent and WestConnex and to ameliorate exhaust emissions, meaning that even if they are replaced with saplings — WestConnex's infamous "trees" — it could take decades for tree cover to return, resulting in greater heat, more local traffic in Johnson, Booth and Piper Streets, and increased noise and emissions for residents.

I urge you to please reconsider this new development and to not further destroy our community, as was promised in the EIS, design concept and consultations over the last three years. Government is elected by the citizens - by the thousands of homeowners, small business owners, parents and school children. Please, govern for the citizens, take account of our concerns and fears, and stop this shocking new proposal.

Dear Sir/Madam,

INTRODUCTION
I am a professional within town planning. I am familiar with the SSI process associated with EIS's and modifications. I write to object to this modification on a number of grounds:

1. Not substantially the same development
The nature of the changes associated with this modification cannot be described as "substantially the same" compared to the design in the original approval (based on the well established tests by the Land and Environment Court in numerous case law matters), this is because it involves a complete redesign.

The nature of the design changes in this modification are so numerous in combination the modification cannot be described as "substantially the same".

Where the applicant seeks to redesign a project in the manner proposed, a new application is the correct pathway, irrespective of the SSI process not being capable of 3rd party appeals, this is because the proposed changes do not resemble the original design and the modification creates a new series of adverse impacts.

It is not within the Minister's power to approve a SSI development which is proposed to be radically altered and transformed into some other project via a modification with this degree of design changes.

2. Adverse Visual Impact of the modified design
The approved design did not involve above ground works as is now the case. The approved design involved underground works so as to minimise its visual impacts above ground.

With respect to the modified design, the Department has assessed numerous applications where matters of visual impact have been determinative in recommendations for refusal, including recent matters such as the Star Casino tower. In addition I have personal experience in this locality based on a project some years ago where the Department considered an EIS under the former "designated development provisions" for the transformation of the White Bay Power Station for a cement storage facility. The scale and design of that cement storage facility involved significant above ground works which were assessed as being an "eye sore" from numerous view lines and was refused because of its unacceptable visual impacts from those numerous view lines and visual catchments.

The proposed modification seeks to install above ground road works which will result in unacceptable adverse visual impacts when assessed from numerous view lines and visual catchments in the locality.

If there is any doubt this is not the case, then a visual impact peer review is a reasonable step to undertake in this assessment which the Department regularly undertakes and should be implemented in this circumstance for consistency of approach.

If allowed to proceed, the modified design will result in a visual eye sore completely out of character with existing visual character and the envisaged future visual character articulated in the original assessment report which lead to the Ministerial approval for this SSI.

If allowed to proceed the modification will result in an outcome which will not enable the integration of the SSI with its surrounding context including the proposed improved regional open space.

3. Long Term impact verses short term monetary saving
The development once completed will have a design life similar to other existing Sydney regional road infrastructure which will last a number of generations. It is reasonable to conclude this design life is between 50-100 years. Therefore, the failure to get a design right now will be a problem for a significant period of time for which the persons who make a decision should be held to account as is already the case with other road projects with similar visual catchments in Sydney that are not visually acceptable.

Therefore the short term monetary saving is insufficient justification for the proposed modifications because the development when completed has a long term impact for Sydney regionally.

The modification if allowed to proceed will be comparable in terms of its adverse visual impact in a manner similar to the Cahill Freeway because of its proximity to another iconic bridge in Sydney, being the Anzac Bridge, Sydney Harbour and nearby parklands.

Trees come and go over the life cycle of development, and cannot be considered a suitable mechanism for resolving visual impacts by just hiding the problem. Essentially trees will not "hide" this modifications visual impacts. The original design did not have this issue and therefore should be implemented as approved.

4. The modification is inconsistent with the Objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) (EP&A Act).
I urge the Department of assess this modification with reasons for refusal as detailed above and based on its already well established practice of evaluation against the objects of the EP&A Act, given the modification if allowed to proceed is inconsistent with Section 4 objects (a), (c) and (g):

a. if allowed to proceed, this will result in future conflicts for users and will not be a better environment as it will not promote social and economic welfare compared to the original approval and therefore is inconsistent with Section 1.3 (a) EP&A At because access between the approved parklands and the foreshore will be visually and physically cut off and remote, making pedestrian movements, bicycle movements and even car movements more difficult and as such greater adverse impacts, compared to the original approval.

b. the modification will not promote the orderly and economic use and development of land as it this object of the EP&A Act as this is not just measured by cost savings to the approved project. Rather the modified design is required to be considered in comparison and against the original approved design. If allowed to proceed in its current form, the design will result in a more complex road network, whereas the original approval sought to separate above ground and below ground movements so as to be less confusing. Therefore by becoming all above ground and therefore confusing, this will add to travel times compared to travel times of existing users of the existing network because people will drive more slowly to make a choice. The modification by seeking to be above ground is not the best utilisation of the confined land resource as the original approval was in essence multi-level and grade separated for different movements. Now all movements in the modification will be on the same above ground level which raises it volume in the air, thus exacerbating its visual impact.

c. the modification compared to its original approval is not good design, in light of the State Government own issued "Good Design Guide" and will not result in the same level of amenity in this location as the original approval, therefore will not promote good design and amenity in the built environment and is not consistent with object (g)

5. Lack of connectivity for users at ground level

The modified design will clearly result in less connectivity for users compared to the approved design, and therefore should not be allowed to proceed.

6. Reduction in construction jobs and/or the remuneration of construction jobs will impact of Sydney regionally
Any cost saving to the project associated with this modification will have a direct impact in terms of employment being either in the loss of construction jobs (including specialist jobs associated with underground workers) or the remuneration offered in construction jobs compared to the original approval, which will have greater impacts on the local and regional economies within Sydney which have not been addressed in this modification.

CONCLUSION
The modification will result in a number of adverse impacts compared to these impacts having been avoided in the original approval. The adverse impacts from this modification outweigh the justifications for the modification, particularly where an existing approval can be readily implemented which has already commenced.

I urge the Department to assess this modification as unsatisfactory for the reasons outlined above and recommend refusal.

kind regards,

The modification represents a significant loss of amenity to the many local residents and visitors to the area

I am an owner of 63 Lilyfield Road and an employee of TfNSW.

I object to the project on the grounds that :

It is visually destructive to such a beautiful part of the city, noting that it is part of a route traversed by visitors to the city including visitors to the cruise terminal.
It's design conflicts with the current TfNSW desire for a greater focus on community outcomes and place
If allowed to proceed it would negate all the good work that Rod Staples and the Minister for Transport are doing to convince people that TfNSW cares about people and not just roads
It is poorly designed in terms of public access - people who want to access the water have to cross 5 sets of traffic lights. This is a deterrent to people who want to improve their health by exercise .
The design contradicts previous designs which were more community friendly and sends a very bad message to the community about this government and its real intentions, diminishing trust and making it appear that the government only cares about people with cars.
It will detract from the parkland which is planned for the overall development.

I strongly object to the modifications to the interchange at Rozelle. I am concerned that the replacement of the approved underground interchange with the proposed overpass will negatively impact the surrounding areas by visually and physically blocking access to the Glebe Foreshore, and additionally will negatively affect local traffic. I am further concerned that:
- The proposed greenlink will no longer connect Lilyfield with the Glebe Foreshore
- Buruwan Park will be destroyed with no replacement of that greenspace or of what is a heavily used local thouroughfare connecting Annandale and Lilyfield to the foreshore.
- There will be a removal of direct pedestrian and cycle access from Johnson Street to the Foreshore. It is not acceptable to require pedestrians to navigate 4 seperate pedestrian crossings in order to access the foreshore. This arrangement should be modified to allow pedestrians to cross direct from Johnston Street to the Park via The Crescent.
- The removal of the right turn from Johnson Street to the crescent will force traffic onto other side roads including Booth Street and Piper Street, negatively affecting local residents.
- This modification completely ignores the conditions of consent given for this project and threatens to impose unacceptable negative consequences on the landscape and liveability of the local area.
- The modification prioritises the needs of motorists over other local traffic and the needs of local residents and other users of the Glebe Foreshore green space. It is a needless replication of the mistakes made with the Cahill Freeway at Circular Quay by dividing the foreshore from the local landscape.

We believe that the proposed modification to the M4-M5 Link viz "Mod 2-The Crescent overpass and active transport links" focuses on the needs of motorists to the detriment of the cyclists, pedestrians, light rail users and residents of the area. The original proposal gave safe, direct access from Annandale and the Rozelle Bay Light Rail Station to the foreshore above the intersection and direct access from Rozelle and Lilyfield to the foreshore via the Greenlink. We firmly believe that the modifications reduce the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. The modifications also make the whole area less people-friendly with the longer route and the concrete plaza making it less likely that people will utilise the light rail and the foreshore. Please put non-motorists back into the plan.

We believe that the proposed modification to the M4-M5 Link viz "Mod 2-The Crescent overpass and active transport links" focuses on the needs of motorists to the detriment of the cyclists, pedestrians, light rail users and residents of the area. The original proposal gave safe, direct access from Annandale and the Rozelle Bay Light Rail Station to the foreshore above the intersection and direct access from Rozelle and Lilyfield to the foreshore via the Greenlink. We firmly believe that the modifications reduce the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. The modifications also make the whole area less people-friendly with the longer route and the concrete plaza making it less likely that people will utilise the light rail and the foreshore. Please put non-motorists back into the plan.

I object to the project in regards the proposed modifications to M4-M5 link, Mod 2 The crescent overpass and changes to the pedestrian infrastructure in North Annandale, Rozelle and Rozelle Bay Foreshore area.
I request that the RMS honour their previous plans of underground work & maintain the Greenlink.
Alternate design options are required to the proposed new car overpass design & changed pedestrian & cyclist links.
It is already a safety concern of mine walking along the Crescent & up to Victoria road along the City West link to access Public transport into the city. Placing people alongside heavier traffic, is not a workable option for the community with increased risks of traffic incidents & heavier fumes, especially with no green cover from pre-exisiting trees.
Further key areas of concern are:
- The significantly reduced safety & increased risk for pedestrians & cyclists with removed access over the Crescent to Bicentennial Park and the increased traffic along Johnson Street. Essentially, taking increased risks in our daily lives to move about our suburb.
- Being required to cross five sets of pedestrian lights at The Crescent as my option to reach the foreshore from Annandale or from Rozelle Bay 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 build 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.
- Creating a concrete jungle in one of the most beautiful cities of the world. I believe that from a tourism point of view we will also lose out having such a major eyesore so close to the city which will also devalue our offering to tourists.
My submission is therefore asking RMS and the Project Team to:
- to revert back to the original plan of underground interchanges.
If this is not achievable, then I request that the following occur:
- Reinstate the Greenlink connecting communities and green open space for Rozelle to Bicentennial park
- Relocate and design pedestrian cyclist connections that are continuous, safe & 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 them onto busier streets, unsafe concrete plaza's and caged walkways.
- integrate active and direct connections to all active transport - including the future Metro West & Foreshore Ferry Wharf
- Consider designs that can enhance the attractiveness of Sydney, accessibility & feature our waterways & parks to further support Sydney as a beautiful, tourist destination as opposed to another concrete jungle.
- Install filters in the exhaust stacks, giving consideration to the actual people that live in proximity & did not request for their air quality to be diminished.
Regards.

Make your priorities children and community - not cars and commuters.

This modification is short-sighted and prioritises cars and commuters passing through the area, over the community who live here and use the spaces day-in-day-out.
This is not future thinking. It is a nightmare for the community around The Crescent, the primary schools on Johnston Street, and the heritage- listed artwork that will be obliterated by constant traffic and pollution.

Don't take the cheaper, short-sighted fix. Do it once, do it properly, do it to benefit the community rather than detriment all those who live in the area.

My key concerns include, but are not limited to:
- Increased traffic on Johnston St, reducing safety for three primary schools
- Significantly reduced safety for pedestrians accessing the foreshore
- Significantly reduced access for pedestrians to the foreshore
- Obfuscation of the heritage-listed mural at the Crescent and increased exposure to pollution
- Urban and landscape design being that is being built before a finalised masterplan of the area
- Limiting pedestrian movements

I request RMS work with the community to explore alternate design options to the new car overpass design and changed pedestrian and cyclist links. Re-prioritise people and access at the heart of this project's design, not cars and commuters.

We were advised that the Rozelle interchange would be completely underground. We were advised that it would not only improve the traffic conditions in the local area but we would also have more green space with a large park between the Western Distributor and Lilyfield Road. Not only does this proposal not include the park that was promised but we are going to have an eye sore which does not fit in the area. There will be more traffic and the overpass will not solve the problem of the traffic jams that we are currently experiencing.

My objections are outlined in the attached letter.

I would like to express our community's dismay at the removal of the promised 'Green link' and the negative impact.
Access to Bicentennial Park will be ruined by these changes, a park that is much loved and used by the community.
Furthermore increased negative visual impact, noise, congestion and harmful air pollution will all negatively affect locals and visitors to the area.
I'm sure there is a better design that could be implemented to address these issues, its obvious that very little community consultation has happened and it seems to be a cost cutting exercise that goes against the wishes of everyone who will need to live with the awful changes.

Director, Transport Assessments Planning Services
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney, NSW 2001

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 – we want you to reinstate your own vision as laid out in Transport for NSW Future Strategy 2056. Work with us 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 Bay 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:

The failure of the design to incorporate access for those on foot, bike or with a pram.
The loss of visual connection to the harbour & removal of the right hand turn from the Cresent
The dishonesty in changing the community consulted plans into something that has no regard for people & the local community
The damaging visual impact of a high overpass

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 them 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


Yours Sincerely,

Name: Jessica Tucci

Address: 152 Trafalgar St, Annandale, 2038

Email: [email protected]

The overpass is an eyesore that will compromise road safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. There was nothing wrong with the approved submission.

I object to this for many reasons including the destruction of vital tree cover and habitat, which will result in increased noise, increased heat and lack of shade. The construction will seperate the foreshore from residents.

I am writing regarding your proposed changes to teh M4-M5 Link Mod 2 The Crescent overpass and changes to pedestrian infrastructure in North Annandale, Rozelle and Rozelle Bay Foreshore area.
This plan is not was what we were given to understand would happen through the current planning approvals. I request the RMS work with the community to design an alternate option that puts people back into the plan. This proposal will significantly reduce pedestrian and cyclist safety and require the crossing of 5 sets of pedestrian lights to reach the foreshore. Thus reducing the options for active transport with all the recreation and health benefits. We have already lost parks, trees and are experience increasing congestion and air quality reduction and this will only increase with the current modification.

I request you reinstate your own vision as laid out in Transport NSW Future strategy 2026 and work with us to design a feasible option that brings the best elements from the approved EIS design into the modification.

Yours sincerely Lisa Colley

Director, Transport Assessments Planning Services
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney, NSW 2001

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 – we want you to reinstate your own vision as laid out in Transport for NSW Future Strategy 2056. Work with us 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 Bay 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:

The failure of the design to incorporate access for those on foot, bike or with a pram.
The loss of visual connection to the harbour & removal of the right hand turn from the Cresent
The dishonesty in changing the community consulted plans into something that has no regard for people & the local community
The damaging visual impact of a high overpass

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 them 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.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Proposed M4-M5 Link ‘MOD 2’ Crescent Overpass

I am objecting to the proposed overpass, which is out of character with the rest of the proposed development, takes away from the planned local amenities (including the excellent ‘Green Link’), and achieves nothing other than creating a significant eyesore.

I implore RMS to work with the community to explore alternate design options that ensure that the Green Link originally proposed is reinstated and fail to see how an overpass addresses any existing traffic issues - it really just shifts the problem further along the line to both Anzac Bridge and Victoria Rd.

There has to be a better and safer way for this to be addressed, that takes into consideration the requirements of the local community, who will have to live with the consequences of the final design on a 24/7 basis.

Kind regards,

A concerned resident

Change the overpass to a short tunnel
I oppose the proposal to build an overpass at The Crescent in Annandale.
The plan for an overpass should be replaced by a short (less than 120m) tunnel under the City West Link with slot trench approaches. An underpass provides the best visual and urban outcomes and should allow the retention of the green bridge in a location to best connect the waterfront parklands together. This underpass needs to be designed to also facilitate the single pedestrian crossing at Johnston Street.
Maximise pedestrian connectivity including:
 Simplification of the Johnston Street crossing of the Crescent to a single traffic light crossing in the current location on the Northern side of Johnston Street as currently exists.
 Ensuring provision of easy at grade access from Railway parade to the Glebe Foreshore with a direct connection to the simplified Johnston Street/The Crescent intersection.
 Provide for the direct grade separated connection between The Glebe Foreshore and the new Rozelle parklands via the green bridge.
Retain and protect trees adjacent the light rail station as per the EIS consideration
The road design needs be altered to provide protection of mature vegetation including Sydney blue gums, and Moreton bay figs. These will provide some immediate pedestrian and visual amenity given that most of Buruwan Park will be removed.
Reinstate the right hand turn lane at the Crescent from Johnston Street
This will limit traffic through local Annandale streets to Glebe and key local destinations such as The Tramsheds.
Protect the people’s mural
Careful consideration is needed to protect this much loved local artwork.
Refer to the outline of issues for more detail and a discussion of impacts, options and reasons.

Outline of Issues
The above ground road overpass is what has primarily changed from the original EIS design, with multiple flow on effects. It has led to the relocation of the green link, the addition of a new pedestrian bridge, and associated visual impacts and destroys pedestrian connectivity. All these negative impacts are being driven by the exclusive focus on improved vehicle movements.
This proposal could 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 obscuring of the ‘people’s mural’.
This option provided the greatest urban design outcomes and is the preferred community solution. This option needs to be carefully re-evaluated with the following criteria.
The intention should be to maximise the open slot trench to ensure the underpass section itself is no longer than 120m, so that it does not need to be mechanically ventilated. This will greatly reduce cost and complexity. This might include the ramp from the centre lane, which may require the relocation of the bus stop location. The gradients of the down ramps should be considered so that the ramp allows the existing pedestrian crossing at Johnston Street to remain.
Concerns about constructability should be reviewed to investigate alternative construction options – e.g. pre-cast or other technology and temporary traffic diversions through the goods yard site.
Improvements to pedestrian connectivity.
This modification prioritises the needs of motorists, trashing the experience of local pedestrian traffic and making harder for residents to access the public waterfront. In line with the urban design principles in the EIS, pedestrian connectivity needs to be greatly improved. This unequivocally demonstrates the incredible bias against pedestrians by the RMS.
Pedestrian access to Bicentennial Park and Jubilee Park at Johnston Street
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 returned to the existing arrangement and the EIS scheme to allow pedestrians to cross direct from Johnston Street to the Park via The Crescent with a single traffic light.
Relocation of the green link
This modification alters one of the centrepieces of the original design: a pedestrian and cycling green link to connect the Glebe foreshore and Bicentennial Park to the new Rozelle parklands in the former Rozelle Goods Yard.
The green link was originally intended to provide a seamless grade separated connection for pedestrian between the Glebe foreshore parkland and the new Rozelle parklands. The relocation of the green link to the west due to the overpass now necessitates the crossing of the Crescent.
Relocating that green link to the west of the intersection of The Crescent and City West Link puts the needs of motorists ahead of pedestrians and cyclists. By having it on the western side, you now need to cross the four lights at the Crescent rather than no road crossings at all. The original intent was safer and allowed for greater connections in and around the parklands.
To overcome this lack of a direct link, the modification has added a second pedestrian bridge. As this has to get over the new vehicle overpass, it is another three metres higher than a direct connection. This is adding about 120m length to the walkway to meet accessible grades. An undergrounded tunnel connection would avoid the need for this second bridge.
Destruction of mature fig trees at Buruwan Park
This EIS proposal and this design modification rips up Buruwan Park and all the vegetation at that site including over 70 trees and several beautiful mature fig trees.
Removing this vegetation impacts on the liveability of our suburb by removing shade, making our local area warmer and destroying the green barrier it provides between the City West Link and residences. The visual impact is this will be considerable as evidenced by the removal this week of trees in the park along White Creek canal.
The Modification design should make every possible effort to save these trees and vegetation immediately beside the light rail line, including the large fig tree to the west of the Rozelle Bay station stairs. At a bare minimum, these trees should not be removed until a full Urban Design and Landscape Plan has beencompleted.
No right turn at The Crescent will lead to 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. Intersection redesign should investigate the ability to easily turn right to access Glebe, The Tramsheds and other local destinations.
Visual impact and obstruction of ‘people’s mural’
This modification will impose hugely on the local landscape in the inner west. The new elevated overpass is completely at odds with local development standards and will have a significant negative visual impact on Annandale and its surrounds. The over pass will also partly obstructs 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 and inspired by political and social movements in the inner west. It is a dearly loved and historically important local artefact that should be protected.

As you well know, there are many objectors to this massive interchange squeezed between two primary inter-city residential areas. The entry and exit ramps destroy houses, they encourage more traffic and pollution, and communities are torn apart by their massive concrete and bitumen rivers erected like massive walls and barriers around their neighbourhoods. They don't have to be built. We could build more train and station tunnels instead and get the cars out of our congested streets. This interchange and the motorways streaming into and out of it, has been bullied through us locals.
In recent weeks, you have bullied us again with a massive flyover ramp into and out of a simple 2-way residential street. This was supposed to be an underground interchange, with traffic and noise kept below our feet and out of sight. Get rid of the flyover and bring back the green path for walkers and cyclists. Put people first, not cars. Encourage walking and exercise. Link Rozelle Bay to the local streets of Rozelle and Annandale. Let families with parents and children move easily and enjoyably around their suburbs. Don't let traffic from out of town suburbs destroy our villages, our walkways, our bay, our trees and our way of life. Stop bullying us. This reckless interchange is costing a vast amount of money - the cost of beautifying it afterwards is the most important and least expensive part. Please don't forget us.