WestConnex - M4 East Upgrade

Director, Major Project Assessments
Department of Planning
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

Submission: WestConnex M4 East EIS (SSI 6307)
I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. If build 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 the full business case has been publically released and before the EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation.

The IES process is supposed to allow for genuine public input and to result, potential, 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 IES 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 alternative transport solutions.

In particular, I draw attention to the IES'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.

Bill Buckle.

30/10/2015

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.

On behalf of all 31 owners in the block locating at 167-173 Parramatta Rd, North Stratafield (30 residential units and 1 commercial Suite) we are strongly against the current planning in regards to the M4 extension. The proposed new extended M4 bridge will have the following impacts to all the owners and residents in the building:

Impacts
- Visual impact of the new bridge ramp block of concrete, adjacent to the apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd. There should be another option (eg: an underground ramp?)
Light overshadowing during the day with the additional bridge ramp
- Possible increase of lighting during the night with the additional bridge ramp lighting requirements
- Pollutants (such as coarse and fine particles) will be of higher quantity, as all vehicles pollutants will much more easily travel downwards from the bridge, while currently pollutants must travel upwards, resulting in a reduced quantity and severity
- Apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd devaluation impact, due to the huge visual impact, additional pollution etc.
- What is the government going to do? How is it going to compensate the devaluation?
- Noise impacts and distress during the > 2 years of work both during day, nights and Saturdays. Most days some owners required to work from home and going to be constantly affected by the noise produced by the workers. What is the government going to do? How is it going to compensate?
- Currently there are no tolls when accessing the M4. Westconnex work will bring additional tolls that currently we do not have to pay for

Additional Development Proposals
- Proposing that the current entrance of M4, to be re-purposed as second exclusive entrance/exit. It should be reserved for the apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd from
- Concord Road to the Young St side adjacent to our building
- Proposing an additional footpath attached/parallel to the wider M4 to help crossing the railway line and head towards George St from Queen St.

Questions
- Currently there are two ways to access the M4 from our apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd, one is the entrance in Concord Rd, next to our apartment block, the second one is in Parramatta Rd just after the Fraser motorbike shop. At a glance it does not seem there will be an easy way to access the new M4. When exiting from our complex from Young St, we cannot turn into Parramatta Rd west bound, where the new entrance is supposed to be. If we have to turn right into Leicester Ave, we will have to cross 3 lanes immediately out of Young St, adjacent to the traffic light (that is not really practical nor it is safe). What are the viable options?

Conclusions
- There seems to be no positive aspects regarding the Westconnex project in regards to our apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd and our point of view
- Huge visual impact with the additional bridge ramp
- Huge reduction of light during the day with the additional bridge ramp
- Possible significant increase of lighting during the night with the additional bridge ramp
- Significant increase of noise
- Significant devaluation of the apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd
- Increase in airborne pollution, floating downwards from the new bridge ramp, much taller than the current street level ramp
Vehicles around the complex will most likely increase due to the massive road entrance/exit
- Additional difficulties getting in and out our building, and onto the M4. There seems to be no viable option for our complex
Distress introduced with > 2 years of constant day and possible night noise while the work is in progress, then ongoing heightened noise pollution from traffic following

Thank you so much for your time and we look forwarding hearing from you.

On behalf of all 31 owners in the block locating at 167-173 Parramatta Rd, North Stratafield (30 residential units and 1 commercial Suite) we are strongly against the current planning in regards to the M4 extension. The proposed new extended M4 bridge will have the following impacts to all the owners and residents in the building:

Impacts
- Visual impact of the new bridge ramp block of concrete, adjacent to the apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd. There should be another option (eg: an underground ramp?)
Light overshadowing during the day with the additional bridge ramp
- Possible increase of lighting during the night with the additional bridge ramp lighting requirements
- Pollutants (such as coarse and fine particles) will be of higher quantity, as all vehicles pollutants will much more easily travel downwards from the bridge, while currently pollutants must travel upwards, resulting in a reduced quantity and severity
- Apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd devaluation impact, due to the huge visual impact, additional pollution etc.
- What is the government going to do? How is it going to compensate the devaluation?
- Noise impacts and distress during the > 2 years of work both during day, nights and Saturdays. Most days some owners required to work from home and going to be constantly affected by the noise produced by the workers. What is the government going to do? How is it going to compensate?
- Currently there are no tolls when accessing the M4. Westconnex work will bring additional tolls that currently we do not have to pay for

Additional Development Proposals
- Proposing that the current entrance of M4, to be re-purposed as second exclusive entrance/exit. It should be reserved for the apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd from
- Concord Road to the Young St side adjacent to our building
- Proposing an additional footpath attached/parallel to the wider M4 to help crossing the railway line and head towards George St from Queen St.

Questions
- Currently there are two ways to access the M4 from our apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd, one is the entrance in Concord Rd, next to our apartment block, the second one is in Parramatta Rd just after the Fraser motorbike shop. At a glance it does not seem there will be an easy way to access the new M4. When exiting from our complex from Young St, we cannot turn into Parramatta Rd west bound, where the new entrance is supposed to be. If we have to turn right into Leicester Ave, we will have to cross 3 lanes immediately out of Young St, adjacent to the traffic light (that is not really practical nor it is safe). What are the viable options?

Conclusions
- There seems to be no positive aspects regarding the Westconnex project in regards to our apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd and our point of view
- Huge visual impact with the additional bridge ramp
- Huge reduction of light during the day with the additional bridge ramp
- Possible significant increase of lighting during the night with the additional bridge ramp
- Significant increase of noise
- Significant devaluation of the apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd
- Increase in airborne pollution, floating downwards from the new bridge ramp, much taller than the current street level ramp
Vehicles around the complex will most likely increase due to the massive road entrance/exit
- Additional difficulties getting in and out our building, and onto the M4. There seems to be no viable option for our complex
Distress introduced with > 2 years of constant day and possible night noise while the work is in progress, then ongoing heightened noise pollution from traffic following

Thank you so much for your time and we look forwarding hearing from you.

I am outraged and offended at the NSW Liberals ignoring local communities and pushing ahead for a $15B tunnel that no-one wants - WITHOUT an environment impact statement - and letting contracts before the project is approved - and believe this is a sign of corruption in that somebody must be stealing public funds in order to get this approved.

Please check the decision makers - and their secret overseas tax haven bank accounts or hidden trust funds - as I believe this process stinks of corruption and should be stopped before it starts.

I strongly support WestConnex M4.

I support the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal 100%.

WestConnex M4 is a fantastic solution to Sydney's current transport choas.

I have lived in the Concord, Burwood and Strathfield areas my whole life and witnessed Parramatta Road and surrounding areas deteriorate to a third world standard.

Once the underground motorway, bridges and associated infrastructure are built, dedicated bus lanes, light rail and bike lanes can be provided for along Parramatta Road.

Simple logic would tell you that the underground motorway must be built first before providing for public transport options.

You must put the horse before the cart, not the cart before the horse!

As far as I am concerned M4 East ticks all the boxes as a major part of Sydney's long term transport solution.

The project should have been built 30 years ago!

Never the less, as they say, better late than never!

Kind regards

Anthony McKinley


PS I do not own a private vehicle.

I am gravely concerned by the actions of engaging a contractor prior to completion of community consultation. I'm sure this will lead to important decisions being driven by the almighty dollar factor. Opportunities for improvements in design quality will probably be discarded because of the expense. Please abandon the project immediately and start putting that sort of money towards public transport projects instead.

I wish to object to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.
I believe this to be a damaging project to the people of Sydney, wasteful of taxpayers money, and completely out of date with modern thinking on life in cities.
Social, environmental and economic impacts will be terrible for Sydney.
Lets have some honesty and clarity here about the fiasco that has been proposed.
Where is the business case for this mistake?
Why has it not been released?
I propose we close it down, and have a 21st Century look at Sydney and what makes it good to live in.

I object to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.

I strongly object to the government awarding tenders for the project BEFORE a full business case has been made public and before the EIS has been published and the public has made submissions.

How is this suppose to allow for GENUINE public input? This is a mockery of our rights!

I strongly object to billions of dollars of taxpayers' funds claiming a huge portion of the state transport budget for many years to come on this proposal.

What about looking at public transport and freight rail alternatives? These options would be a better solution to congestion on our roads and have lower greenhouse gas emissions into the future.

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.

We are writing this submission on behalf of our father, Salvatore Mannino, of 24 Walker Ave Haberfield, as his English is very limited.

A request for the acquisition of his property is submitted as follows:-
Dad is an elderly man who suffers from ongoing health issues that are not likely to get any better. Apart from pneumonia he has various eye and vascular conditions. He feels that living in close proximity to an unfiltered exhaust stack, could increase his susceptibility to not only respiratory related illnesses, but infections in his legs due to the dust which will be created during the construction phase. He has been prescribed gentle walking to manage these issues and is concerned that with increased pollution and traffic in his immediate area, a stroll around the block will no longer be safe, possible, or enjoyable. His GP has a full history of his ongoing issues and these can be provided upon request.
Dad has been retired for quite some time and enjoys growing fruits and vegetables in his backyard. This activity is his main source of enjoyment and stress relief. The unfiltered exhaust stack, and widening of Wattle Street, and the increase in pollution in his immediate area is of great concern. He is very hesitant about how safe it will be for he and his family to continue consuming the produce from his garden. Without this activity to enjoy, we fear his purpose and quality of life will decrease significantly.

Dad migrated from Italy as a teen. He has worked hard his entire life to pay off the only home he has ever lived in. He is concerned about the possible loss of property value which is likely to ensue once the development begins. Given that he is already an elderly man and the construction period is likely to take anything between 3-8 years, he fears that buyers would think twice about purchasing a property directly next to an unfiltered exhaust stack, a tunnel running below it, and a six-lane highway beyond the back fence. He is saddened that the construction of WestConnex will more than likely diminish this nest egg at a time in his life that he will need it most - nursing homes and/or retirement villages are not cheap.
Dad is concerned about the noise levels both during and after construction, particularly if tunnelling equipment along Wattle Street is expected to run 24/7. If walls are to be built around his property to block this noise, both along Wattle St and Walker Ave, will these walls shade his property? He is concerned the decreased sunlight will produce dampness throughout the home which could further reek havoc on his health.
What about access to Walker Ave during and after construction. What will be done to ensure safe entry/exit for residents? Allum Street will be closed for good. Will the Parramatta Rd/Walker Avenue entry be closed during and/or after construction? What will be done to ensure commuters don't use Walker Ave as a rat-run through Haberfield to avoid the tunnel and its toll?

The concern is that there will be trucks and tunnel work around the clock. We have been advised that there will be 120 construction workers at peak shift each day at the site next to dad. Do you consider 120 heavy vehicles and 70 light construction vehicles per day at this site reasonable and acceptable for anyone living in the area. Oh the noise!! The dust!!

If the project is approved, and he must stay, we request the works be restricted to business hours of 8am-5pm - Monday to Friday only.

What will happen with the land beside his home after construction is complete. Will you be giving any guarantee that it will not be used for high rise unit blocks? Anything other than creating parkland/public space will mean more traffic and congestion in a supposedly 'quiet' street.

We note that the location for the exhaust stack was chosen to service both Stage 1 and Stage 3 tunnels. Has stage 3 been approved? Is there any funding for stage 3?
The concerns are that the exhaust stack will not only be unfiltered, but an eyesore to surrounding properties. Our understanding is that other longer tunnels exist without exhaust stacks at all - why can this technology not be used for WestConnex? If the stack must remain, filter it!!. A filtered stack which visually blends into the environment would be preferable.
Thank you for considering the acquisition of 24 Walker Ave, Haberfield.

Regards
Sebastian & Teresa Mannino

1. It is going to cost over $15 billion dollars just for the first stage of construction. Given that at the same time our premier is advocating an increase in the GST so that NSW can still afford to pay for health care and education, it makes you wonder why, with a potential travel time saving of only 6 minutes along the stretch of the M4, the government is making this project such a priority.
2.No business case has been put forward by the state government
3. Extra pollution as the road will encourage more people to drive instead of using public transport.
4. The tunnel will include no filtered air columns.
5. Extra traffic - roads create traffic.

We live in Ashfield and have two young children. I am concerned about the following things in regard to Westconnex construction:
Air Quality:
The unfiltered ventilation stack is located within 400m of our house. 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.

- Pedestrian and Cycleways:
Install additional pedestrian/cyclist crossings between Haberfield and Ashfield as a permanent positive legacy of the Project.

- Public Transport:
Why is public transport, like light rail, not incorporated into the overall plan? Surely this is extremely short sighted? We can't simply look to post WW2 car centric solutions with the projected increase in Sydney's population. Other cities around the world are investing in public transport and reducing the amount of road links.

- Traffic:
We drive along Bland street every day to cross into Parramatta Rd to take out children to school and go to work. There is very limited access to Parramatta Road from this pocket of Ashfield and any closures or detours will block up the traffic even further. An alternative is to:

Ã,Â* 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.

Traffic would need to be able to turn right from Alt street into Parramatta Rd, this would recquire the temporary removal of the island in the middle of the road - currently you can only turn left from Alt St into Parramatta Rd.

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.

As a long term resident, our community would appreciate you address the concerns we have. We are not above understanding that the tunnel will bring benefits to our suburb and help alleviate congestion, this is not a bad thing, but please try to understand our concerns, as I'm sure you would if this tunnel was being built in your own back yard.

I OBJECT TO IT.

I wish to express my strong objection to the Westconnex M4
motorway proposal.In no way will it ease the traffic congestion
on inner city roads- in fact, it will generate additional traffic.
To know the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses
will be necessary to achieve this mess, is beyond belief. It is
also wrong for the Government to award tenders before a
business case has been released, and the public have been
allowed to participate.More discussion is essential, before yet
another disastrous error of judgement is made that will
affect thousands of people.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.
More motorways only generate more traffic, which global developments and studies have proven. Also, more traffic means more pollution and the air in the city of Sydney is already not the best.
The only viable alternative is investment in public transport.

I object to the WestConnex development.

Yours sincerely,

Yvonne Seifermann

I am concerned that the retention of the current eastbound exit of the surface M4 directly onto Parramatta Road will only serve to channel drivers wishing to avoid the M4 East Tunnel toll back onto Parramatta Road, which will inevitably cause continuing congestion and compromise the planned urban renewal along the Parramatta Road corridor. I believe that the eastbound surface M4 should, once construction of the M4 East Tunnel is complete, be demolished from Parramatta Road back at least to the eastbound Concord Road exit.

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 make the following submission to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) exhibition for the Wesconnex M4 East Tunnel Project (Project) (SSI 6307):
I am opposed to the construction of the M4 East Tunnel and do not believe that spending $15.4 billion to achieve a marginal improvement to travel time is justified. I am angry that the Government has ignored the community by signing contracts to build this project before releasing this EIS, completing and releasing the full business case, or obtaining planning approval. I am appalled that the 'consultation' with community has resulted in a community left feeling disempowered and unable to influence the outcome. Many residents have become disengaged in the process and although they are opposed to the project, will not submit a response to the EIS because they believe it won't make any difference.
Without access to the business case the community can't assess which other alternatives were considered and what their associated costs were. My conclusion is that the business case does not make a good case for the selected project design, otherwise the tunnel proponents would be using it in their marketing. It makes me mistrustful of our government and fearful for what will be pushed through next without proper process.
The Project will have a devastating impact on the communities of Ashfield and Haberfield and indeed on the Inner West as a whole. Ashfield is one of the most densely populated communities in Sydney. Haberfield holds great historical significance. The decision to proceed raises many questions; it does not make sense. This Project will irreversibly destroy the heritage values of Haberfield and hack two giant holes through the middle of our community. With so much rhetoric from our politicians around building "liveable cities for the future" it makes no sense to destroy one of the most "liveable" parts of metropolitan Sydney; Haberfield.
I want the following addressed:
Public Transport should be a part of the plan
* Light rail along Parramatta Rd from Concord to the CBD. Light rail is preferred to buses due to the amount of emissions inhaled on a bus being significantly higher than on a light rail carriage.
* Express bus service from Haberfield to the city.
* Consideration of a concurrent tunnel for a fast train connection from Strathfield, ultimately to the city.
* The EIS says (4.2.3) that public transport should 'complement the roads network'. It should be the other way around - the roads network should complement the public transport network.
Release the full business case/Justification for the Project
* What data is there to supports the assertion that trucks will be diverted off local roads and into the tunnel. How do we know trucks will choose to use the tunnel?
* Why is the height of buildings a consideration for the tunnel route? The tunnel corridor option specifically includes the ability to develop taller buildings (and thus develop more intensely) Parramatta Rd. This should not be relevant to the Project.
* The EIS says (4.2.3) that 'there are no feasible strategic transport alternatives' but only 4 other alternatives provided. There is no suggestion of what other alternatives might have been considered or their associated costs. There is strong evidence that if public transport were provided for the non-commercial traffic on Parramatta road, then the road would be capable of meeting the commercial traffic needs without the new tunnels. This point has not been addressed by the EIS.
* Public transport should be included in the development of the Project. The EIS dismisses a four lane tunnel on the basis of the bottle neck it would cause onto Parramatta Rd and City West Link, however, there should have been consideration to turning that fourth lane into a train, light rail, or bus lane.
Wait for Stage 3
* Given the EIS itself shows minimal improvements to traffic time from Homebush to the city/airport on the basis of this Stage 2 of the overall Westconnex project and most of the anticipated improvements depend on Stage 3 of the Project, work on Stage 2 should be dependent on approval being given for Stage 3. If Stage 3 either fails to get approval or funding, even the EIS says there will be minimal improvement - it is reckless to spend $15 billion on minimal improvement for one route and worsening of traffic in effected areas such as Taverners Hill. It is clear from the EIS there will be devastating effects on the traffic flows on Parramatta Rd and City West Links, the roads that feed into them, and the roads they feed into, for decades to come. If Stage 3 is altered in a material way it may result in additional cost and unnecessary impact on the area.
Noise Abatement
* Install noise abatement infrastructure in Haberfield Public School (eg double glazing, air circulation measures) prior to the start of construction.
* Build noise walls for properties in Ashfield and Haberfield next to the Parramatta and City West Link interchanges, during and after construction.
* Set up a noise monitoring station at Haberfield Public School (HPS) and require further preventative measures to be taken if the noise varies above an acceptable level.
Pollution Reduction and Monitoring
* Increase the height of the stacks to reduce impact of emissions on local area and increase likelihood that emissions will be dispersed more widely.
* Filter the smoke stack and relocate away from schools, childcare centres, and retirement homes.
* Monitor emissions at Haberfield Public School, Dobroyd Public School, and the Infants Home before, during and after the project.
* Note that the EIS identifies (4.4.5) a disadvantage with the interchange at Parramatta Rd is that 'there would be issues with vehicles queuing back into the tunnel during the morning peak' there must be monitoring of the emission levels outside the portals on:
o Parramatta Road between Liverpool St and Tebbutt St where Parramatta Rd reduces to two lanes.
o City West Link at Timbrell Drive/Mortley Ave.
* Assumed improvements in vehicle emissions is integral to the modelling on pollution around the stack due to improvements in new car technology, yet the bulk of the emissions are recognised to come from trucks. The modelling for this should be published for critical analysis by the community.
* There is no parallel modelling of emission levels for the scenario where public transport options are put in place instead of Westconnex. Without modelling this scenario the community is being deprived of critical details with which to judge the project's suitability for Sydney. The lack of this modelling also indicates a bias towards building roads over public transport which is detrimental to the health of Sydney-siders. Active transport increases the health of those who participate in it as well as those who don't yet still benefit from the reduction in cars on the road. There should be an objective approach that treats all transport options and seeks the optimal combination of transport methods. There is no evidence of an objective approach to transport options in designing this project.
Traffic Management
* Reduction in local traffic, monitoring of rat runs, and requirements for amelioration if not acceptable
o Take base-level data on traffic volumes on the following Haberfield streets:
&#61607; Dalhousie (between Parramatta Rd and Ramsay St), Rogers, Chandos, Bland, Alt, Walker, Ramsay (before and after the Haberfield shopping area, and also between Marion and Sloane Streets).
&#61607; On Denman Ave outside HPS, on Dalhousie St outside St Joan of Arc Catholic School.
&#61607; If the Waratah St right turn remains, then also on Waratah St outside Dobroyd Point Public School.
o Take base-level data on traffic volumes on the following Ashfield streets:
&#61607; Church, Frederick, Elizabeth
o Monitor the above streets in Haberfield and Ashfield during construction and for a period of at least 12 months after construction.
o If any streets exceed acceptable increases, require steps to be taken to return the streets to acceptable levels (eg closing roads, speed bumps, supervised crossings).
* Restrict access to Haberfield to deter rat running
o Remove the right turn into Waratah St Haberfield. Haberfield/Dobroyd Point residents can access their homes via Parramatta Rd at Dalhousie, O'Connor, and Sloane Streets and St Davids and Haberfield Roads. Including a right turn into Waratah would encourage rat runs through Haberfield and significantly increase traffic outside Dobroyd Point Public school.
* Improve access for local traffic
o Provide a way for the residents of Martin St East and Wattle St (between Ramsay and Martin Streets) to access the local community (possibly by opening the end of Martin St East onto Ramsay St for exiting traffic).
o Specifically consider whether any additional right turn access is required into Dalhousie St from Parramatta Rd for west-bound traffic along Parramatta Rd.
* The following flaws are evident in the traffic modelling:
o It is based on the expectation that public transport and active transport (cycling/walking) will improve but the Project does not fund or include any work in this regard.
o The modelling does not include specific provision for the development recently announced for Parramatta Road.
o The modelling does not address the problems that have occurred on similar projects where the use of the tunnel has not been what was projected, possibly due to the cost of the tolls.
The EIS itself accepts that traffic on some sections of Parramatta Road and also local feeder roads will be higher than if Westconnex is not built. This is unacceptable for a $15 billion dollar project that will deliver cars and trucks into a traffic jam at the end of the tunnel.
Many leading academics agree that building new roads just creates more traffic, thus filling the new roads to capacity and slowing traffic to pre-development levels.
Haberfield Connection to Ashfield and Five Dock
* There should be improved connectivity between Haberfield and Ashfield across Parramatta Road. Specifically:
o There should be a pedestrian and cycle bridge across Parramatta Road to link Ashfield Park to Haberfield (at Dalhousie St). This would provide a safer crossing for the many children from Ashfield who attend school and day care in Haberfield. It would also decrease the need for a road level pedestrian crossing at Dalhousie St which would be the first set of traffic lights for traffic exiting the tunnel and a major congestion point on the part of Parramatta Road and high risk of red-light running.
o There should be a pedestrian bridge further along Parramatta Rd to remove the need for pedestrian crossings at Liverpool Rd and Sloane St which will similarly congest traffic.
* There should be improved connectivity between Haberfield and Five Dock across Wattle St to enable children to safely cross as there are many children from Five Dock who attend school and child care in Haberfield.
o A pedestrian and cycle bridge across Wattle/City West Link at Waratah St linking to Timbrell Park
o A pedestrian and cycle bridge across Wattle St at Ramsay St given that Ramsay St is proposed to be three stage crossing and Wattle St will be 80 metres wide.
Investment in the local community
* Return acquired properties not required after construction to Ashfield Council for community use and public open space. Do not sell off these areas for development (and therefore capitalise on the loss to the original homeowners).
o For example, the space between Wolesley St and Northcote Ave would serve well as green space to minimise the impact of the stacks and widened roads. A pedestrian/cycle overpass could be integrated across Wattle st. Community could be involved in designing/planning for the space. Projects of this kind will help to bring the community back together and go some way towards addressing the grief associated with the destruction caused by Westconnex.
* Set specific objectives for employment of locals.
* Set a specific quota for new trees and other planting in the community, particularly on the most affected areas (Parramatta Road at and beyond the tunnel exit, Walker Ave around the stack and other tunnel buildings, Northcote Ave construction site, City West link at and beyond the tunnel exit). These quotas should be approved by local councils.
* Provide a fund for the Ashfield and Haberfield community (perhaps through Council as grants) to address the unexpected consequences of this road. Projects from the fund should be determined by the local community.
Improvements to 'Active transport' options (for cyclists, pedestrians)
* The Project should consider web-style pedestrian and cycle bridges to enable diagonal crossing and improve active transport options. The goal of the Project was stated to maintain status quo for pedestrian and cycle access. This is unacceptable. Where major investment is made in roads, active transport options must be raised to the same (at a minimum) increased level of usability. Pedestrian and cycle transport infrastructure cost is barely perceptible in a budget of this size, yet the proven benefits are enormous in terms of health, safety, community engagement, community cohesiveness, etc.
* There should be a pedestrian bridge over Parramatta Rd as stated above.
* There should be improved connectivity across Wattle St.
Heritage
* This Project intends to destroy many heritage houses, destroy items of historical significance and chop up this historic area and community with a motorway, while I am unable (rightly) to build a garage beside my house because I live in a heritage area. The EIS itself accepts this permanent loss of our history and I fiercely object to this project destroying heritage in this way.
Compensation for home owners facing compulsory acquisition or those nearby
* Require generous compensation to home owners whose homes are being compulsorily acquired to put them in the position of being able to buy back into the area at a comparable level. Home owners in the position are across the board reporting heavy handed tactics, low ball offers, delay tactics. The Act states that where there is disagreement between valuers, the decision should err on the side of the home owner. The RMS has failed to do this, instead they have hidden behind low valuations and failed to make decisions that would resolve matters fairly and efficiently.
* Offer voluntary acquisitions and WDA-funded dilapidation reports for those properties near construction sites in Northcote, Wolseley, Wattle, Walker, Ramsay, Chandos, and Loftus Streets.
Compensation for renters forced out of their community
* Require compensation to households who have been forced to move out of the community, change their childrens' schools and childcare due to acquisition of the properties they were renting, and the subsequent lack of affordable comparable rental properties, as a direct result of the Westconnex project. These families should be subsidised to rent in this community, at least until their children complete their schooling. Their moving and associated costs should be covered by Westconnex.
Local parking
* The parking allowed for on the construction sites for the contractors does not provide parking for all contractors and there will be a significant number of additional vehicles parking on local roads. I submit that the Project should be required to monitor parking issues along the area of construction, particularly outside Haberfield Public School and Dobroyd Public School.
This project will not solve Sydney's traffic problems and NSW taxpayer's money is better spent investing in a system that uses Public Transport as its main component and roads as complementary infrastructure. The world's most effective and desirable cities are building less roads and their planners are taking healthier and more progressive decisions.
Anticipating the challenges for Sydney as it grows requires innovating thinking, people centred thinking, not road-biased planning. Please consider my concerns and address them in your response to the community's submissions to the EIS.

To who this may concern,

following the last submission, the M4 projects have been spamming my mailbox with advertisement of the new project going ahead.

i would like to point out that (a) alot of the residents in the neighbourhood are against the project (b) this is a private property and they should have no rights to do surveyance of my household before this project, and if any damages happen, they are liable for the claims without surveyance(c) the air quality, traffick & noise pollution and affect on property infrasturctures are major reason why this project should not go ahead as it is detrimental to the health and lifestyle of local residents. This may not be apparent in the short term, but over the long term this will be too late to rectify (d) why is this project even redirected to croydon from parramatta? because the local residents there obviously complained for the above reasons. So why is the problem being moved to the croydon area? (e) if this project is to go ahead, i expect full compensation at fair market value for all the damages and a lump sum compensation for the incovenience caused.