MOD 2 - The Crescent overpass and active transport links

Please find attached the EPA's submission on the above modification.

The Environment, Energy and Science Group, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment have reviewed the report for the proposed modification and have no comments.

I object to the proposed changes in M4-M5 Link, Mod 2. Please consider my submission, attached below.

The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment Water and the Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR) has reviewed the modification and has no comments.

I support the overall westconnex scheme but have some reservations on this modification.
Suggestions are that:
Additional thick and high vegetation be planed on the southern edge of the Rozelle Rail yards greenspace such as to minimize light glare to the surrounding elevated properties from vehicles using the ramp. Shown red hatched in attached sketch.
The pedestrian access be maintained at circa 6m above road level and an additional high level direct connection be provided over the Crescecnt (NB) to have a free flow of pedestrian and cycle movements from the Bay pedestrian path to the Rozelle Rail Yard pedestrian network.Drawn red in attached sketch. If a a ramp up to this level from the Johnson / Crescent / Chapman lights was also provided, the signalized pedestrian crossing of the Crescent could also be removed increasing traffic capacity as a byproduct of providing a better pedestrian connection between the Bay and Rail Yard to the facilities.
The residents of Rozelle, Glebe and Annandale deserve the best cycling and pedestrian facilities possible and a small bridge over the crescent is insignificant in the cost of the overall westconnex scheme.

OBJECTION
1. The modified design does not address the key objection to the vehicle overpass, namely, that the overpass removes car-free, road free direct pedestrian access to the Rozelle Bay waterfront. This access was a key part of the original approved EIS.
2. The modified design only allows access to the waterfront via a signalised pedestrian crossing across The Crescent at the Johnston St intersection.
3. This crossing will be across a busy six-lane highway. The crossing sequence will be heavily biased towards keeping traffic flowing. It will be as slow and unpleasant as it is currently crossing Victoria Rd at any of its pedestrian crossings.
4. The new enlarged Crescent will act as an effective barrier to the waterfront and will degrade the pedestrian/cyclist experience in the same way Victoria Rd acts as a 'steel barrier' splitting Rozelle into two.
ALTERNATIVES
5. If the vehicle overpass is going to be retained, it is paramount that there be vehicle-free access to the waterfront.
6. Such a crossing of The Crescent could be by underpass at the Johnston St junction similar to the effective pedestrian/cyclist underpass that follows Johnstons Creek under The Crescent some 800m further south.
7. Or the pedestrian/cyclist crossing could be an OVERpass at the same junction so that the ramp off the Green Link overpass across City West Link remains elevated until it is on the northern (waterfront) side of The Crescent.
8. The cost-saving in not building the horseshoe user path in the Mod 2 proposal could be redirected to the above suggested underpass or overpass.

This is an appalling proposal, world cities are removing overpasses from significant foreshore and river frontages. You are building one. To my fellow design professionals, hang your collective heads in shame. You have collaborated to make your city a worse place in which to live for many generations to come.

Specifically to, and further to my email to Elizabeth Mildwater on the 4th of March:
I am surprised that in this day of ‘design excellence', and after a design review process there his still not room enough for a vital pedestrian and separate cycle link between neighbouring suburbs in Sydney.

The proposed shared cycle/pedestrian overpass at the Crescent in Annandale would be a missed opportunity, representing a poor design outcome for a significant site on the foreshore of one of the world’s great harbours.

It is also not best planning practice. Austroads guidelines recommend shared paths should be used only where user numbers and cycling speeds are low, and VicRoads is revising their recommendation to recognise that separated or well segregated paths better cater for high numbers of users. The shared pathway on the Anzac Bridge is a demonstrable failure, rendering it unsafe for the elderly, the young and the mobility impaired due to the proximately of cyclists. To say, as did Eizabeth Mildwater in a recent community forum, 'there is not enough room' to me suggests that vehicle road width is taking priority over the less impactful active links.

Good governance around major public projects had left great legacies around Sydney Harbour such as Ballast Point and Barangaroo for all to enjoy, poor planning and governance have left their’s too such as the Cahill expressway and Darling Harbour’s Western Distributor. I do hope that the current plans will change to ensue your department’s project is the latter.

As an aside, the contemplation of re-opening the Pymont Bridge as a useful and inclusive pedestrian and Cycle-way ought to a priority. The lack of a budget for this does not ring true given the enormity of the projects you have carriage over. As a visitor to many major world cities, it is rare to see dormant bridge in the middle of a city!

Sydney deserves better, and so I urge you to reconsider the active links between the two sides of WestConnex, and the current poor connectivity between the inner west and the City Precinct including Prymont.

I have some objections to the proposed modification and suggestions for improving it. My submission is attached.

To whom it may concern,
In support on the future development of the Rozelle Interchange, I would like to request the opportunity for Balmain Rugby Club to be considered as a potential candidate for Sportsfield No.2 [currently considered for soccer, rugby league intergrated with single cricket and afl]
As is stands presently, the Mayor for the Inner West has supported plans to convert Leichhardt No.2 ground into a syntheic grass surface to provide a integtaed facility for soccer and other codes. In doing this, the rugby union community are concerned for the safety and wellbeing for the junior and senior club members associated to synthetic fields.
As a result of this decision, all available fields in the Leichhardt area are now limited with majority of fields being utilised by the winter codes AFL [Glover Street], Soccer [Liechhardt #2 & #3, Callan Park, Easton Park], Rugby League [Blackmore Oval].
Balmain Rugby Club, requests your consideration in supporting the code of Rugby Union within the Rozelle Interchange precinct for providing a sporting facility.
Many thanks
Rob Wallace
0427937571

I highly endorse local community resident Lloyd Downey's submission (attached)