WestConnex - M4 East Upgrade

Hello,
This is a personal submission.

The strategic justification for the project indicates provision for "another one million people calling Sydney home over the next ten years". Given the known growth in vehicle use beyond ten years, how does WestConnex represent value for money when the capacity of the road network exceeds demand?
Has the benefit cost evaluation for WestConnex considered the project over 30 years and if so, how are transport and travel time benefits calculated over the 20-30 year period?

Will there be the opportunity to implement differential tolling on Parramatta Road to realise the significant improvements to local amenity by reducing through traffic on surface roads and allowing enhanced local north−south connectivity?

Is WestConnex an urban renewal project? What commitments have been placed on the transport infrastructure to facilitate urban renewal outcomes? Will there be incentives or penalties for the toll operator associated with successful urban renewal outcomes?

The EIS does not appear to define "nirvana". Will this benchmark be achieved for the urban renewal areas along Parramatta Road?

Of the 4,120 (or more) full time jobs per average year of construction that would be generated by the M4 East, how many will be sourced locally? What percentage of apprentices will be employed and trained by the project? 115 apprentices represents less than 3% of the total workforce. What incentives will be implemented to grow the Aboriginal workforce in the infrastructure construction and operation industry?

The ecological survey involved a single diurnal survey of the study area by two ecologists on 12 February 2014, plus two nocturnal surveys on 27 February 2014 and 19 May 2014. This appears to be supported by two "brief surveys". The application of a robust ecological methodology is unclear.
Could you please quantify the loss in area, type, and connectivity of vegetation that is located within private gardens? Given the type of fauna described for the area, these elements of biodiversity may well be critical to the success of local populations. Additionally, I was unable to find a discussion about loss of street trees in the EIS documentation. What is the number, type, condition, and density (connectivity) of street trees impacted by the project?
What impact on the likelihood of impact on threatened biota in the study area would this evaluation have?

In accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Practice Note - Guidelines for Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment (2013) (EIAG), what route alignment decisions were adjusted so that the project could avoid and minimise impacts on landscape character and visual amenity? The Technical Paper appears to be focused on mitigating impacts of the preferred proposal. It is unclear if landscape character and visual amenity were considered during the evaluation of alternative proposals.

I wish to express my strong objection to westconnex M4 motorway proposal.! The extra traffic funnelling into heavily conjested middle ringand inner city roads requiring home demolition to make way for widening is outrageous. Govt funding for this will claim extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years. There has been no honest and fully discussed environmental social or economic alternatives. Urban mtorways are counterproductive, they rapidly reach capacity therefore a sustainable public transport option producing lower greenhouse emmissions is a better solution.

I wish to submit a very strong objection to the WestConnex Mr East project that is currently under consideration by EIS.
This project may help to alleviate the traffic congestion being experienced along the Parramatta road, but it is not going to resolve the problem but rather transfer the bottle neck to another location. Namely the exit of the tunnel that is proposed for the city west link. currently all of the traffic that passes along this road on the way to the city is somewhat filtered by that numerous traffic lights located on the Parramatta road, and yet the traffic is a nightmare here during rush hour. When the tunnel is built all of the filtering will be removed and all of the traffic from the tunnel will come pouring out on the West link, making the situation ten times worse that it already is.!
I also strongly object to the fact that tenders have already been awarded by the government, before the EIS submission process has been completed.
What is needed in the inner west is more public transport, not more roads. Decades long global experience has proven that that is the future, while motorways are a thing of the past.

I wish to submit a very strong objection to the WestConnex Mr East project that is currently under consideration by EIS.
This project may help to alleviate the traffic congestion being experienced along the Parramatta road, but it is not going to resolve the problem but rather transfer the bottle neck to another location. Namely the exit of the tunnel that is proposed for the city west link. currently all of the traffic that passes along this road on the way to the city is somewhat filtered by that numerous traffic lights located on the Parramatta road, and yet the traffic is a nightmare here during rush hour. When the tunnel is built all of the filtering will be removed and all of the traffic from the tunnel will come pouring out on the West link, making the situation ten times worse that it already is.!
I also strongly object to the fact that tenders have already been awarded by the government, before the EIS submission process has been completed.
What is needed in the inner west is more public transport, not more roads. Decades long global experience has proven that that is the future, while motorways are a thing of the past.

I wish to express my strong objections to the westconnex m4 east motorway proposal. 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 widening son the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.
I also wish to object to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released
before the EIS has been published and the public has excercised it's right of participation.
I draw attention to the EUS'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 lowere level of greenhouse gas emissions .
Decades long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are counterproductive . That 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 the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.

I particularly want to register my objection to the government proceeding with the project before a full business case has been publicly released for the whole project of which it is just a part. Much remains obscure about both the financing of the WestConnex project and the level of tolls that will be imposed on it and about its overall social and economic effects. These cannot be assessed on the basis of the EIS, which basically assumes that the project will proceed.

The Government has compounded this glaring failure by awarding contracts and allowing work to commence even before the EIS for the M4E had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation. It is in any case totally inadequate to allow public comment only on the environmental aspects of the project after the crucial social and economic decisions have been effectively decided in the absence of a publicly argued and evidenced business case. 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 the whole WestConnex project 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 why it is preferable to other, alternative public and active transport solutions.

The EIS has failed to:
* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that was promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the project.
* Discuss in detail public transport and freight rail alternatives.
* Properly describe the long term impacts and geograpical distribution of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.
* Deal adequately with the greenhouse gas and climate change consequences of the increasing use of road vehicles

Decades-long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are frequently counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity, while soaking up the funds that are needed for under-resourced public transport - the result will be that congestion will return rapidly to previous levels and we'll still have a poor public transport system. That is why, globally, such tollways have fallen out of favour and are no longer to be regarded as a solution to congestion.

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

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

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

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

In particular I draw attention to the EIS's failure to:
* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that has been promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal.
* Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.
* Publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' funds.
* Properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.
* Consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions.

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

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

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

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

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

In particular I draw attention to the EIS's failure to:
* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that has been promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal.
* Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.
* Publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' funds.
* Properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.
* Consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Selection of the project developer prior to approval of the EIS gives little confidence that any notice will be taken of public submissions.

The continuing refusal to publish the full business case before commitment of significant public monies exposes taxpayers to unknown liabilities.

Consideration of the project in stages, rather than as a whole, means that its ultimate impact cannot be properly evaluated. In particular, currently available details of Stage 3 are extremely vague so that the extremely important issue of adding a significantly greater traffic load to already congested inner western streets cannot be considered. This stepwise strategy may be politically expedient but means that the ultimate success of the Westconnex project will not be known before vast sums of public monies have been committed.

Commuter vehicles currently arrive in the inner west from before 5 a.m. in order to find parking and, in the area in which I live, all available spaces are taken within an hour. How will the additional vehicle load brought by Westconnex be accommodated in the inner suburbs?

Given recent revelations about misrepresentation of vehicle emissions, impacts of the project on air quality should be reconsidered. Too little consideration has been given to the impact of vehicle noise. The increased use of diesel engines which are much noisier than their petrol counterparts has led to a significant increase in traffic noise in our neighbourhood. If this trend continues and there is an increased traffic load, the attractiveness of inner suburban living will be considerably diminished. The inner suburbs have enjoyed an enormous increase in population in recent years and that trend should not be discouraged by inappropriate transport strategies for bringing people from outer areas.

The selection of the route of the current project to maximise the redevelopment potential of the Parramatta Road corridor is not supported by any quantitative data on what that potential might be.

The EIS should not be approved until the issues raised above have been properly addressed.

I strongly object to the WESTCONNEX project. The concept is based on1960's planning principles. Every civilised country has rejected this approach because there is worldwide evidence that these type of projects are total failures.The rest of the world has concluded that improved public transport is the only solution to traffic problems. This project is a complete waste of taxpayer's money because commuting time will not be reduced.

A similar project was put forward by a Swiss State but was defeated by the people's right to call for a referendum. Unfortunately NSW does not have this form of democracy. We only get Governments who lie before elections and then when in power do what they like and undermine our own weak democracy,

Your action of giving out tenders before the completion of community consultation processes is a case in point and utterly disgraceful.

It is also disgraceful that greenhouse gas emissions have not been considered compared to public transport options,

To destroy a significant number of people's homes to save 6 minutes, which will not be achieved anyway is beyond the pale.apart fro that I find your documentation dishonest, biased and failing to address all the issues involved,

Worst of all for a government that prides itself on being open for business, this project is economic madness.Tthe money should be spent on creating jobs in regional centres, not encouraging further congestion in the centre of Sydney.

I object to the EIS and the Project.

Project Alternatives
Mass transit options can carry significantly more passengers than private motor vehicles. Heavy rail can carry up to 36,000 passengers per lane' per hour. a light rail track can carry up to 9,000 passengers per lane per hour. This contrasts with a normal vehicle lane which only carries a maximum of approximately 2400 passengers per lane per hour.
One of the objectives of the project is to 'relieve road congestion' (Executive Summary. Volume 1A). However, insufficient justification has been given that the provision of additional road infrastructure will assist in resolving Sydney's complicated and serious mass transit issues. The M4 itself has been widened over time from four to six lanes (generally): however. this has not reduced congestion. Further widening again is now under construction as part of the WestConnex project. Another example is the Cross City Tunnel which was built with one of its key objectives being to relieve congestion in the Sydney CBD. This has not occurred.
New road infrastructure does not generally resolve congestion issues because it usually just attracts additional vehicles. This additional traffic is due to: Traffic reassignment; Traffic redistribution; Mode shifting; and Induced trips.
Induced traffic growth is essentially people making social and economic exchanges that they did not previously make because congestion levels and longer journey times prohibited them from doing so.
The WestConnex project may in the short term result in reduced travel times. New road infrastructure will reduce congestion in the short term, by creating additional road capacity. However, in the medium to long term, it is highly likely that this additional road capacity will just be taken up by additional vehicles. The level of congestion will therefore rise to its existing levels and there will be no real benefit experienced by motorists who utilise this road. These additional vehicles increase localised environmental impacts, including air pollution and noise impacts. This then impacts on the amenity of residents who live on Parramatta Road and nearby.
The EIS figures (Table 8.2, Section 8.3, Appendix G) demonstrate that in 2031 when comparing the 'do minimum' with the 'do something' scenarios, the project will induce an additional 65,100 vehicles per day on the western screenline (21.6%) increase. 81.800 vehicles on the central screenline (30.9%), 90,500 vehicles on the portal screenline (93.8%) and 90,100 vehicles on the eastern screenline (47.7%).
This project by definition will therefore result in increased environmental impacts associated with these additional vehicles. including congestion, parking real estate, increased noise and increased air pollution. As well as the impacts on the main roads, there will be associated increases in vehicle volumes on the supporting regional and local roads, impacting on residential amenity.
Dobroyd Parade currently has two lanes of traffic in each direction. The new tunnel will introduce another two lanes of traffic. This creates a clear pinch point/congestion point for traffic 'downstream' of the portals.
Dobroyd Parade, north of Timbrel, Drive, Haberfield is also already operating at a Level of Service F in the AM and PM peaks, 'downstream' of the proposed project. Adding additional traffic to and from the new WestConnex tunnel is just going to exacerbate this high level of congestion and a traffic jam, even with the billions of dollars spent on this project.
The project will just move the existing congestion/pinch point from Concord to Haberfield and Leichhardt, will increase congestion on the approaches to the Anzac Bridge and produce queuing back into the eastbound tunnels.
The project will lock us into dependence on motor vehicle transportation with consequent fuel security (Australia has only 3 weeks worth of petrol or diesel in the country at any one time - NRMA report, December 2014), travel time uncertainty (road accidents occur every day and lead to some motorists experiencing long delays) and eventual high cost of fuel (Peak Oil has already occurred in Australian fields).
Consideration to alternatives to the Project
Overall, the EIS has given very little consideration to alternative projects. In particular, there has been very little consideration given to public transport options. Given the ever increasing population growth in Sydney, it is essential that consideration is given to mass transit options, which as outlined above, can carry significantly more passengers than private motor vehicles.
Public transport in Sydney is still very radial, concentrating on the Sydney CBD. A more strategic web of public transport options, which assumes that people will make mode changes, would mean that passengers undertaking more dispersed movements would have feasible public transport options.
If more of Sydney's commuting/passenger journeys were made via public transport, then there would be more road space for the other users such as delivery vehicles and tradies. You only have to see what a 15% reduction in vehicles during school holidays does, to appreciate this.
The State Government is about to embark on the largest infrastructure project in NSW, at a cost of over $15 billion. It is appropriate to investigate such alternatives in a more through manner.
Unreliable traffic figures
The Project relies on several assumptions regarding future public transport (e.g. the bus lane down Parramatta Road) and road projects - many of which have not yet been designed, endorsed or commitments made to their funding. The traffic model which underpins the Project is highly reliant on these mooted projects which may not come to fruition or may be delayed well beyond the timeframes discussed in the EIS. The resultant impacts on the community and its environment would be as severe as the impacts of the Project itself.
On the other hand, the EIS does not take into account in its traffic numbers (or air pollution figures) Urban Growth's plans for Parramatta Road high rise development. The Draft Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy released in September 2015 allows for 40.000 new homes for up to 70.000 new people along the corridor. This is a significant change in population. The traffic modellers have used Bureau of Transport Statistics data for population growth. However, AECOM's traffic modellers were unclear as to whether these 40,000 new homes had been included in the modelling.

Strangely, some parts of the 2021 (with the Project) scenario indicate that only relatively minor increases in traffic are estimated on Parramatta Road, between Sloane Street and West Street, Haberfield and on Dobroyd Parade, north of Timbrell Drive, Haberfield (less than 150 vehicles per hour). These two locations are `downstream' of the proposed Project where three additional travel lanes will be introduced or at least two lanes if the unfunded bus lanes are introduced on Parramatta Road. Other parts of the EIS indicate that traffic will increase on the approaches by 900 to 1,600 vehicles - both parts of the EIS cannot be correct.

Doubtful economic viability of stage 3
Stage 3 will likely have less traffic than other two stages which may prevent it being built due to it being unable to get private finance due to poor economic viability. If this happens, our suburbs will be stuck with Stage 1 spewing traffic into our local streets for ever.
Air Pollution in-tunnel and in nearby areas
Even now Dobroyd Parade and the CWL are a traffic jam in the morning peaks (and on Saturdays). When Westconnex opens with 4 lanes trying to fit into the 2 lanes of Dobroyd Parade, this traffic jam will back up into the tunnel, resulting in less air movement and worse air pollution in the tunnel. Motorbike riders will be severely affected. The pollution coming out of the stack will get worse as well.
Add to this the probability that the EIS is based on published manufacturers' false pollution figures (as is the case with VW diesels).
I calculate that if you were to stand in a 3m deep, 30m radius puddle of daily average air from a Westconnex tunnel stack, you would be sharing it with 15 minutes worth of one diesel truck and 13 car exhausts all running at an 80kph power level
This level of pollution may well end up at ground level in winter as the gases cool or those living in Urban Growth's new high rise towers may just get it blowing in through their windows. I note that the EIS only has ground level pollution figures.
Impact on local traffic
Section 3.4 Volume 1A states, 'WestConnex is intended to be delivered as an integrated package of transport improvements across Sydney. with complementary enhancements to the existing road network (including associated surface street changes, bus priority measures, heavy vehicle access improvements). redesign of bus services and facilities, improved access to rail stations and upgrades to cyclist and pedestrian facilities'.
It is therefore of extreme concern that these Improvements on Parramatta Road have not been funded as part of the WestConnex program. This project is being partially justified based on surface improvements. and the associated sustainability and liveability improvements. If these surface improvements do not occur, then the project has limited benefit. The Cross City Tunnel was similarly sold on this basis and the on-surface improvements once the tunnel was open. particularly the public transport improvements, largely did not occur. The transport modelling for this project relies on the Parramatta Road improvements: in particular that one lane will be converted from a regular vehicle lane to a bus lane. Section 4.1.3 Appendix G outlines that in the modelling for the 2021 'do something' scenario that it includes the following assumption. Revised layout along Parramatta Road reflecting the provision of kerbside bus lanes between Burwood Road and Chandos Street (east of Bland Street), and the retention of two through traffic lanes in each direction.' Given these works have not been funded it is disingenuous to rely on this in the traffic modelling. It is of extreme concern that these improvements on Parramatta Road have not been funded as part of the WestConnex program.

The objectives for the project include, to 'Create opportunities for urban revitalisation, improved liveability, and public and active transport (walking and cycling) improvements along and around Parramatta Road' and to 'Enhance movements across the Parramatta Road corridor which are currently restricted'
However both the Parramatta Road/ Wattle Street and Ramsey Street intersections are forecast to be jammed up (category "F").
The shared pedestrian/bike shared path along the northern side of Dobroyd Parade between Waratah and Timbrell Drive is being removed. This is an essential part of an existing traffic corridor for pedestrians and cyclists. As well the pedestrian crossing on CWL at Timbrell/Mortley intersection is being removed so there will be no pedestrian crossing of the CWL available between the canal and Waratah Street. On top of this the widened (to 8 lanes) road surface requires a proportionately lengthened Walk time. There is a need for pedestrian/cyclist bridges over the CWL.
Noise
Tunnel construction work will continue 24 hours a day. Hence noise from underground blasting and truck movements go on day and night. Our nighttime peace is under threat.
As in the case of air pollution, traffic noise from the completed project has not evaluated for receivers in the multistory buildings in Urban Growth's plans.

I wish to register my strong objection to the Westconnex M4 East motorway proposal.

Among the grounds for my objection are:

1)lack of vision

If built, the Westconnex will generate much additional traffic, funnelling it into already heavily congested middle-ring and inner city roads.

2)lack of transparency

The government has awarded tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released, before the EIS has been published and the public has been able to exercise its 'right of participation'

3) lack of a cogent business case

Government funding for the proposal, as a proportion of funds for the whole proposed project-will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget over the next decade. There is a failure to seriously address the likely severe opportunity costs of the proposals, including for good, sustainable and socially equitable public transport infrastructure both for the inner city and the Western suburbs.

There is lack serious attention as whether there could be better alternatives for a global city such as Sydney in terms of future construction projects and transport budget priorities that actually enhance the amenities, economic vitality and liveability of the city.

eg with better public transport, freight rail, underground metro systems, light-rail etc rather than largely 'back-to-future' motorways and vehicular tunnels


4)lack of adequate foresight/ participatory planning on environmental and social impacts

The current proposal does not adequately consider the long-term impacts of air pollution, the destruction of significant numbers of heritage buildings, the siting of tunnel exhaust stacks, etc

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. Public money has been allocated to provide opportunity for private corporate profits, but with a reduction in public road access.

This is clearly a (1930's) vision of motor car city heaven. However, this proposal also blatantly bares the property developers wet dream. Given the publicity ensuing from the previous Governments corrupt behaviour, the public has the right to expect better ethical and moral behaviour, and transparency of decisions, from this Government. The perception of collusion and corruption with vested interests has certainly not improved with the handling of the westconnex project, which funnily enough was the brainchild of a former Premiere who happens to be - guess what - the mouthpiece for a major tollway tunnel developer.


The feedback the authority, Government and its partners have already received in the so-called consultations should be ringing these alarm bells. Instead they are ignoring evidence from around the world on the failure of large urban road and motorway projects to alleviate congestion.

There have been constantly changing routes, feeders and exits - perhaps to disguise the real objectives. Clearly, a tunnel anywhere under Parramatta road or proposed "high rise development" areas, would have to unaffordably "deep" (well below 35m) or it would prevent high rise construction with basements. This would not be acceptable for developers.

In the EIS there was no consideration that peak oil may influence future driving needs. Nor was there any modelling suggestive of any alternative to endlessly expanding motor vehicle and truck use. At what stage do we fill existing city street capacity if we keep feeding in more traffic?

The EIS is flawed in that there is no accounting for traffic modelling of the proposed increases in residential population density (and of that already underway), along and surrounding Parramatta road. This is supposedly one of the major justifications for the proposal. Also, where are the public parks, public parking spaces, alternative transport nodes, green ways, cycle ways and recreation areas to address this density increase? What are the proposed costs of increasing public utilities and resources? Local road changes, water, drainage, electricity, gas, cable?

Attempts to gloss over other negative expert advice, minimise community input issues and stifle discussion about alternatives and concerns has been noted.

This project has attempted to utilise corporate greed to facilitate public infrastructure, and galvanise those developers itching to exceed current council restrictions. Instead it will polarise the voting public's imagination. If this project proceeds it will achieve THE OPPOSITE OF ITS CLAIMED AIMS. By its own predictions, it will generate additional traffic, create larger queues and traffic jams particularly at on and off ramp points, and inner city roads, as more people try and use less available public roads.

It will cost "commuters" to and from Sydney's west, an additional toll road tax, to simply arrive on time - a penalty to add to the existing lack of infrastructure, services and alternative transport. It will diminish air quality for all affected residences, particularly those near vent stacks (with yet unanswered air quality concerns) and also in those suburbs affected by greatly increased rat runs.

It will require 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, not to mention the incredible traffic jams that will occur during construction and until the final stages are completed (if ever)

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 and gives the public the perception of a(nother) government ready for a corruption enquiry.

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. 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.

People responsible for spending this amount of public money without following their own procedures, should be willing to be held (personally) accountable to the public, for their decisions. Particularly if there is another failed motorway tunnel that requires a public bail out.

I also draw attention to the EIS's failure to:

* 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.

* Maintain local government zoning controls along Parramatta road in order to prevent high rise development up to 800m on either side of Parramatta road.

I object to the project on several grounds, both environmental and procedural.

a) Firstly the consultation process has been minimal. The meetings I have been to were clearly events in which the community was to be informed of foregone conclusions or kept in the dark. They were not events of consultation.

b) There still is no business case. Consequently we can assume that there *is* no business case for the project. It is primarily a way of gifting tax payers' money to road building companies.

c) Contracts have been signed before approval has been granted. This would appear to show that the consultation process is not relevant to the Government. Decisions have already been made.

d) People have been dispossessed of their property before the approval has been granted. This again implies the consultation process is not bona fide. It would seem useful to hold an inquiry into these `anticipations'.

e) It seems extremely probable that residents will be exposed to more traffic and pollution while the project is being built. It also seems likely that drivers will run the backstreets in an attempt to avoid the toll. It is possible that the government will shut down streets to forestall this, which will also add to the traffic problems faced by residents.

f) Given that the main purpose of the highway appears to be to get more cars into Sydney, residents at the end of the M4 region will face bottlenecks, as there is no particular extension of room for cars in Sydney. This is likely to increase pollution in the bottleneck areas. Inner Sydney already deals with a large amount of pollution.

g) While it might be possible to justify a highway linking places in Western Sydney, there has been no case made for the further marginalisation of Western Sydney by having its major roads lead into Sydney proper. Why do we want to funnel more cars into a dead end?

h) The appendix on air quality is remarkable for its lack of information as to what assumptions were made to produce its estimates. Consequently, it is hard to know whether it could have produced any 'worrying estimates' at all. It does not seem to factor the interaction of the motorway with other roads.

i) The appendix (p17) appears to indicate that with the Westconnex scheme vehicles using the M4 would diminish or stay the same, which seems unlikely. If this is true then why are we building it, as we are not helping traffic movement?

j) It may well be wondered if providing decent public transport, which could be achieved with the money being spent, would not have a greater effect in reducing vehicles on the Road and lowering pollution rates.

k) There is no factoring in of the large building projects intended for the inner West. This presumably means more people will use the roads.

l) It seems likely that many homes will either be repossessed, a process which has not gone happily so far, or that residents will find themselves closer to a highway, or staring at traffic barriers - which again do not improve the environment in any way.

m) I'm not aware whether the government has done comparisons with alternatives to going ahead with Westconnex. It has seemed that the project was undertaken solely because the then Prime Minister was willing to throw money at roads, but not at anything else. If no detailed comparisons have been made, or made public, then the whole process is flawed from the beginning and should be rejected out of hand. When this much taxpayers' money is involved, the most rigorous comparison of alternatives is required.

To whom it may concern, I would like to make the following submission to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the WestConnex M4 East.

I am opposed to the WestConnex development for a number of reasons:
Inefficient use of tax payers' funds
I do not believe that spending ~$15 billion in tax payers' funds to save only six minutes in travel time is efficient. Peer reviewed journal articles (Font 2014) indicate that road widening schemes and expanded road capacity projects result in increased traffic congestion after only short periods of time. Any travel time saved from this project is also likely to diminish negating any travel time saved and thus the projected benefit (which is already minimal).
Lack of transparency and progression without planning approval
There has been a complete lack of transparency for this project with no publically available business case and cost-benefit analysis. The lack of transparency is in total contradiction to the NSW Government's position which accepted the NSW Commission of Audit Final Report on Government Expenditure (May 2012) recommending that more transparent and evidence based decisions around programs and projects was essential. The lack of transparency in this project undermines trust in the NSW Government.
It is inexcusable that this project has progressed through to the point of signing contracts before planning approval has been obtained or the EIS released. The community is being asked to comment on a process that appears to be a `fait accompli' once again undermining trust in the process and government.
Poor community consultation
The community consultation process is very poor. The only opportunity to provide input is a short period of time to comment on the EIS which is a long and technical document. The EIS should have been translated into a range of products that were easy for the full community to understand and comment on. The EIS products should also have been made available in a number of languages as the Ashfield/Haberfield area has a large number of non-English speaking residents. I believe the complexity of the EIS would have reduced the number of submissions received for this project.
The local area also has a large number of tenants who may not have been as interested or impacted as permanent residents. This may also reduce the number of submissions received.
Pollution
This project will not ease air pollution in the Ashfield/Haberfield area but will add to it. As mentioned above, road widening schemes and increases in road capacity projects result in more traffic (this emissions) not less. Therefore, the increased vehicle emissions will increase overall air pollution. The proposed location of the ventilation stacks is likely to have large localised impacts on air quality as diffuse-source pollution is turned into point-source pollutants. It is reprehensible that there is to be no mitigation of the pollutants from the ventilation stacks because efficient and effective technologies are not being adequately considered.
I am absolutely appalled at the proposal to position the unfiltered ventilation stack in Haberfield so close to The Infants Home (TIH) and Haberfield Public School. My two daughters attend both of these institutions. TIH provides daycare and health services to around 300 children and 30% are from disadvantaged backgrounds or have mental and physical disabilities. My youngest daughter has attended care with children who were fed through tubes in their stomachs, have brittle bone syndrome or a have a range of life threatening allergies. Even contemplating putting a ventilation stack so close to this facility is outrageous and should not have been contemplated. This project is a massive health risk to the most vulnerable in our community. Generalities on health risks cannot be used for this project.
I am deeply concerned about the health risks to the children and staff at Haberfield Public School. My daughter attends Haberfield Public School and the route we walk to school from Ashfield to Haberfield would be a construction site with pollution risks from soil disturbance and truck diesel emissions. If this project were to commence I would have to walk an alternative longer route so my children would not be exposed to these pollutants, adding significantly to our travel time for the entire construction period of the project. There also seems to be no response strategy if pollution levels are exceeded, monitoring is not a response.
Parking difficulties
My house in Ashfield is close to the construction zone and planned site office. Parking in this area is already at capacity with many local residents being non-compliant to `no stopping' zones by repeatedly vandalising no-stopping signs. Increases in the number of vehicles from construction workers would add to parking frustrations in the area. Perhaps all site and construction workers should be required catch public transport!
Short term jobs not a transport network for jobs of the future
I have heard many recent articles on ABC radio about transport for cities of the future. Transport planning for international cities with future jobs in the knowledge economy is based on public transport and walkability, not roads. The WestConnex project will provide only short-term jobs and will not be the modern transport network that is required for Sydney to be internationally competitive attracting workers and investment in the knowledge economy.
Conclusion
I am totally opposed to the WestConnex and request that this project is abandoned and that greater consideration is given to designing a transport network that includes investment in public transport and walking and cycling infrastructure.

References:
A Font et al 2014, Degradation in urban air quality from construction activity and increased traffic arising from a road widening scheme, Science of the Total Environment 497-498 (2014) 123-132

I strongly object to the West Connex M4 East Motorway proposal. It is an out of date and irresponsible approach to traffic problems in Sydney which will only worsen congestion and pollution problems in the suburbs it passes through and on major roads, particularly Victoria Rd and Parramatta Rd. Further more it is a destructive project which will see the demolition of many homes and businesses.

This billions spent on this project could be far better used to build new and improved public transport services which will move more people far more efficiently. There has been no justifiable business case made publicly available for this motorway and community consultation processes has been token and inadequate. There has been a complete failure of process to allow the public to compare and choose between a range of viable and desirable transport options. Contracts have been signed to start work before the public submissions process has even been finished. This makes a mockery of community input.

A prime consideration for any transport infrastructure projects carried out in the 21st century needs to be the substantial reduction of carbon emissions. This motorway will increase pollution of all sorts by its preferencing of cars over public transport, use of unfiltered tunnel stacks, generation of extra car trips and creation of bottlenecks in inner city Sydney.

The inner west suburbs be very adversely affected by this tolled motorway which will create rat runs through its streets as well as raise levels of air pollution. It has not been designed with these communities in mind nor have they been allowed to properly participate and comment in its planning.

This is a heavily flawed process, built on obsolete assumptions, which rewards major road construction companies while leaving Sydney's residents without the public transport options needed for a rapidly growing population.

Why is there a need to build a Disneyland style interchange at Concord Road to travel East where there are minimal users and cause massive impact on the local Community.
It will not minimise any further congestion as the bulk of the traffic will be already in the tunnel.

I am expressing my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. It will generate extra traffic, require demolition of many homes in heritage areas such as Haberfield & Croydon and increase traffic congestion, not decrease it. The NSW Government should fund additional heavy rail construction as well as light rail and encourage less car use. It is clear the public does not support this and would use public transport were it available. The EIS has failed to honestly disclose the social, environmental & economic impacts of the motorway & the construction of very high rise developments along Parramatta Road will not improve the amenity of this corridor.

I would like to make some comments in regards to the air quality impact assessment (Appendix H). Despite your modelling suggesting that filtration is not required, that there will be zero portal emissions and emitting all pollutants through only two exhaust stacks will have minimal impact on surrounding areas, it is hard for residents to believe that concentrating 5.5 kms of 3 lanes of traffic into one outlet won't have a significant impact on those residents around the exhaust stack. Your report states... "If in-tunnel air quality levels could not be achieved with the proposed ventilation system, the most effective solution would be the introduction of additional ventilation outlets and additional air supply locations. This is a proven solution and more sustainable and reliable than tunnel filtration systems". If this a proven solution that improves air quality then why not do this from the start of the project. Why take the risk with residents health.

On page 27 it states..."The tunnel ventilation outlets are located well above ground level to harness the momentum and buoyancy of the plume, providing better dispersion and lower ground-level concentrations. Outlets above the layer directly affected by buildings (this would mean, in general, around two or three times as high as the surrounding buildings) result in even better dispersion (PIARC, 2008)". On page 109 it also states "It is worth noting however, that there are only a small number of tall buildings in proximity to the proposed ventilation outlets, and therefore the effects of building downwash (see Appendix B) would probably have been rather limited". This implies that the effectiveness of the western exhaust stack will be affected by the proposed rezoning under the Parramatta Rd Urban Renewal Plan which proposes 8 - 12 story unit blocks next to the exhaust stack and 14 - 25 storey unit blocks on the Parramatta Rd side of the M4 surrounding the exhaust stack. I didn't notice any mention of the Parramatta Rd Urban Renewal Plan in the EIS and your modelling. The Parramatta Rd Urban Renewal Plan makes no mention of what will happen to Parramatta Rd itself. Will it be reduced to two lanes each way or even one lane each way for cars (to make room for bus lanes, cycle ways and wider footpaths) resulting in more congestion and thus emissions than your modelling takes into account.

On page 34 it states that "It is likely that similar conditions of approval for in-tunnel air quality that were issued for NorthConnex would be
issued for the project." I have a concern with the use of the word "likely". I expected that the conditions would have been set as part of the EIS.

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.izRU2FmQ.dpuf