WestConnex - M4 East Upgrade

Helen and Mark Irhazi

This is are M4 Environmental Study
submission opposing the westconnex m4 east on the grounds of the impact it will have on the above mentioned property.

Firstly a bit of background:
around 2 years my mother-Helen Irhazi then 80 received a phone call to say that her house will be required and acquired for the building of the m4 tunnel(first proposal).Basically said she had to move.This made her extremely upset. For the next year no contact was made with her regarding information on haw this would work.
In june this year west connex contacted her and said that there was a property acquirement freeze until the environmental study had been completed( the second proposal). Until then no details were given to what this was about.
So I set up a meeting to which west connex representatives came out to and said that the second proposal was the one they were likely to go with.
I then had numerous different phone comments with different people re the matter. Finally it was revealed the property would not be required. However the reserve behind our back fence with numerous magnificent old trees would be dug up resurfaced and used as a holding depot for plant equipment and offices for the duration of the build, approx 3-4 YEARS.
I then set up a second meeting to discus the effects this would have on our property.
At this meeting i was basically told not much we can do for you, it was then also divulged that 30 mts from our back fence an 8 mt high fly over 6 lane road would also be built.incredible,unbelievable,unfair are just some words that come to mind

major concerns: works holding depot

#visual pollution: I do not want to stare at a holding compound
four 1 week let alone 4 years, when currently there is a reserve with flaura, fauna and significant birdlife there.


#extreme privacy issues as our house is elevated at the back
and the interior is viewable from the reserve. Can you imagine with a 24 hour working environment.We have big sliding glass doors at the rear

#noise pollution from the usage of the depot.

#dust, dirt pollution from the usage of the depot.ie Viechles, man power

# Airpollution from the usage of the depot.Will make my air dirtier and impact on our health and wellbeing


FLYOVER ROAD during the building and completion

This I just don't know where to start, as this is totally incomprehensible to me.

All of the above magnatutes by a thousand.

Finally but most importantly you will have significantly destroyed the value of our property, which we have owned for forty years.Who in there right mind would want to buy and live there in the years to come.
The market for the sale of this property will have greatly diminished.

This is so unfair that the nsw goverment should be ashamed of themselves for the treatment we are about to and have
received.
This has and is having a profound effect on health and our lives.

I believe this was not justified by by any publicaly released business case.



Helen and Mark Irhazi
04014322548

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.
- See more at: http://westconnex.info/?p=348660#sthash.5m1HMKyi.dpuf

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.
- See more at: http://westconnex.info/?p=348660#sthash.5m1HMKyi.dpuf

Over the past decade, the traffic both eastbound and westbound on Parramatta Rd has become intolerable. It is as bad on Saturdays and Sundays as it is on weekdays. Better public transport would be great, but it's not enough - in fact, it will never be enough. Sydney needs modern infrastructure to accommodate the current population, let alone handle future growth. Major road and tunnel projects must be part of that. To have stopped the M4 at Concord was criminal; it has choked the traffic flow, increased pollution, and created an ugly blight on the local areas. Building a tunnel to connect the M4 all the way to Anzac Bridge is the only long term option. My only criticism is that 3 lanes each way is not enough - it's shortsighted. Build 4 lanes each way and plan for at least 5. Show some vision - think big.

As a long-term resident of Leichhardt/Lilyfield, I am deeply opposed to the M4 East.
I am disturbed that so much public money is being devoted to what is essentially a 20th century solution - motorways - to 21st century city transport problems.
It has long been proved that new roads simply attract MORE cars. There will be gridlock in no time at all with this ill-planned miss-mash and a general deterioration of all conditions, with huge tailbacks at major intersections and 'rat runs' developing on hitherto quiet suburban streets.
I believe this money - my money! - would be far better spent on providing viable and improved public transport alternatives - bus, train, light rail etc.
I am perturbed at the piecemeal nature of this planning, which does not take into consideration proposed new high-density housing in Camperdown, Annandale and Taverners Hill, or the Bays Project.
I believe Wesconnex will destroy vast swathes of the inner west, including the heritage suburb of Haberfield.
I do not consider the modelling to be adequate or accurate, as it applies to traffic flow, air pollution and biodiversity.
Furthermore, I am appalled that the project has been put out to contract - and properties acquired - before adequate public consultation and planning approval.
Even more baffling, to my mind, is that there has been no coherent effort to explain or justify the need for this road.
History teaches us that many recent Sydney toll roads - including the Cross City and Lane Cove Tunnels - have been white elephant disasters, under-used because of the significant costs involved to the motorist.
I am totally opposed to the entire Wesconnex Project, which looks set to ruin vast swathes of our beautiful city, for no real reason. This money could be so much better spent with some imagination and foresight, like that abundantly in evidence in so many European cities.

I write to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.

Global experience of major toll road construction has demonstrated conclusively that these projects are enormously expensive and counter-productive. WestConnex will increase air pollution and encourage more car use, quickly filling the increased road capacity. It is not a long-term solution to Sydney's congestion problem.

The fact that the State Government has already signed multi-billion dollar contracts for WestConnex before this EIS was even placed on public exhibition undermines community confidence that this is a genuine consultation process.

This EIS considers benefits for all stages of the project but doesn't address the negative impacts along the whole route.

I object to this proposal as it encourages more cars instead of public transport, and fails to provide a long term solution to traffic and congestion. This proposal intends to dump 3 lanes of traffic from the M4 onto the already overcrowded 2-lane City West link, with no plans to ease congestion on this route into the city. The proposed addition of a right-hand turning lane into Ramsay Street from Wattle Street will also encourage users seek alternative routes into the city via Haberfield, Leichhardt and the Inner West. Traffic along these suburban routes is already at capacity during peak hour and this proposal does nothing to ease this congestion. As a nearby resident I am concerned this proposal will significantly increase traffic and congestion in my local area and will turn the Inner West into a carpark during peak periods.

Additionally I object to this proposal because it will have a destructive impact on local communities. The proposal will result in the demolition of many homes and businesses. Many of these homes are in the State Conservation Area of Haberfield and are of great heritage significance. Losing these homes will leave a permanent scar on the local landscape. In addition to losing many heritage items in this neighbourhood, the WestConnex will greatly increase traffic, pollution and ruin the quiet and local feel of Haberfield and the surrounding neighbourhoods. The City of Sydney has long prided itself on being a "City of Villages" and Inner Western suburbs like Newtown, Enmore, St Peters, Petersham, Leichhardt, Ashfield and Croydon provide unique and interesting neighbourhoods, each with their own distinct cultures and community atmospheres. In recent years the Inner West has been subject to increased development resulting the loss of this local flavour and "village" feel. As a resident of the Inner West, I am concerned that the WestConnex will further damage this unique atmosphere and sense of community to the point that the Inner West will no longer feel like a quiet suburban neighbourhood, but rather a noisy busy inner city suburb.

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 object to this project due to the environmental impact that it will
have and that it is not a solutions to the traffic problems that could be overcome by more public transport options

I make the following submission to the Environmental Impact Statement exhibition for the Westconnex M4 East Tunnel Project (SSI 6307):

I want the following addressed from the EIS:
- Filter the smoke stacks and relocate away from schools and childcare centres;
- Build a noise wall for properties in Ashfield next to the Parramatta Rd interchange, during and after construction;
- Restrict tunnelling and truck movements to standard construction hours - no 24/7 truck movements;
- Return acquired properties not required after construction to Ashfield Council for community use.

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 object to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. It is my view that focusing on motorways rather than rail has created and will continue to create heavy congestion and increased traffic and pollution; funnelling it into heavily congested middle ring inner city roads.

I also wish to register my objection to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full buiness case has been publicly released and before the EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation.
Furthermore Government funding for this proposal- as part of teh whole WestConnex proposal - will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget that I believe could be better utilised infrastructure such as a high speed rail link that would assist in urbanising an already highly congested city.

In particular I draw attention to the EIS's failure to:
- factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase inapartment constructin- and therefore of population- that has been promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal.
-discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.
-publish a robust busines case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worrth of taxpayers' funds.
properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by teh increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitiate.
-consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions.

I AM OPPOSED TO WESTCONNEX as it stands and would like the following issues addressed.

1. The smoke stacks are unfiltered and are located close to schools and childcare centres. Car exhausts are known carcinogens. The smoke stacks must be filtered and constantly maintained/serviced.

2. A noise wall needs to be built for properties in Ashfield next to the Parramatta Rd interchange during and after construction.

3. Restrict tunnelling and truck movements to standard construction hours.

4. There is no guarantee that 10 years after the completion of the M4 expansion road congestion will be any better than it currently is. Where are the studies and the modelling that suggests over wise?

5. I am opposed to the destruction of heritage areas.

6. I think this road will encourage more people to drive and thus add to global warming and also result in a worsening of air quality.

M4EIS Submission: Traffic numbers

I oppose the construction of the WestConnex tollway system.
I have lived in the Municipality of Leichhardt my entire adult life. I specifically choose to live in areas with efficient and regular public transport. Like many other transport users, I now make good use of smart phone apps to maximise travel efficiency. I use time spent on public transport to work.

On two occasions I have lived in cities with much better provision of public transport than we have in Sydney. I have visited many other similar cities.

I have also experienced the obverse - cities where dependence on cars and minimal public transport provision, produces a considerably lower standard of daily life for the average person, with excruciatingly long travel times and appalling pollution.

My overriding concern with this EIS and with the WestConnex routes is that the whole proposal is so out-dated. This is not the solution for the 21st century. It feels like a stale idea from the 1950s. Nothing in the EIS has convinced me that these tollways and tunnels will do anything to reduce traffic congestion. On the contrary, it is so ill-conceived, that the traffic is being shoved into new places; intersections along the way will become even slower to navigate than is currently the case, and more traffic will bank up in new places. In the process whole communities and heritage areas will be destroyed for a project that has little to no chance of solving Sydney's transport problems, while enormous sums of public money will be diverted from much more important projects for the future of this country: health, education and public transport.

The project has not considered a raft of other possibilities to reduce traffic and congestion - and the ensuing pollution. Travellers and commuters are known to choose the mode that is the most convenient; faced with the option of driving or using public transport, the most efficient and affordable mode will be chosen.
The lack of business case makes the whole project dubious. Transport planners from Peter Newman to Michelle Zeibots and many others argue, virtually unanimously, that investment in efficient, timely and affordable public transport is the cheaper and proven way to free our roads for those people who need to use them.

According to http://www.smh.com.au/comment/westconnexs-climate-claims-dont-ring-true-20151027-gkkava.html, the EIS also says that traffic will be up by > 41%

By 2031, on their figures, there will be 41 per cent more light vehicle traffic (cars, vans and motorbikes), from 266 million to 375 million VKT (Vehicle Kilometers Travelled), if WestConnex is built compared with if it was not built.
For heavy vehicles (trucks and buses) it is forecast to double annual VKT from 27 million to almost 57 million by 2031 with WestConnex compared with if it wasn't built.
These increases are explained as being because of the "attractiveness" of WestConnex for trips to the city, airport and Port Botany. That is, new roads induce more traffic.

So, in Appendix G, induced travel demand is up between 2% and 7%.
Elsewhere, > 41%.

And this matters, because if induced demand is < 7%, then the project is demonstrably not viable.

But if induced demand is >> 7% then the WDA hasn't done it's induced demand assessment properly.

And this matters, because according to the SEARs (http://m4eis.org/2015/09/22/the-secretarys-environmental-assessment-requirements/),
"The EIS must [address] induced traffic and operational implications for public transport
[particularly with respect to strategic bus corridors and bus routes]
and consideration of opportunities to improve public transport patronage"

And it doesn't. They claim to, but when you check the sections they say address this, there are only the briefest of discussion of induced traffic, and no discussion of the implications of induced traffic on public transport.

I believe that the contradictions in the EIS exist because each component was produced by a different consultant. These conflicting traffic predictions are a critical point. Given what happened with the M5 induced traffic, 4-7% is a very under-estimated figure, especially since population growth in the inner city and further west is expected to grow by more than 4-7%, with 100s of thousands new people predicted along the route of the M4 in an estimated 40,000 new units, with no increase in provision of public transport. Indeed, public transport provision runs counter to the aim of maximising income for the private tollway companies, another serious concern about the validity of this entire proposal.

Apart from the economic costs, the costs to our communities of increased air pollution, noise, loss of homes, heritage areas, park lands, degradation of the environment, negative contribution to climate change, and another twenty years to wait before meaningful investment is made into well-planned public transport infrastructure, make this project completely untenable.

Some of the most alarming figures in the EIS is the proof that, contrary to assurances that WestConnex tollways will reduce traffic on local roads, your figures for Parramatta Rd show that traffic volumes will be higher with the tollway in place in some sections, than if WestConnex isn't built, as traffic diverts to using non-tolled roads.
WestConnex proposal is anathema to the idea of liveable cities.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
On behalf of the Haberfield Public School Parents & Citizens Association, I make the following
submission to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) exhibition for the WestConnex M4 East
Tunnel Project (Project) (SSI 6307):
The parents and community members that make up the P&C at Haberfield Public School are
opposed to the WestConnex development. We do not believe this is an efficient use of $15.4 billion
of taxpayers' funds, because we do not believe it will lead to the congestion improvements
promoted by the State Government and the WestConnex Delivery Authority (now Sydney Motorway
Corporation). We are deeply troubled that the State Government has ignored the community by
signing contracts to build this road before releasing this EIS, the full business case, or obtaining
planning approval - this is a reprehensible lack of transparency and proper procedure. Without
seeing the business case the community has no way of knowing what other alternatives were
considered and what their associated costs were. We are also troubled that the 'consultation' with
the community has primarily been done in a way that disempowers the community from feeling like
they can influence the outcome.
The Project will have a devastating impact on the Inner West and particularly on our communities of
Ashfield and Haberfield. Ashfield is one of the most densely populated communities in Sydney and
Haberfield has great historical significance, therefore the decision to proceed is all the more
bewildering. As one parent said at a recent WestConnex information night held at our school, we
feel Haberfield Public School is at the centre of a "toxic triangle" of pollution stack and portals under
2
the current WestConnex plans. On top of that, we will have four construction zones within several
hundred metres of the school operating for at least three years. Our school draws more than 60 per
cent of its students from the Ashfield side of Parramatta Road and the Five Dock side of Wattle St -
turning both roads into 10-lane motorways will literally carve two giant holes through the middle of
our community.
We also do not believe that our concerns about WestConnex have been adequately conveyed in the
EIS. While it acknowledges that we have concerns about the Project and have requested mitigation
measures, it does not convey the breadth of the issues we have raised in meetings with WestConnex
representatives at all satisfactorily. Below we have outlined our concerns for our children's health
and safety and the impact on our community, plus made suggestions to address them.
AIR QUALITY
At the information night at our school attended by WestConnex representatives, we were told the
proposed location for the eastern ventilation stack is "optimum". It feels far from optimum to our
community. The Haberfield P&C is not satisfied by the EIS's suggestion that the increase in emissions
will be negligible, and we are concerned that our children's health will suffer from vehicle emissions
from tens of thousands of cars being dispersed near our school from the pollution stack opposite the
Bunnings site. We request the following action:
* Install an air quality monitoring station at the school or very close by well before the M4 East
tunnel begins operation to take baseline measurements of pollution, including PM2.5 and all
emissions for which there are air quality standards.
* Leave the monitoring station operating after the M4 East tunnel opens to monitor emissions
at the school. We request this data be provided frequently to the school and the P&C and
that action is taken immediately if there is a measurable impact on pollution levels.
* Filter the ventilation stack. If you can spend $15.4 billion on a road to reduce travel times by
just six minutes, you can afford to spend the additional money required to ensure the vast
majority of pollution is not released into this densely-populated neighbourhood.
* Consider relocating the stack to a topographically higher point further west along
Parramatta Road where emissions will be released higher into the atmosphere. The stack
should be away from schools, childcare centres and retirement homes so the most
vulnerable members of the community are not exposed to increased levels of pollution.
* Increase the height of the ventilation stack to reduce the impact of emissions on the local
area and increase the likelihood that emissions will be dispersed more widely.
NOISE AND DUST:
The Haberfield P&C is concerned that our children's learning and play at school will be disrupted by
noise generated during construction by heavy machinery and vehicles operating close to the school.
We note that the school site (NCA19 in the Noise and Vibration report) is expected to have "high
worst-case NML exceedances during the daytime" from construction and demolition work. We
request the following action:
* Conduct a noise assessment at Haberfield Public School before construction begins and
execute noise mitigation measures. This may take the form of double glazing of windows
(and consequent installation of air conditioning) in classrooms. These mitigation measures
must take place before construction begins. We also request compensation for the
additional electricity costs associated with running the air conditioning because windows
cannot be opened.
3
* Set up a noise monitoring station at Haberfield Public School so levels are monitored during
construction. This data must be made available frequently to the school and the P&C.
* Amend work schedules as required so that students' learning and play is not affected by
noise. This may include regular consultation with the school to ensure noise is reduced
during, for instance, exams, music rehearsals, school assemblies and lunch/recess when
students are outside.
* Immediately reduce noise at the construction sites if the school principal or senior staff
contact authorities to complain of disruption to students and teachers.
* Ensure dust generated by construction activities and vehicle movements is limited and
respond immediately by ceasing construction if notified that children playing outside at
school are affected by dust in the air.
TRAFFIC - DURING CONSTRUCTION AND WHEN TUNNELS ARE OPERATING
The Haberfield P&C is greatly concerned that our children's safety will be put at risk by changed
traffic behaviours as a result of WestConnex during construction and when the tunnels open. For
instance, we understand the pedestrian overpass at the corner of Bland St and Parramatta Rd will
close for a period during construction - this is used by many students and parents to get safely to
and from our school. We note also that the Brescia property at that intersection will be a major
construction site, with heavy vehicles departing the site on to Bland St - a narrow and congested
road at the best of times. Hundreds of heavy vehicles will use this and other intersections used by
our students: for instance, the EIS reports that 80 trucks will use the Wattle St/Parramatta Rd
intersection between 7.30am and 8.30am alone. Rat-running in local streets is likely to increase as
drivers avoid using the tollways - motorists already use the streets of Haberfield and Leichhardt to
avoid using the City West Link. On top of all this, many of the local intersections are expected to
remain at Level F following construction, which is another outcome that leads us to question the
efficiency of the whole WestConnex project.
We request the following action:
Before construction begins
* Take base-level data on traffic volumes on the following Haberfield streets:
o Dalhousie (between Parramatta Rd and Ramsay St), Rogers, Chandos, Bland, Alt,
Walker, and Ramsay (before and after the Haberfield shopping area, and also
between Marion and Sloane Streets).
o On Denman Ave outside Haberfield Public School.
* Take base-level data on traffic volumes on the following Ashfield streets:
o Church, Frederick, Elizabeth, Alt, Julia and Bland Streets
* Monitor the above streets in Haberfield and Ashfield during construction and for a period of
at least 12 months after construction.
* If any streets exceed acceptable increases, take steps to return the streets to
acceptable levels (eg blocking access, speed bumps) and consider pedestrian safety measures (eg
crossing, bridges).
During construction
* For the whole period of the closure of the southern footpath on Parramatta Rd between
Chandos and Bland Sts, have lollipop people in attendance at the Dalhousie St/Ashfield Park
traffic lights to ensure those children who walk to school alone are guided across Parramatta
4
Rd safely. The lollipop people must be present at these lights for both the morning &
afternoon 'school zone' times.
* For the whole period that the Bland St overpass is unable to be used, have lollipop people be
present at the Parramatta Rd/Bland St traffic lights (both to cross Bland from the east and to
cross Parramatta Rd) for the morning & afternoon 'school zone' times.
* Install traffic lights at the corner of Alt St and Parramatta Road for at least the construction
phase, to provide a crossing away from Bland St where there will be heavy truck
movements. This may also require the installation of traffic lights at Church St/Alt St, as that
intersection is already busy and difficult to negotiate because of poor sightlines.
* That any truck movements made during morning & afternoon school zone times are made
under the supervision of a 'spotter' (i.e. a person on the ground whose job it is to be the
driver's 'eyes & ears' as visibility from a high cab is often poor), who ensures the safe
passage of the children on the footpaths of and when crossing Bland St, Wattle St and
Parramatta Rd.
* Declare a quarantine zone at an agreed distance around the school to ensure construction
staff's parked vehicles do not restrict parking for parents in the streets near the school
during pick-up and drop-off times.
PEDESTRIAN/CYCLIST INITIATIVES
One of the stated priorities of this project is to "Create opportunities for urban revitalisation,
improved liveability, and public and active transport (walking and cycling) improvements along and
around Parramatta Road". After reading the EIS and hearing the WestConnex representatives at our
school's information night, we see no evidence of such improvements in our community. Indeed,
when raised at our meeting, your representatives seemed surprised that we would request such
improvements! It is a massive missed opportunity not to leave us with better connections for active
transport between Haberfield, Ashfield and Five Dock after dividing us even further with massive
roads and tunnels.
We request the following action:
* Install additional pedestrian/cyclist crossings between Haberfield and Ashfield as a
permanent positive legacy of the Project. We would love to see these be innovative in
design - an overpass nearer to Ashfield Park/Orpington St, for instance, that is exciting to
look at as well as useful for our community. The Alt St crossing suggested above could also
remain. For reference, we look at Parramatta Road in Camperdown where there are many
crossings at intersections that are phased well and do not impede traffic, while allowing
locals to cross easily and safely.
* Similarly, additional crossings should be installed over Wattle St/City West Link, ie at
Waratah St linking to Timbrell Park and/or at Ramsay St.
* The existing Bland St overpass could be improved in design. While we appreciate the lifts,
they regularly break down forcing cyclists, parents with prams and children with scooters to
navigate the steps. Consider building ramps to access the overpass.
SOCIAL IMPACT
This Project is already having a significant and direct social impact on our school community. Many
families have been forced to leave their homes, and some of them will be unable to remain at the
school because the compensation they receive does not allow them to rent or buy in the
neighbourhood in future. This is devastating for them, and the children and adults who have become
their friends through school. Many heritage homes and buildings will be demolished, to be replaced
5
by an ugly and enormous ventilation stack and widened roads. These will be a constant reminder of
the loss of community wrought by this Project. We do not feel the EIS adequately acknowledges or
compensates us for this impact.
We request the following action:
* Provide a fund for the Ashfield and Haberfield community (perhaps through Ashfield
Council) to fund positive community initiatives for the next 10 years.
* Provide a fund for Haberfield Public School to address the unexpected consequences of the
construction and the subsequent road.
* Set a specific quota for new trees and other planting in the community, particularly in the
most affected areas (Parramatta Road at and beyond the tunnel exit, Walker Ave around the
stack and other tunnel buildings, City West link at and beyond the tunnel exit).
* Require that property used for construction sites is turned into local parks or for other
community benefit following the tunnels' opening, rather than being used for high-rise
housing.
MISCELLANEOUS
* We request and expect that the Haberfield P&C and/or Haberfield Public School Principal
will hold a seat on the community consultative committee that will be established as part of
this Project.
* We note the lack of materials produced in languages other than English as part of the
`community consultation' - we have a large Mandarin-speaking community who were
unable to read the EIS because it was not provided in other languages. In a multicultural city
such as Sydney, this is extremely poor and discriminatory practice.
* We protest that the EIS submission period was too short to allow all affected parties to read
and consider the 5000-page EIS and consult adequately. Further, we believe the EIS was
structured in a way that made it extremely difficult to navigate and understand.
In closing, we would like to thank the WestConnex representatives who attended our school
information night on October 12. Their presentation and responses to our questions provided us all
with additional information about the Project.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this submission. We look forward to seeing all of our
concerns addressed in your response.

This is to express my strong objection to the proposed Westconnex M4 East motorway EIS (SSI 6307). I also wish to register my objection to the government awarding tenders for the project BEFORE a full business has been publicly released and before the EIS has been published and THE PUBLIC HAS EXERCISED ITS RIGHT OF PARTICIPATION. So looking to spend our money on something the public have not been given a fair chance to have a say on. 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. In particular I draw attention to the EIS's failure to: 1. Factor in the traffic modelling the VERY large increase in apartment construction - therefore of population - that has been promoted by the West Connex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal. 2. Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives. 3. Publicly publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' funds. 4. Properly describe the long term impacts to health of associated air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed o facilitate. 5. Consider more suitable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions. Decades long experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are counterproductive - adding even more congestion to areas that are already at breaking point. Why not simply fix the rail system and make accessible to all with installing lifts and increase the frequency of services where it is needed most no doubt the west - this could be an idea worth spending time and funds on! would imagine the impact of a super road creating further carbon emission would not be acceptable to anyone. who within the government will benefit because the public certainly wont.

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal because is will only further encourage more vehicle movements in already conjested areas.
With urban consolidation and the building of more and more apartment blocks along the Parramatta Road corridor, what is needed is a much more efficient public transport system. As population in the inner city areas increases, the public transport is becoming more and more crowded. If the government wishes to pursue 'urban consolidation', please save the money allocated to the WestConnex and allocate it to a more efficient, more frequent and cost efficient system of public transport, rather than encouraging people to use their private cars to access the city, because of ongoing frustrations with the current public transport system.

Reducing the number of vehicle movements, which the West Connex will encourage, will also assist in reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

We lived through the planning and construction of the current City West Link and wish to remind the government, that very soon, that roadway became a 'carpark' during peak hours - any alleviation to traffic conjestion was very very short lived, and no doubt, the same will be the case with the proposed WestConnex M4 East. We have not seen any proof that this roadway will eliminate future road conjestion.

I wish to strongly object to the building of the Westconnex.
It will just move traffic jams from one place to another whilst encouraging more people to use their cars. In a very short time, the space will be filled again and the jams bigger than before.
What Sydney needs is more public transport. We live close to Summer Hill station and use trains for 90% of our travel requirements. They are frequent, fast and cheap.
People who live further from the city need to have the same convenience. They would very quickly realise the advantages of leaving the car at home.
I understand that it would not have been possible to get Federal Government assistance from the previous Liberal Government as Tony Abbott stated that they had no responsibility for rail transport, only roads. However, with the recent change of leader, i think the ideology has changed and their support could be used for any sensible scheme.
It is rumoured that there will be no change to your plans as some contracts have already been awarded but I do not think it is permissible to enter into contracts before the public have had a chance to comment so i presume the rumour is untrue and that further studies are possible and appropriate.
I note that Mike Baird has asked motorists to leave their cars at home and use public transport to the city while the current work is under way. Why not make it easy for everyone to do that on a permanent basis?
Please do not build the Westconnex.
Also note that I am not a member of, and do not donate to any political party.
Sincerely
Janet Clarke

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 oppose the WestConnex development. The process lacks transparency and undermines democracy. There is no evidence that more roads reduces traffic in the long term and funnelling vehicles into an already choked CBD is nonsense public policy. Public/Private partnerships have a strong track record... of privatising profits and socialising losses. The Cross City Tunnel and Lane Cove Tunnel are recent, sorry examples. Increased air pollution, damage to water catchments, and destruction of protected habit and parklands will have a negative impact on public health. Forced acquisition of private and commercial properties will cause disruption to individuals and communities. The $15.8 billion price tag, which is bound to blow out, could alternatively be spent on 30 years worth of school infrastructure and maintenance in NSW, or the cost of running every single hospital in Australia for 6 years. The public doesn't need this road and the future will not judge this development kindly

I am deeply troubled that the State Government has ignored the community by signing contracts to build this road before releasing this EIS, the full business case, or obtaining planning approval - this is a reprehensible lack of transparency and proper procedure. Without seeing the business case the community has no way of knowing what other alternatives were considered and what their associated costs were. I am also troubled that the 'consultation' with the community has primarily been done in a way that disempowers the community from feeling like they can influence the outcome.
The Project will have a devastating impact on the Inner West and particularly on our communities of Ashfield and Haberfield. Ashfield is one of the most densely populated communities in Sydney and Haberfield has great historical significance, therefore the decision to proceed is all the more bewildering. As one parent said at a recent WestConnex information night held at our school, we feel Haberfield Public School is at the centre of a "toxic triangle" of pollution stack and portals under
the current WestConnex plans. On top of that, we will have four construction zones within several hundred metres of the school operating for at least three years. Our school draws more than 60 per cent of its students from the Ashfield side of Parramatta Road and the Five Dock side of Wattle St - turning both roads into 10-lane motorways will literally carve two giant holes through the middle of our community.
Below I have outlined our concerns for our children's health and safety and the impact on our community, plus made suggestions to address them.
AIR QUALITY
At the information night at our school attended by WestConnex representatives, we were told the proposed location for the eastern ventilation stack is "optimum". It feels far from optimum to our community. I am not satisfied by the EIS's suggestion that the increase in emissions will be negligible, and I am concerned that our children's health will suffer from vehicle emissions from tens of thousands of cars being dispersed near our school from the pollution stack opposite the Bunnings site. We request the following action:
* Install an air quality monitoring station at the school or very close by well before the M4 East tunnel begins operation to take baseline measurements of pollution, including PM2.5 and all emissions for which there are air quality standards.
* Leave the monitoring station operating after the M4 East tunnel opens to monitor emissions at the school. We request this data be provided frequently to the school and the P&C and that action is taken immediately if there is a measurable impact on pollution levels.
* Filter the ventilation stack. If you can spend $15.4 billion on a road to reduce travel times by just six minutes, you can afford to spend the additional money required to ensure the vast majority of pollution is not released into this densely-populated neighbourhood.
* Consider relocating the stack to a topographically higher point further west along Parramatta Road where emissions will be released higher into the atmosphere. The stack should be away from schools, childcare centres and retirement homes so the most vulnerable members of the community are not exposed to increased levels of pollution.
* Increase the height of the ventilation stack to reduce the impact of emissions on the local area and increase the likelihood that emissions will be dispersed more widely.
NOISE AND DUST:
I am concerned that our children's learning and play at school will be disrupted by noise generated during construction by heavy machinery and vehicles operating close to the school. We note that the school site (NCA19 in the Noise and Vibration report) is expected to have "high worst-case NML exceedances during the daytime" from construction and demolition work. We request the following action:
* Conduct a noise assessment at Haberfield Public School before construction begins and execute noise mitigation measures. This may take the form of double glazing of windows (and consequent installation of air conditioning) in classrooms. These mitigation measures must take place before construction begins. We also request compensation for the additional electricity costs associated with running the air conditioning because windows cannot be opened.
2
* Set up a noise monitoring station at Haberfield Public School so levels are monitored during construction. This data must be made available frequently to the school and the P&C.
* Amend work schedules as required so that students' learning and play is not affected by noise. This may include regular consultation with the school to ensure noise is reduced during, for instance, exams, music rehearsals, school assemblies and lunch/recess when students are outside.
* Immediately reduce noise at the construction sites if the school principal or senior staff contact authorities to complain of disruption to students and teachers.
* Ensure dust generated by construction activities and vehicle movements is limited and respond immediately by ceasing construction if notified that children playing outside at school are affected by dust in the air.
TRAFFIC - DURING CONSTRUCTION AND WHEN TUNNELS ARE OPERATING
I am greatly concerned that our children's safety will be put at risk by changed traffic behaviours as a result of WestConnex during construction and when the tunnels open. For instance, I understand the pedestrian overpass at the corner of Bland St and Parramatta Rd will close for a period during construction - this is used by many students and parents to get safely to and from our school. I note also that the Brescia property at that intersection will be a major construction site, with heavy vehicles departing the site on to Bland St - a narrow and congested road at the best of times. Hundreds of heavy vehicles will use this and other intersections used by our students: for instance, the EIS reports that 80 trucks will use the Wattle St/Parramatta Rd intersection between 7.30am and 8.30am alone. Rat-running in local streets is likely to increase as drivers avoid using the tollways - motorists already use the streets of Haberfield and Leichhardt to avoid using the City West Link. On top of all this, many of the local intersections are expected to remain at Level F following construction, which is another outcome that leads us to question the efficiency of the whole WestConnex project.
We request the following action: Before construction begins
* Take base-level data on traffic volumes on the following Haberfield streets:
Dalhousie(betweenParramattaRdandRamsaySt),Rogers,Chandos,Bland,Alt, Walker, and Ramsay (before and after the Haberfield shopping area, and also between Marion and Sloane Streets).
On Denman Ave outside Haberfield PublicSchool.
* Take base-level data on traffic volumes on the following Ashfieldstreets:Church,Frederick,Elizabeth,Alt,JuliaandBlandStreets
* Monitor the above streets in Haberfield and Ashfield during construction and for a period of at least 12 months after construction.
* If any streets exceed acceptable increases, take steps to return the streets to
acceptable levels (eg blocking access, speed bumps) and consider pedestrian safety measures (eg crossing, bridges).
During construction
*
&#65532;&#65532;For the whole period of the closure of the southern footpath on Parramatta Rd between
&#65532;Chandos and Bland Sts, have lollipop people in attendance at the Dalhousie St/Ashfield Park
&#65532;traffic lights to ensure those children who walk to school alone are guided across Parramatta
&#65532;3
PEDESTRIAN/CYCLIST INITIATIVES
One of the stated priorities of this project is to "Create opportunities for urban revitalisation, improved liveability, and public and active transport (walking and cycling) improvements along and around Parramatta Road". After reading the EIS and hearing the WestConnex representatives at our school's information night, I see no evidence of such improvements in our community. It is a massive missed opportunity not to leave us with better connections for active transport between Haberfield, Ashfield and Five Dock after dividing us even further with massive roads and tunnels.
I request the following action:
* Install additional pedestrian/cyclist crossings between Haberfield and Ashfield as a permanent positive legacy of the Project. We would love to see these be innovative in design - an overpass nearer to Ashfield Park/Orpington St, for instance, that is exciting to look at as well as useful for our community. The Alt St crossing suggested above could also remain. For reference, we look at Parramatta Road in Camperdown where there are many crossings at intersections that are phased well and do not impede traffic, while allowing locals to cross easily and safely.
* Similarly, additional crossings should be installed over Wattle St/City West Link, ie at Waratah St linking to Timbrell Park and/or at Ramsay St.
* The existing Bland St overpass could be improved in design. While we appreciate the lifts, they regularly break down forcing cyclists, parents with prams and children with scooters to navigate the steps. Consider building ramps to access the overpass.
SOCIAL IMPACT
This Project is already having a significant and direct social impact on our school community. Many families have been forced to leave their homes, and some of them will be unable to remain at the school because the compensation they receive does not allow them to rent or buy in the neighbourhood in future. This is devastating for them, and the children and adults who have become their friends through school. Many heritage homes and buildings will be demolished, to be replaced
Rd safely. The lollipop people must be present at these lights for both the morning &
&#65532;afternoon 'school zone' times.
&#65532;For the whole period that the Bland St overpass is unable to be used, have lollipop people be
&#65532;present at the Parramatta Rd/Bland St traffic lights (both to cross Bland from the east and to
&#65532;cross Parramatta Rd) for the morning & afternoon 'school zone' times.
&#65532;* Install traffic lights at the corner of Alt St and Parramatta Road for at least the construction phase, to provide a crossing away from Bland St where there will be heavy truck movements. This may also require the installation of traffic lights at Church St/Alt St, as that intersection is already busy and difficult to negotiate because of poor sightlines.
&#65532;That any truck movements made during morning & afternoon school zone times are made
&#65532;under the supervision of a 'spotter' (i.e. a person on the ground whose job it is to be the
&#65532;driver's 'eyes & ears' as visibility from a high cab is often poor), who ensures the safe
&#65532;passage of the children on the footpaths of and when crossing Bland St, Wattle St and
&#65532;Parramatta Rd.
&#65532;Declare a quarantine zone at an agreed distance around the school to ensure construction
&#65532;staff's parked vehicles do not restrict parking for parents in the streets near the school
&#65532;during pick-up and drop-off times.
&#65532;4
by an ugly and enormous ventilation stack and widened roads. These will be a constant reminder of the loss of community wrought by this Project. I do not feel the EIS adequately acknowledges or compensates us for this impact.
We request the following action:
* Provide a fund for the Ashfield and Haberfield community (perhaps through Ashfield Council) to fund positive community initiatives for the next 10 years.
* Provide a fund for Haberfield Public School to address the unexpected consequences of the construction and the subsequent road.
* Set a specific quota for new trees and other planting in the community, particularly in the most affected areas (Parramatta Road at and beyond the tunnel exit, Walker Ave around the stack and other tunnel buildings, City West link at and beyond the tunnel exit).
MISCELLANEOUS
* I request and expect that the Haberfield P&C and/or Haberfield Public School Principal will hold a seat on the community consultative committee that will be established as part of this Project.
* I note the lack of materials produced in languages other than English as part of the `community consultation' - we have a large Mandarin-speaking community who were unable to read the EIS because it was not provided in other languages. In a multicultural city such as Sydney, this is extremely poor and discriminatory practice.
* I protest that the EIS submission period was too short to allow all affected parties to read and consider the 5000-page EIS and consult adequately. Further, I believe the EIS was structured in a way that made it extremely difficult to navigate and understand.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this submission.
Yours sincerely
Leanne Eastway