WestConnex - M4 East Upgrade

Submission: WestConnex M4 East EIS (SSI 6307)

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.
I believe the EIS is based on incorrect modelling about traffic movements regarding Sydney's growing population and does not analyse sufficiently the impact on many streets in the inner west not studied in the EIS document, for example Marion Street in Leichhardt.
My fellow Tempe residents live under a dark cloud as the actual route continues to change and now may actually be underneath people's houses on the Princes Highway. This was not divulged before the State election in March 2015.
Nor was the Westconnex communication transparent and accountable regarding the compulsory buybacks in the historic estate of Haberfield and how this would impact on the character of this Federation suburb.
I believe if the Westconnex is built, it will generate additional traffic, funnelling it into heavily congested middle-ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.
I also wish to register my objection to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released and before the EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation. This is against best practice which the Premier constantly reminds us is the NSW way of doing business.
The EIS process is supposed to allow for genuine public input and to result, potentially, in approval, non-approval, or approval with modifications, of the project. The present procedure makes a mockery of that right. The role of AECOM in this process and the building blocks and assertions of its modelling also needs a thorough and very transparent examination.
Government funding for this proposal - as part of the whole WestConnex proposal - will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years to come. It has not been properly or openly explained to the public.
This being the case, I am outraged that the EIS has failed to honestly and fully discuss its social, environmental, and economic impacts or to explain why it is preferable to other, alternative public- and active transport solutions.
In particular I draw attention to the EIS's failure to:
* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that has been promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal. This includes areas such as Arncliffe and Wolli Creek, let alone Urban Growth's prediction of an extra 40,000 apartments along Parramatta Road alone.
* Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.
* Publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' funds.
* Properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate, especially regarding the position of pollution stacks
* Consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions.
Decades-long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity. That is why, globally, they have fallen out of favour and are no longer seen as a solution to congestion. Why is NSW continuing to go down this road to nowhere?
I believe this EIS is a shoddy sales pitch based on miscalculations and is not objective in presenting the economic benefits and social and environmental effects of the project.
It also is a corruption of the planning process designed to present the project as a fait accompli when it is clearly not supported by thousands of Sydney residents.
Yours sincerely
Kat Costigan, Tempe

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. If built it will generate additional traffic, funnelling it into heavily congested middle-ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.

I also wish to register my objection to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released and before the EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation.

The EIS process is supposed to allow for genuine public input and to result, potentially, in approval, non-approval, or approval with modifications, of the project. The present procedure makes a mockery of that right.

Government funding for this proposal - as part of the whole WestConnex proposal - will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years to come. This being the case, I am outraged that the EIS has failed to honestly and fully discuss its social, environmental, and economic impacts or to explain why it is preferable to other, alternative public- and active transport solutions.

In particular I draw attention to the EIS's failure to:

* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that has been promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal.

* Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.

* Publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' funds.

* Properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.

* Consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions.

Decades-long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity. That is why, globally, they have fallen out of favour and are no longer seen as a solution to congestion.

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. If built it will generate additional traffic, funnelling it into heavily congested middle-ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.

I also wish to register my objection to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released and before the EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation.

The EIS process is supposed to allow for genuine public input and to result, potentially, in approval, non-approval, or approval with modifications, of the project. The present procedure makes a mockery of that right.

Government funding for this proposal - as part of the whole WestConnex proposal - will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years to come. This being the case, I am outraged that the EIS has failed to honestly and fully discuss its social, environmental, and economic impacts or to explain why it is preferable to other, alternative public- and active transport solutions.

In particular I draw attention to the EIS's failure to:

* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that has been promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal.

* Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.

* Publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' funds.

* Properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.

* Consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions.

Decades-long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity. That is why, globally, they have fallen out of favour and are no longer seen as a solution to congestion.

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. If built it will generate additional traffic, funnelling it into heavily congested middle-ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.

I also wish to register my objection to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released and before the EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation.

The EIS process is supposed to allow for genuine public input and to result, potentially, in approval, non-approval, or approval with modifications, of the project. The present procedure makes a mockery of that right.

Government funding for this proposal - as part of the whole WestConnex proposal - will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years to come. This being the case, I am outraged that the EIS has failed to honestly and fully discuss its social, environmental, and economic impacts or to explain why it is preferable to other, alternative public- and active transport solutions.

In particular I draw attention to the EIS's failure to:

* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that has been promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal.

* Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.

* Publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' funds.

* Properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.

* Consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions.

Decades-long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity. That is why, globally, they have fallen out of favour and are no longer seen as a solution to congestion.

Director, Major Projects Assessments
Department of Planning
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001

Submission on WestConnex M4 East Environmental Impact Statement (SSI6307)

I am writing to you to express the strongest objections to this motorway proposal. My objections go to the issues of process and to the inevitable poor long term outcomes of the project
There is overwhelming evidence that these kinds of tollways encourage additional car use and result in ongoing congestion. Car use expands to fill the roads provided. As an historian of the urban condition I and just about everyone else I know have been aware of many studies that have been demonstrating this for many decades. Why is our government insisting on an outdated model of road transport in the face of overwhelming evidence that what the western suburbs need is good public transport and what the inner areas that will be impacted by this tollway do not need is more congestion and pollution. Roads like Parramatta and Victoria will become even more choked than at present.
This proposal fails at the first hurdle of providing serious comparisons with public transport alternatives. It will devastate inner city communities where houses will be demolished and citizens lives disrupted. There is no certainty that it will succeed even in venal dollar terms.
The government has signed contracts for aspects of the WestConnex project prior to this EIS being placed on exhibition. This is totally cynical and does not engender any faith in the government's intention to undertake genuine consultation.
The government must halt WestConnex - both tendering and construction - and instigate a parliamentary inquiry into the flawed processes that have characterised this project to date.

Dr Shirley Fitzgerald.

I am the owner of the property located at 261 Ramsay Street Haberfield. This property is currently rented out to tenants and I have the following concerns:

1. The garage and driveway to my property is located on Wattle street and is currently accessable from both eastbound and westbound lanes of Wattle street (ie. coming from Parramatta road and from Dobroyd parade).
With the tunnel cut and cover section being placed in between both eastbound and westbound lanes of Wattle street, access from the Dobroyd parade side to my property will be cut off.
At present, the plans have a right hand turn lane from Wattle street into Ramsay street, but it looks like there is no provision for a right hand turn lane from Ramsay street back down into Wattle street. This right hand turn lane would enable entry into the driveway and carpark of my property (and for all property owners on this section of Wattle street between Ramsay street and Martin street).

2. The garage and driveway to my property is located on Wattle street. When leaving my property to travel to Haberfield there are a few different options to take:
- turn right out of driveway onto Wattle street and then turn left onto Ramsay road (direct route to Haberfield); or
- turn left out of driveway onto Wattle street and then turn right at Waratah street (indirect route to Haberfield).
With the tunnel cut and cover section being placed in between both eastbound and westbound lanes of Wattle street and the median strip placed at the Waratah street lights between the local traffic merged lane and tunnel lanes, both of these methods of travelling to Haberfield are no longer available.
The only way available to travel to Haberfield will now be to travel down Wattle street/Dobroyd parade to Henley Marine drive, turn left onto Henley Marine drive and circle all of Timbrell Park until it reaches Ramsay road and then take Ramsay road up to Haberfield.

At present, the plans currently have Martin street remaining closed to traffic at Ramsay street. If Martin street can be opened to traffic only to enter Ramsay street then this would enable faster and more efficient access to Haberfield.

3. The cut and cover section of the tunnel entry/exit looks like it is very close to the side of my property. The plans do not give any indication as to the actual distance, but it looks like it will be approx 3 lanes of traffic away. This will have a major impact on the level of noise/pollution from the tunnel and I also have concerns about any potential vibration effects on the structural integrity of my property.

4. As mentioned in the outset, my property is currently rented out to tenants and provides me with a substantial percentage of my overall income. I am past the legal retirement age and when I do retire in the near future this property will be my principal source of income during my retirement years. The fact that there will be constant works happening in and around my property over the next 3 years is of considerable concern to me as the work being conducted will have a significant impact on my ability to keep current tenants and attract potential tenants to my property.
My understanding from Westconnex is that there is no requirement for my property to be acquired and that there is no provision for compensation due to loss of income brough about by any works conducted in and around my property. I feel that this is extremely unfair as the impact of this project could have a significant effect on my prospects of keeping my property tenanted and will impact the sale price of my property if I were to try and sell it.
Compulsory acquisition of properties allows Westconnex to acquire properties from owners who are aren't necessarily willing to sell their homes, however these owners are compensated for their property. The owners of properties that aren't required are not compensated even though they are equally impacted by the decision of Westconnex. This is wrong and there should be grounds for compensation due to the impact that this project will have on properties in and around the project.

I am opposed to the construction of the M4 East Tunnel. The Government has ignored the community and have not provided any consultation with the community in its planning and design of the tunnel project. I was led to believe that in the early stages of the design that the tunnel was running parallel to Parramatta Rd only to find out in the late stage of September 2015 that the tunnel is going through the residential street and under my house. I am deeply concerned about the impact of the vibration and tunnelling activities to our conservation protected old home. Furthermore I am concerned about the smoke stacks being located 100 metres from schools and childcare centres. The tunnelling construction and truck movements being 24/7 and the inconvenience and disruption during the construction process. Lastly I would like to see the Government's plan for providing public transport and dedicated bus lanes rather than this project.

Attention Director-Infrastructure Project Mr and Mrs Planning Services Makaritis
Department of Planning and Environment 2 Australia st GPO Box 39 Croydon 2132
Sydney NSW 2001

25th October 2015


Dear Sir

Regarding Application number SS1 6307 Submission regarding M4 East Motorway

We are writing to you today as we object to the M4 East motorway preferred route.
We have lived in Croydon for 35 years.

We have also attended the following consultations.
Wests Ashfield 13th July
Centenary Park 18th July
Arnott's reserve 22nd August
Ashfield Town Hall 23rd September

We have read all the volumes of the EIS.

Below are our concerns.

Impacts to property
We object to the M4 east motorway option 3 generally south of Parramatta Road .Construction impacts of tunnelling would occur beneath residential properties. This Option impacts 700 homes along the proposed route and is a shorter route therefore putting cost savings and associated risks of tunnelling impacts before homes and people.
Chapter 4 sub section 4.3.2 Table 4.2 page 4.15 of the EIS states that the position of the tunnels south of Parramatta Road would preserve the corridor for future development, however, the tunnels could be placed underneath Parramatta Road and the setback areas required for new developments along busy roads for new development and therefore would not affect proposals for future development. We object to the M4 East motorway as there is a HIGH probability of damage to our home it is over 100 years old and built on no footings and at high risk of cracking. Cracks can be repaired but will always be there. We object to the M4 East motorway as we are concerned about subsidence.
Ground movement and Maximum Building settlement
We object to the M4 East motorway where tunnelling is planned under our older Federation houses with no footings and crumbling lime mortar. We object to 21 days of drilling and blasting. Chapter 18 subsection 18.3.3 page 18-15 indicates that 50mm settlement after drilling could be expected under Dobroyd Canal area and we object to tunnelling as we have concerns to our property being located so close to the canal.



Potential risk of Tunnel collapse

We object to the M4 East motorway where there is potential risk of Tunnel collapse. Chapter 25 subsection 25.1 pages 26.6 relate to tunnels at other locations and risks encountered at those areas. The EIS does not address the issues encountered by residents above the Brisbane Clem 7 and the Lane Cove Tunnel collapse. We feel there is a lack of information in the EIS which does not satisfy our concerns. We were advised by a tunnel expert that tunnel collapse is a possibility. We object to this risk to our property.
Property value
We object to the M4 East motorway as there is anticipated loss of value on our properties. Volume 2E Appendix D Page D Strathfield Council consultations of 1st July suggests that those who assumed that they could fund their retirement through the sale of their homes, are likely to expect a decrease in the value as a result of the WestConnex project. We object to the M4 East Motorway as we have worked hard to buy our property and now we will have an easement on our title deeds which we believe will decrease the value of our property.


Operational noise and vibration
We object to the M4 East motorway and the likelihood of operational noise and vibration. Volume 1A page 469 suggests there will be no operational noise heard from the tunnels after construction however the Westconnex fact sheet of September 2015 `M4 East Environmental Impact Statement-Tunnelling' indicates, quote "once the tunnel is complete, you are unlikely to be able to hear or feel any vibrations from vehicles using the motorway".
These two statements are conflicting, and as there are no technical calculations in the EIS to prove there will be no noise or vibration post construction, therefore I do not trust the information provided in the EIS.

Consultations
We object to the M4 East Motorway and wish to express our disappointment in this motorway and the way it has been addressed since the beginning, we were never formally advised our home was going to be acquired underneath. We feel we were never treated with respect and integrity as property owners.
We object to the M4 East motorway project as consultations were full of conflicting information where we were shown poor quality maps Volume 2A Appendix F.
We object to the M4 East motorway as we were told lots of conflicting information as to why the tunnel could not go under Parramatta rd. We object to the M4 East motorway because at a recent meeting at Ashfield Town Hall a Westconnex spokesperson advised us that after spending 15 Billion on this project the problem with the traffic would not be fixed it would just move the problem from Concord to Haberfield. Lots of questions were asked and many times the experts could not answer the questions, what questions they could answer were vague. We were advised at the Arnott's reserve consultation by a tunnel designer that he would not like a tunnel under his home he also said nobody would like a tunnel under their home. We object to the tunnels being built under homes because at consultations we were advised the tunnel could be built anywhere, we object to this project as there are many ethnic people in affected areas who cannot read the EIS as it is not printed in other languages.
We found the kiosk at Westfield Burwood unhelpful with no answers.

Lack of Transparency
We object to the M4 East motorway the way we found out about our property being acquired underneath by a brochure in the letterbox which had a poor quality map on it that did not have our street name on it.We object to the secrecy behind this project and the lack of information that was offered to residents.



Unethical

We object to the M4 East motorway as the tender has been accepted before it has been approved. We find that extremely unethical.
Concerns in regards to the EIS
We object to the M4 East motorway as Aecom who wrote the EIS has recently settled a lawsuit regarding the Brisbane tunnels for $280 million for deceitful conduct regarding traffic forecasting. This leaves us feeling very concerned about the information in the EIS.
Anxiety and physiological damage
We object to the M4 East motorway as it has caused my family much anxiety and concern.
We object to the M4 East motorway project as we found Duncan Gaye's comments on media reports as being uncaring to those people who are suffering anxiety and distress and not sleeping since finding out their homes are affected. I strongly believe the M4 East motor way should not be built under homes. We object to the M4 East motorway as our security has been taken away from us,
Misinformed
We object to the M4 East Motorway as The residents were never invited to consult on the preferred route we were just told that is where it will be placed. Residents consulted on the route under Parramatta Road and under Queens's Road. We are not against progress but believe at the end of the day the State Government may be saving money taking the preferred route but at the expense of property owners in the process.



Petitions

We object to the M4 East motorway as we have doorknocked over 800 residents who have signed a petition to say they do not want a tunnel under their home.
Political donation
We have not made any political donations.
Privacy Statement
We have read the terms of the privacy statement on the website http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/



Regards

Michael and Dora Makaritis

To the Secretary, Dept Planning & Environment

I am writing to express my strong objection to the SSI 6307 WestConnex M4 East EIS and to formally request a response to my following concerns:
- you have not released a detailed business case
- I do not have confidence that your consultation will have any material affect on the project
- I believe that the $15billion would be better spent on public and active transport in the corridor and beyond
- you have no long term studies or evidence to prove that exposure to emissions from a similar tunnel is safe, especially for vulnerable children and the elderly
- I would like guarantees that if the project goes ahead, that bike paths will be constructed along the corridor
- I believe that the project will leave the Haberfield and Ashfield areas in complete gridlock for the duration of the project and beyond especially at City West Link - at least until the next phase is complete. Beyond this time, the tunnel and Parramatta Rd will soon fill to capacity.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,
Francis Le
Sydney NSW 2131, Australia

Please Stop the 33km of motorway destruction planned for Sydney. Don't swap poles and wires for tolls and tyres!

[email protected]


Submission: WestConnex M4 East EIS (SSI 6307)

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. If built it will generate additional traffic, funnelling it into heavily congested middle-ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.

I also wish to register my objection to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released and before the EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation.

The EIS process is supposed to allow for genuine public input and to result, potentially, in approval, non-approval, or approval with modifications, of the project. The present procedure makes a mockery of that right.

Government funding for this proposal - as part of the whole WestConnex proposal - will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years to come. This being the case, I am outraged that the EIS has failed to honestly and fully discuss its social, environmental, and economic impacts or to explain why it is preferable to other, alternative public- and active transport solutions.

In particular I draw attention to the EIS's failure to:

* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that has been promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal.

* Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.

* Publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' funds.

* Properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.

* Consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions.

Decades-long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity. That is why, globally, they have
- See more at: http://westconnex.info/?p=348660#sthash.Q3o0AZbJ.dpuf

29.10.15

Attention: Director Infrastructure Projects,

Planning Services

Department of Planning and Environment

Application Number SSI 6307

This monster that is the WestConnex motorway is an unjustifiable project with underestimated social and economic impacts on local residents and business. As local North Strathfield residents, we are very concerned regarding its long lasting impact on our local community.

The location of the stacks is of most concern, as the placement is right next to many townhouse developments along Underwood Rd, Homebush and many,many established homes in the surrounding area of which we are one. Also these stacks are located next to a number of high rise developments along Parramatta Rd, with many more developments to come along this stretch of Parramatta Rd in the future.

We cannot understand the location of the stacks and the proximity to where many people live and work.These stacks are apparently to be unfiltered, with so many primary and high schools within the local area such as Our Lady of the Assumption, North Strathfield, Macdonald College, North Strathfield, Strathfield North Public School, Homebush Boys HS, Homebush Public School, Strathfield Girls HS to mention just a few!

Concerning us also is the ugly, overdeveloped,concrete spaghetti maze of road flyovers/entry/exit points ?????? that are planned near the intersections of Concord Rd and Parramatta Rd all to get to a congestion point down the road faster! Does the WestConnex have to be so ugly and overdeveloped, dumped in what are the beautiful, liveable suburbs of Concord, Homebush, Haberfield and Ashfield, which you all seen intent on destroying. We don't want a concrete traffic jungle. Surely there are alternatives to this version of WestConnex with less impact health wise, socially, economically and visually than the one being offered.

All this, along with people losing their homes in Concord, Homebush and Haberfield, heritage buildings disappearing, all at an unbelieveable cost to save us 6 minutes! Really, expain the logic in that! Unbelievable!

We are absolutely dismayed and disgusted with this entire project and with the fact that it delivers very little and will cost our community greatly. It is only of benefit to big
business and foreign investors.

Margaret and Mark Benn
14 Lorraine Street
North Strathfield
NSW 2137

Submission: WestConnex M4 East EIS (SSI 6307)

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. If built it will generate additional traffic, funnelling it into heavily congested middle-ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.

I also wish to register my objection to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released and before the EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation.

The EIS process is supposed to allow for genuine public input and to result, potentially, in approval, non-approval, or approval with modifications, of the project. The present procedure makes a mockery of that right.

Government funding for this proposal - as part of the whole WestConnex proposal - will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years to come. This being the case, I am outraged that the EIS has failed to honestly and fully discuss its social, environmental, and economic impacts or to explain why it is preferable to other, alternative public- and active transport solutions.

In particular I draw attention to the EIS's failure to:

* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that has been promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal.

* Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.

* Publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' funds.

* Properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.

* Consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions.

Decades-long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity. That is why, globally, they have fallen out of favour and are no longer seen as a solution to congestion. -

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. If built it will generate additional traffic, funnelling it into heavily congested middle-ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.

I also wish to register my objection to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released and before the EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation.

The EIS process is supposed to allow for genuine public input and to result, potentially, in approval, non-approval, or approval with modifications, of the project. The present procedure makes a mockery of that right.

Government funding for this proposal - as part of the whole WestConnex proposal - will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years to come. This being the case, I am outraged that the EIS has failed to honestly and fully discuss its social, environmental, and economic impacts or to explain why it is preferable to other, alternative public- and active transport solutions.

In particular I draw attention to the EIS's failure to:

* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that has been promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal.

* Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.

* Publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' funds.

* Properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.

* Consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions.

Decades-long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity. That is why, globally, they have fallen out of favour and are no longer seen as a solution to congestion.
-

Please find attached our objection letter to the WestConnex M4 East project.

I strongly object to the WestConnex M4 East motorway and wish to register this objection.

I object to the new right hand turn onto Waratah Street in Haberfield. i live in this street and it is already a very busy street where cars constantly speed. There are many small children on this street and this new turn will only bring more cars looking to rat run through Haberfield. The city west link is already a carpark with traffic often blocked all the way from Parramatta Road to Leichhardt. It defies reason to have an exit from the new tunnel here. Drivers will become understandably frustrated with the traffic and turn off into Waratah St. This is really dangerous for all the young kids walking this street on their way to and from school and will bring too much traffic onto these local roads. I am actually appalled by this decision and think it is very dangerous and is a threat to local children.

But then this whole project does little to consider the local communities of the inner west. It seems to be much more interested in the well being of developers and toll companies than it does people and their communities. I object to this.

I also object to the compulsory acquisition of homes to build this road that I am convinced will not work. People have been kicked out of their homes with reimbursements much less than they would have got at market value (pre WestConnex). These families can not buy back into the same market and for many this means a huge change to their lifestyles. Many will have to take their children out of the schools they are happy in. Others will have to rebuild friendships and communities as they are cast out of those they have belonged to for decades. This is simply appalling. Shame on WestConnex.

I object that for the people who have been left without a compulsory acquisition, they now find themselves living beside years of loud construction followed by a permanent future next to ugly, noisy, polluting roads. If they choose to sell they may literally lose hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions. Some people I have spoken to fear that their mental health will be severely impacted by these changes in lifestyle.

I object that Westconnex has been given free rein to destroy a heritage suburb. As a resident of Haberfield we have to get permission to make the slightest changes to our homes (and are often denied such permission). We have to have our paint colours approved and the materials we use for our fences scrutinised (among many other things), yet Westconnex can destroy heritage homes - flatten them - and then erect ugly, polluting smokestacks in the midst of our otherwise controlled community. The hypocrisy is mind boggling.

I object to the inevitable destruction of the Newtown and surrounding communities.

I object to the fact that Westconnex will inevitably generate more traffic

I object to the fact that instead of turning to innovative public transport solutions to Sydney traffic problems, the government has once again turned to archaic solutions that have already proven NOT to work. Isn't the definition of insanity to do again that which doesn't work?

I object that the government awarded tenders before a business case was released and before the EIS was published. This shows blatant disregard for public input and opinion.

I am outraged that the EIS has failed to fully discuss the social, environmental and economic impacts of the WestConnex or why it is preferable to public transport options.

I am outraged that toxic exhaust stacks have been placed beside schools, childcare centres and old aged homes.

I am also outraged that plans for the WestConnex seem to be providing for more development of apartments along Parramatta road and we simply do NOT have the infrastructure to handle this. Our schools are overflowing, our roads choked (but not helped by the WestConnex as it is) and we do not have enough good public transport to support this development.

Decades long global experience of urban motorway construction has shown that big new urban roads are counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity. Why are we still doing them?

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. If built it will generate additional traffic, funnelling it into heavily congested middle-ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.
I also wish to register my objection to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released and before the EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation.
The EIS process is supposed to allow for genuine public input and to result, potentially, in approval, non-approval, or approval with modifications, of the project. The present procedure makes a mockery of that right.
Government funding for this proposal - as part of the whole WestConnex proposal - will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years to come. This being the case, I am outraged that the EIS has failed to honestly and fully discuss its social, environmental, and economic impacts or to explain why it is preferable to other, alternative public- and active transport solutions.
In particular I draw attention to the EIS's failure to:
* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that has been promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal.
* Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.
* Publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' funds.
* Properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.
* Consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions.
Decades-long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity. That is why, globally, they have fallen out of favour and are no longer seen as a solution to congestion.

WestConnex is not a good solution to city congestion. If you put all the money into reducing public transport costs then most cars will get off the road. Public transport should be ultra cheap - It should cost max $20 a week maybe less and people will jump out of their cars quicker than you can build that big road which will just make our city more polluted, more concreted and more noisey. Think new. Think Big.

Director,
Infrastructure Projects, Planning Services
Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001.

SUBMISSION : WESTCONNEX M4 EAST EIS (Application No SSI 6307)

I object to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.

I consider it most unfortunate that this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is concerned solely with a proposal to build a road. Sydney, and Australia, would have been much better served had it been about the city's functionality, and the citizens' needs for access and communication in the twenty-first century.

I concede that there is an argument for a motorway-standard connection between the eastern end of the M4 Motorway at Strathfield and the western end of the City West Link Road at Haberfield, in order to facilitate traffic flow by avoiding the current use of Parramatta Road. The M4 East, as planned, far exceeds the required scope for that connection.

This submission is in two parts. The first states my conclusions regarding the M4East section of the WestConnex motorway. The second is a selection of expert quotations upon which I have reached those conclusions.

I conclude that -

The project is over-designed for the purpose of simply connecting the M4 Motorway to the City West Link Road.

The project is unauthorised because the necessary planning "gateways" have not been complied with.

The justification for the project is suspect because the full business case for WestConnex was not made public before the EIS was placed on exhibition.

The EIS does not properly consider the effects of induced traffic.

The EIS has failed to adequately consider alternative transport modes like mass transit and active transport.

Promotional material for WestConnex (brochure dated September 2015) claimed congestion "relief" without qualifying the extent of, or limits to, that relief.

The proposed under-harbour road tunnel between Rozelle and Gore Hill appears to have been added to WestConnex as an afterthought, in what might be described as planning-on-the-run.

The exhibition of the EIS at City of Canada Bay Council never did include Volume 1 of the EIS.


My conclusions are based on the following expert or informed opinions -

"The public release of the WestConnex EIS.... is an insult to Sydney constituents...... This EIS process is yet another display of the NSW Government's lip-service attitude towards the people of NSW". (Cr. Jenny Green, City of Sydney, Inner West Courier, 22.9.15)

"RMS (Roads & Maritime Services) must be constrained - it is far too powerful. Reducing capacity can reduce demand. WestConnex does not recognise that demographic change is taking place - the future requires walkable cities - the knowledge economy is agglomerative". (Tim Williams' personal views, Committee for Sydney, 23.4.15)

"The smoking gun has now been revealed that the first stage of WestConnex will in fact significantly worsen congestion on Parramatta Road in Haberfield and Leichhardt". (Cr. Darcy Byrne, Mayor of Leichhardt, in Sydney Morning Herald, 20.10.15)

"The Labor-dominated Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee recommended last December (2014) that public transport infrastructure be considered as nationally significant infrastructure, alongside private transport infrastructure such as road construction. (It) told the Abbott government to fund transport - including road and rail projects - on a 'mode-neutral basis, based on assessed merit'..... The Productivity Commission, too, has criticised how projects have been selected for funding......The Grattan Institute says heavily car- based cities spend about 12 - 15 per cent of their wealth on transport services; public transport-based cities spend 5 - 8 per cent" (Sydney Morning Herald editorial, 29.9.15)

"Australian infrastructure chiefs have been buoyed by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's enthusiasm for urban planning.....and the government's new willingness to consider public transport investment" (Nicole Hasham, Sydney Morning Herald, 22.9.15).

"But it will also be tricky to shift things in NSW. The Baird government....wants to spend the best part of the next decade building the WestConnex motorway. (It) will almost certainly overload the Anzac Bridge. So the government then says it will build another harbour road tunnel......" (Jacob Saulwick, Sydney Morning Herald, 22.9.15)

"Roads Minister Duncan Gay asserts we have no choice but to build WestConnex.....The drawbacks are so significant that a deeper examination of alternatives is warranted.... public transport can deliver much lower costs per unit of passenger capacity.....the predict-and-provide technique that appears to have been used to evaluate WestConnex.....can seriously overstate the benefits. Other areas of disadvantage (by building WestConnex) include the social and environmental impacts from an increase in car dependency." (P.W. Mills, Action for Public Transport, January 2015).

"The only independent review of the business case for the $14 billion WestConnex motorway (by the NSW Auditor-General) concluded 'it was not able to form a view on whether the project is a worthwhile and prudent investment ....for the NSW government' ..... Only one independent 'gateway' review was ever organised for the WestConnex project, and this was of a preliminary and unfinished business case." (Sydney Morning Herald, 19.12.14).

"Four additional gateway reviews should have been conducted in the period covered by this audit.....The benefit-cost ratio released by the NSW government for WestConnex - $2.55 in benefits for every dollar spent - is likely to be an overestimate". (NSW Auditor-General, quoted in Sydney Morning Herald editorial, 12.1.15)

"Bliemer is one who thinks the time has come to more aggressively support this growth in public transport, and get off the never-ending cycle of motorway building". (Michael Bliemer, Professor in Transport, University of Sydney, quoted in Sydney Morning Herald, 12.1.15).

"What I found on the (Infrastructure Australia) Board was that all the rail projects were actually far better in terms of benefit-cost ratios than the road projects....That's why WestConnex....they wouldn't even give to us to look at because they knew the benefit-cost ratios were pathetic." (Professor Peter Newman, Curtin University, W.A., quoted in Sydney Morning Herald, 12.1.15)

"We need to provide better alternatives to the car so that people have a legitimate choice". (Kyle Loades, President, NRMA, in Sydney Morning Herald, 2.7.15)

"Public discussion on infrastructure projects in Australia was too often dominated by debates on single projects instead of focussing on strategy or long term policy" (Mark Birrell, Chairman, Infrastructure Australia, quoted in Sydney Morning Herald, 12.6.15)

"We need to transition people from their cars to more sustainable transport modes" (WSROC President Tony Hadchiti, Sydney Morning Herald, 24.3.15)

"Both major parties' commitment to WestConnex is unfortunate". (Associate Professor Garry Glazebrook, UTS, quoted in Sydney Morning Herald, 20.3.15.)

WestConnex is unlikely to reduce traffic on local roads, (and) exposes the taxpayer to huge financial risk.....shares characteristics with other motorways that have financially failed.....A metro rail line along Parramatta Road....would be a better fit for the city....(Terry Rawnsley, Principal of SGS Economics and Planning, in a report commissioned by City of Sydney, Sydney Morning Herald, 24.2.15)

"The recent return of the delusion that building more expressways will reduce traffic congestion is unlikely to make things better". (Ross Gittins, Economics Writer, Sydney Morning Herald, 26.11.14.)

"According to AMP,.....one of the ways Mr. (Tony) Shepherd's consortium avoided 'another loss' was by inflating the number of motorists they said would drive through the (Lane Cove) tunnel". (Lane Cove Tunnel court case report, Sydney Morning Herald, 13.8.14)

"The knowledge economy needs spatial efficiency, and spatially efficient transport modes. Public transport, cycling and walking are very spatially efficient.....WestConnex...should be stopped." (Professor Peter Newman, Curtin University, quoted in EcoTransit News, October 2015).

I have not made any donations exceeding $1000 in the requisite period.

Kevin Eadie
21 St Georges Cres
Drummoyne, NSW, 2047.
WesConM4EastEIS1.doc
30 October 2015.

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. If built it will generate additional traffic, funnelling it into heavily congested middle-ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.

I also wish to register my objection to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released and before the EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation.

The EIS process is supposed to allow for genuine public input and to result, potentially, in approval, non-approval, or approval with modifications, of the project. The present procedure makes a mockery of that right.

Government funding for this proposal - as part of the whole WestConnex proposal - will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years to come. This being the case, I am outraged that the EIS has failed to honestly and fully discuss its social, environmental, and economic impacts or to explain why it is preferable to other, alternative public- and active transport solutions.

In particular I draw attention to the EIS's failure to:

* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that has been promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal.

* Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.

* Publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' funds.

* Properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.

* Consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions.

Decades-long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity. That is why, globally, they have fallen out of favour and are no longer seen as a solution to congestion.