Sydney Gateway Road Project

See attached letter of submission.

ARTcycle Inc is a not-for-profit incorporated artist run initiative that promotes zero emission and sustainable transport. We are a Bicycle User Group affiliated with Bicycle New South Wales. We are based and active in the Inner West of Sydney but are not confined to that LGA as our remit is to produce human powered social change. You can read more about our activities past and present on our website http://www.artcyclesydney.com.

While we support the application made by BIKEast we do have specific issues with the proposed Gateway project.

ARTcycle Inc., is actively promoting the full implementation of two active transport and habitat corridor trails. The first is the Sydney Green Ring recently featured in the AILA winning McGregor Coxall "Cooks To Cove" GreenWay Masterplan for the Inner West Council. The Sydney Green Ring is featured on the AILA website under the title the "Botany Bay Loop". You can read more about the Sydney Green Ring on the website http://www.sydneygreenring.org. The other ongoing project seeks the full implementation of the Botany Bay / Kai Mia Trail, adopted by the SSROC in 2009. The implementation of both of these projects relies on a moratorium of development of the green transport corridor around the perimeter of the existing airport development. Or the provision of better than equivalent options for bicycle use in and around the airport.

Claims that airport travel will increase are moot given the current backlash against air travel, Greta Thunberg being the most obvious example of a growing trend. Air travel could account for 50% of Australia's Greenhouse Gas emissions by 2050, only a problem IF air travel were included in GHG statistics. Road transport accounts for a large proportion of Australia's GHG emissions and IS counted in the statistics. So far no meaningful effort has been made to decrease dependence on motor vehicles, internal combustion engines or fossil fuels. The Gateway project does nothing to decrease demand, as is demonstrated by study after study, more spending on roads only exacerbates induced demand. Australia is never going to meet its Paris agreements "in a canter", WestConnex and the Gateway project will never meet proposed targets except by way of redirecting funds from hospitals, schools and welfare to banks, construction companies and offshore tax havens.

The effort to decrease dependence on limited fossil fuels, without turning to increased spending on lithium and other limited resources, must turn to human powered personal transport. Directing funds to bicycle specific infrastructure that parallels the efforts directed to motor vehicle infrastructure could possibly take 10-50% of motor vehicles off the roads around the airport and increase the health amenity and ecological sustainability of Southern Sydney in particular and Sydney in general.

We think public money would be better directed enhancing the off-road and separated bicycle network. In linking greenspaces to form a cohesive Green Web as per the Cumberland Plan, to create islands of urban development ringed by greenspace or criss-crossed by green lattices. That more effort on behalf of government and corporations should be directed towards obtaining social licence that sustains life and liveability, and to reverse the current trend that sees governments and corporations treat the citizenry as factory fodder akin to cattle and sheep to be exploited for profit.

We implore you to think rationally and reasonably about transport options and the short and long term effects on health and wellbeing.

Gilbert Grace
President ARTcycle Inc.
[email protected]
www.artcyclesydney.com

Sydney and NSW need public transport and a modern and efficient freight rail service.
We do not need more roads. I wish to register my complete opposition to the proposed "Sydney Gateway" project.

I live adjacent to the current construction zone for the criminal WestCONnex project. My experience of the disruption and inconvenience caused by the project in terms of closed roads, damaged footpaths, difficulty of access to my home, lack of sleep due noise and lights during frequent night work, as well as the health difficulties caused by the stench and dust, underlies my strong opposition to this additional road project.
Based on this experience of living with the construction of the WestCONnex near the St Peters Interchange, as well as the destruction of homes and heritage I have witnessed in Haberfield and Rozelle, I am strongly opposed to yet another gigantic road project which will add massive amounts of pollution and heat to our neighbourhoods while we wait 10-15 years for the trees to regrow....
Air quality in St Peters is usually the worst in the country. Nobody should have to live in these conditions. I re-iterate my total opposition to this project.
Finally, as a teacher, who has witnessed the effects of the WestCONnex construction on school children, and as one who is only too aware of the further detriment to children's health which will be caused by the increase in vehicle emissions from cars and trucks using the Gateway roads I must again express my opposition to this project. Your EIS discounts the noise, heat, dust and pollution impact of construction because it is "temporary". Another three years, temporary? For a five year old, 3 years is more than half their life, longer than they can remember.
For the 15 year old, trying to study for the HSC with continually interrupted sleep, this will be a far from temporary problem.
For my students, whose learning will be adversely affected by my lack of sleep, the effects will be long term.
Another three years of this kind of noise, dust, disturbance, traffic and for what? Another link to the airport and Port Botany for the profit of the truck companies. If approved, the environmental effects of this project will be another disaster for the people of Sydney, continuing into the future and especially for the people living close to these monster roads we do not need.

I object to the Sydney Gateway project and propose that the project should not be approved, until it is strongly aligned with current NSW Government policies and plans, to meet its stated goal “making journeys from west and south-west Sydney to Sydney Airport, the M5, Eastern Distributor and Port Botany easier, faster and safer”, for all customers.
The Sydney Gateway project is missing important walking and cycling integration from the surrounding area's active travel network, to Sydney Airport, a major destination and employment centre for the local community.

Please see attached

1. Public money ($2,600,000,000) should not be used to fund an extension of a private/for-profit toll road (WestConnex).
2. Approval of this project would be immoral. There is currently a public health emergency in Sydney, with bush fires and petrol/diesel fumes causing hazardous air quality. This project would significantly expand road capacity while severing walking/cycling links. It would therefore encourage more people to drive and to drive longer distances/more often, creating more traffic and greenhouse and air toxin emissions. The increased greenhouse emissions would contribute to increases in the frequency and severity of bush fires. The smoke from these, plus the additional air toxin emissions, would cause significant mortality and morbidity. Children are particularly at risk from air pollution while their lungs are developing.
3. The proposed shared path beside the canal needs to cater for future growth in active transport by providing path widths of at least six metres and with physical separation between people walking and cycling. The paths need to provide safety and amenity for people walking and cycling with the installation of lighting, landscaping and CCTV.
4. Pedestrian crossings must be provided on all approaches of all proposed signalised intersections as specified by Part 2.4 of Section 2 (Warrants) of the Traffic Signal Design guide. Failure to again implement this policy would impose unacceptably long time and distance costs on your walking customers in this location.
5. The proposal to carry out future road maintenance with closure of the canal path is unacceptable. Road maintenance can take place without notice and for extended periods of time potentially resulting in lengthy diversions for people walking and cycling. Driving is an undemanding transport option, the impact of diversions on drivers is negligible by comparison with people walking, and ongoing road maintenance needs to be carried out without closure of the canal path.
6. Too often construction of these major infrastructure projects requires people to walk significantly longer distances resulting enormous delays and unmanageable distances. For example, the contractor of the WestConnex Rozelle Interchange is currently proposing extremely long diversions for people walking and cycling and has repeatedly rejected requests from the community to provide more direct routes throughout the three-year construction period. The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment has approved documents which fail to identify the temporary walking and cycling routes and which defer to documents that are not specified by the consent and may ever eventuate.
To overcome this with Sydney Gateway, the conditions of consent associated with the active transport links during construction must specify the provision of routes which are consistent in travel time and distance with the existing routes. Parties preparing bids for construction of the project must be required to budget for temporary access routes which are safe, direct, with maximum gradients of 5 per cent and consistent in travel time and distance with the existing routes.

Please see letter attached to describe the potential impacts to Qantas Group Flight Training.

Please find attached letter for the Gateway submission

I object to the Sydney Gateway project and propose that the project should not be approved, until it is strongly aligned with current NSW Government policies and plans, to meet its stated goal “making journeys from west and south-west Sydney to Sydney Airport, the M5, Eastern Distributor and Port Botany easier, faster and safer”, for all customers.
The Sydney Gateway project is missing important walking and cycling integration from the surrounding area's active travel network, to Sydney Airport, a major destination and employment centre for the local community.

I currently oppose the project because there is not enough infrastructure dedicated to active transport such as cycling or walking. I live in the East and work in Kogarah and I need to travel around the airport on my work commute. It is too dangerous to cycle through the airport tunnel so I rely on the Alex Canal Cycle Path.

Please review the project and include active travel, for the ongoing health benefits of users and NSW residents.

It looks like the active transport corridor along the Alexandra Canal is being maintained, but there is nothing new provided on Qantas Drive, nothing linking the airport directly with St Peters interchange, and nothing into the domestic terminal. There are many new roads and connections for motor vehicles proposed, but nothing new for people choosing to walk or ride a bike. This is a very depressing outcome so close to the centre of Sydney, in an area with so many jobs and lots of nearby residential.
I urge you and the project team to consider and design for the 'movement' of all forms of transport, not just high speed motor vehicles.
I strongly object.

See the submission attached.
I oppose the project and recommend it be rejected on the basis of an inadequate Environmental Impact Assessment. It will be a contributor to Greenhouse gas emissions and will not alleviate traffic around Sydney Airport and Port Botany.

I object to the Sydney Gateway project and propose that the project should not be approved, until it is strongly aligned with current NSW Government policies and plans, to meet its stated goal “making journeys from west and south-west Sydney to Sydney Airport, the M5, Eastern Distributor and Port Botany easier, faster and safer”, for ALL customers. The Sydney Gateway project is missing important walking and cycling integration from the surrounding area's active travel network, to Sydney Airport, a major destination and employment centre for the local community.
The Sydney Gateway project outlines its benefits are to make journeys easier, faster, safer, but it lacks provision for a section of the community – people cycling and walking.

Please onboard recommendations from BikEast and Bicycle NSW in the provision of bicycle infrastructure in the Gateway Project.

Temporary cycling and walking paths during construction must be documented and communicated specifically in advance of the project's start.
We need two paths beside the canal: a wide footpath and a wide cycleway. One narrow shared path does not suit people walking or cycling. The land area in this project being dedicated to vehicles is at least 200 times greater than that being dedicated to sustainable transport, which is not efficient, green or suitable for a future Sydney.
All intersections need pedestrian crossings on every approach. This is stated in the Traffic Signal Design Guide.
Infrastructure must be built with the aim of lifting sustainable transport mode share by airport employees and visitors. Sydney Airport cannot and should not be designed to induce more car traffic to a highly congested site.
If the Sydney Gateway Road Project has the goal of "making journeys from west and south-west Sydney to Sydney Airport, the M5, Eastern Distributor and Port Botany easier, faster and safer", then walking and cycling must be made priorities, in terms of budget allocation, access routes, safety of users, and access during construction.

There are a number of active transport missing links not included in the gateway project . Links that have been outlined in Westconnex New M5, Future Transport 2056 Document, Greater Sydney Commission planning priority E6. Specific missing links being .
Missing Link #1 – St Peters Interchange to Alexandra Canal cycleway
As outlined in Westconnex New M5 Planning conditions, the intention of the Sydney Gateway project was to include connection from St Peters Interchange to Sydney Airport and the existing and future Alexandra Canal cycleway. This is currently missing from the design.
Missing Link #2 – Direct crossing of Cooks River between South and CBD
With the replacement route alongside the West side of the canal, it is important to connect to the existing routes at Marsh St (RMS Airport West Precinct project). This link is missing due to the lack of a safe and suitable active travel facility across the Cooks River.
Missing Link #3 – Direct connections from Alexandra Canal cycleway to T2/T3 and beyond to Bayside Council Network
With the widening of Qantas Drive as part of this project, the future potential of a walking / cycling corridor between T1 and T2/T3 as outlined in the Inner Sydney Bicycle Network is no longer possible.
Missing Link #4 – Direct connection between Coward St and Sydenham station (future Metro)
There is an opportunity for an East/West link through the Sydney Gateway space. This would provide a direct connection between the surrounding areas to Sydenham station.

The Eastern Suburbs has a lack of access to train stations and active travel is a perfect way to provide this connection at a relatively low cost. Activating connection to Sydenham station will be beneficial to the local community, as it is the closest Metro station to the Bayside Council area and the Southern part of the Eastern Suburbs.

The concept design is currently lacking in focus and commitment regarding detailed strategies for encouraging active travel. This is particularly disappointing given the benefits that improved facilities for active travel might bring to local workers/visitors, residents of adjoining areas and people using the roads bounding this space to get around every day.

Summary of objections
1. the Gateway is not a transport solution, it is a road for motor vehicles. Transport involves all modes of travel. This project does not look at multiple transport solutions, including safe, comfortable and direct active transport facilities. In a project of this scale and cost, it is unacceptable that active transport is not considered as a major design partner.
2. Four new bridges, plus new overpasses across Botany Rail link and Canal Road, are proposed. This clumsy, out of date design does not recognise the amenity value of the canal, and reflects the flying decks of concrete over Darling Harbour, Sydney. The starting point should be respect for the canal as a tree lined open water corridor, with habitat for wildlife and visual enjoyment of active and motorised travellers;
3. As above, multiple bridges are proposed, yet the project does not provide any improvements to the long sought after active transport link at Marsh Street. Pedestrians and cyclists must continue to pick their way across a narrow footpath on the Giovanni Brunetti Bridge, an obvious gap between the Terminal 1 access bridge and the new pedestrian and cycleway on the southern side of Marsh Street west of the Alexandria Canal. Diversions via Tempe are unacceptable. People cycling southwards towards Botany Bay suburbs at Kyeemagh and beyond from the city and eastern suburbs already have to loop around the airport. There is no north south cycle access at General Holmes Drive. It is unreasonable to expect them to divert a further 580 metres (see construction alternative) westwards. The project must make provision for a separated active transport link at Giovanni Brunetti Bridge (south side of Marsh Street)
4. No clear provision is made for separated active transport links from Mascot Town Centre to Terminals 2 and 3, or from Terminals 2 and 3 to Terminal 1 (many people like to walk or cycle to the airport and between terminals). A properly considered overbridge, similar to the Terminal 1 overbridge, should be designed to carry cyclists and pedestrians across the multi-laned and heavily trafficked roads, particularly between Mascot town centre and Terminals 2 and 3, and over or under the railway.
5. Active transport and environment most frequently raised issues in response to the concept designs. This would indicate that instead of further isolating the airport campus by multi-laned roads, there needs to be far better integration of the airport with surrounding suburbs. For practical purposes, over bridges leading from Mascot to Terminals 2 and 3, and linking Terminal 1 to Marsh Street, should be given priority. And pedestrians and cyclists must be accommodated along separated pathways between Terminals 2 and 3 and Terminal 1. It is no use trying to squeeze cyclists and pedestrians onto narrow footpaths. Properly designed facilities are essential. Checkout Amsterdam's Skipol airport. Regarding the environment, obliteration of the Alexandria Canal, a potential amenity asset, under a muddle of bridges and flyovers, is unacceptable and a wasted environmental opportunity.
6. Emissions: The design mono-focus on a road network excludes proper consideration of sustainable alternatives. Emissions calculations from road construction (concrete and steel, plant and equipment, etc) and ongoing vehicle use should be compared to the emissions from construction and on going use of far lighter engineering of formalised cycle and pedestrian ways. For example, many of the 35,000 or more workers in the airport campus would be encouraged to cycle to work if access is safe and convenient. This would immediately reduce congestion and emissions.
7. Alexandria Canal Cycleway: proposed relocation to the west side of the canal. How is this to connect to a) Coward Street Mascot and b) Marsh Street?
8. Railway underpass at Alexandria Canal for cycles and pedestrians: limited head height and subject to flooding. How is this to be resolved?
9. Generally: extremely unsatisfactory project definition. The scope is for motor vehicle provision only. This is entirely inadequate. Multi-disciplined teams should be designing any new infrastructure of this nature in an existing urban setting. Please convene a project team comprising representatives of (for example) cyclists, pedestrians, architects, disability champions, Aboriginal voices, landscape architects (not just to do the planting plan after the engineering has been done, but to work with the integration of environment and structure), geologists, aquatic engineering specialists etc. This is a such a large and damaging project that it needs far better integration with its natural and urban environment.

Please see attached

Please see comments attached in submission. The comments made are provided subject to future endorsement by Council.

Submission uploaded as attachment

Sydney Water supports the Sydney Gateway project which is part of NSW Government's initiative to make a better Sydney.