WestConnex - M4 East Upgrade

I strongly object to the Westconnex M4 East motorway proposal. Foremost I object to the process which makes a mockery of the environmental impact assessment process. The intent of the legislation is that the EIS is provided by the proponent in order for the merits and risks of the project to be thoroughly assessed against reasonable alternatives and the public are given the opportunity to make informed submissions before a decision is made on whether the proposal should be approved. The fact that tenders have been awarded for the project prior to the assessment of the EIS indicates that the government has already made a political decision regarding Westconnex, based on information and influence that needs to be questioned. Reasonable alternatives such as public and active transport have not been factored in and, furthermore, the government has not made a clear business case for the proposal which is extremely worrying given the history of financial failure of private motorway ventures in NSW which have in turn exposed taxpayers through government-funded bailouts.

Prior experience supported by research dictates that motorway expansion only induces further motor traffic onto roads and diverts traffic onto feeder roads so that motorists can avoid tolls. I live on a busy road already with increasing traffic that will no doubt be impacted by motorway expansion but it appears no assessment of this is provided in any
local motorway proposals. I suspect the same applies to those that will be affected directly by Westconnex.

I am appalled that motorway expansion is preferred over public transport development - obviously the way forward for global cities. I am also highly concerned regarding the proposed interchange around the area of Sydney Park and potential impacts on King Street Newtown where I work. Sydney Park is an important community asset and needed green space for the increasing numbers of residents of the area. King Street, Newtown is already in gridlock during peak times, extremely noisy and is an important road for access to the Royal Prince Alfred hospital - any increased traffic on King Street will lead to further deterioration of this lively precinct and impact on the crucial essential services that RPA provides.


The Westconnex proposal is highly disruptive to the residents, workers and visitors to the inner west, will increase traffic, burden local roads with additional traffic, destroy homes and businesses and impact directly on the quality of life of Sydneysiders.

The EIS fails to consider:
* large increases in projected population in the motorway corridor in traffic modelling
* public transport and freight line alternatives
* the justification for spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' funds without a robust business case
* the long term impacts of air pollution from increased traffic volumes
* more sustainable options such as public and active trasnport options which offer many additional benefits in terms of public health, safety and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

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 this submission in relation to the WestConnex EIS for the M4 East tunnel. I strongly object to the M4 East and the entire WestConnex concept, and request a reply to my concerns as follows:

1. There has been no business case detailed for WestConnex, which is a departure from standard practice and indeed basic due process;
2. The traffic modelling shows an increase in volume for Parramatta Road resulting from the M4 East construction, due to toll avoidance, in contrast to the previous claims of there being an improvement in Parramatta Road's traffic. The overall effect on inner west and CBD traffic will be more and more volume as tunnels are avoided and no public transport capacity upgrades are available to take up the overflow.
3. There is an apparent conflict of interest in the forecasting firm AECOM being also the recipient of other WestConnex commercial contracts, e.g. project concept development and tunnel design;
4. There is scant regard given to freight and public transport alternatives that the projected $15 billion WestConnext budget could be redirected toward, for example on modernising rail signalling, add two stations to the Airport line, the East-West Translink for light rail all the way to Mascot, a light rail link from Parramatta to Macquarie Park, and more, all still for less than 15 billion, and much better for Sydney's overall health than WestConnex;
5. Filtration and other exhaust control features have been excluded without due description of the impacts of their not being used by WestConnex and specifically the M4 East tunnel, especially given well known evidence for higher rates of lung and heart disease and cancer linked to traffic pollution;
6. The compulsory acquisition of properties below true market value will mean these owners must now leave their neighbourhood, in which many of whom have lived for decades;
7. The EIS states openly that there will be disruption to sleep patterns due to the 24-hour construction work and its associated noise and vibrations. I find this completely unacceptable.

It is the stack that is causing the community most concern hence;
* Why will the tunnel not be built without a ventilation stack- such as international designs?
* If the tunnel must have a stack, then how can the government justify to not filter it? When there is SO much fear of the risks?
* Why was an alternate stack site chosen- that meant it was not so close to homes and requiring demolishing of a community- ie. why not Bunnings and industrial site in it's surrounds?

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex m4 east motorway proposal. If built it will generate additional traffic, funneling it into heavily congested middle ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of roads and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.

Government funding for this proposal wil claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years to come.

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex m4 east motorway proposal. If built it will generate additional traffic, funneling it into heavily congested middle ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of roads and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.

Government funding for this proposal wil 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 consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions and promote public health.

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.

Westconnex across its 33 km extent will generate additional traffic, and it will funnel this additional traffic 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. This will destroy communities and it will not in any long term sense address the transport problems nor the solutions that an expanding Sydney poses.

I wish to also express my strong objection to the NSW government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released and before an EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation. This make a mockery of proper planning approval processes and procedures.

I also contend that the EIS produced is deficient. It has many failings.

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

* Properly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives

* 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.

.* 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.

I also view the EIS information on Biodiversity as inadequate. It is in the main, unsubstantiated assertion. The time period for the field work on which subsequent assessment impact statements are made is woefully inadequate, and arguably in breach of the terms of the relevant legislation. Significant areas of existing vegetation were also not assessed nor included in calculations as to habitat area/value or not. No reason for this was given.

Government funding for the whole WestConnex project will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years, indeed arguably decades to come. This being the case, I am outraged that the EIS has failed to honestly and fully discuss and properly justify why it is preferable to other, alternative public and active transport solutions.

I object to the proposed M4 East for the following reasons:
Lack of business case for the current WestConnex project scope and cost.
Lack of strategic justification and very poor assessment of alternatives as presented in the EIS.
Lack of assessment of impacts of the M4E as a standalone road at 2031 and beyond.
Inclusion of additional stages of WestConnex at 2031 to mitigate impacts in Ashfield and Leichhardt - these additional elements of WestConnex do not have planning approval, are to at least some extent unfunded and the negative consequences on local communities and the broader metropolitan area have not been described and assessed.
The significant loss of heritage items in Haberfield which in turn destroys the contribution of this important area to Australia's planning history and urban development.

In particular I would like to specifically object to the assumption within the EIS that the Western Harbour Tunnel will be necessary. If this is the case the people of Sydney should be made fully aware of the proposal and its implications, particularly for people living in the North Shore. At this stage these communities are largely unaware of the implications for their local neighbourhoods should the Western Harbour Tunnel go ahead. Glossy brochures broadly indicate the tunnel will emerge with portals in the Falcon Street / Military Road area - it can only be assumed elevated interchanges (as seen proposed for the M4E and St Peters Interchange), significant road widening and unfiltered vent stacks will also be part of the proposal.

It is unacceptable to undertake such a narrowly focused consultation when the implications of the project are so much greater than suggested in the M4 East EIS.

I strongly object to this proposal. Public transport investment, demand management and a commitment to a poly centric city will deliver a sustainable future for Sydney which breaks down the east/west divide.

I strongly object to the WesConnex M4 East motorway proposal.

The pursuit of major road projects, especially tunnels, is out dated and lacks sufficient benefit considering the very high monetary and environmental cost. Public transport options that are less costly and more beneficial are being ignored.

Forecast traffic volumes have already been shown to be flawed. Failure to consider 40 000 planned apartments along Parramatta Rd being but one failure.

Perhaps more alarming to all residents of NSW is the transparent and deliberate corruption of a democratic means to assess and decide on the most cost effective and effective transport options. The premature awarding of tenders for the project before this EIS process is complete is evidence of this.

Should this project proceed it will only confirm to the people that their political leaders serve the owners of construction companies and toll operators at the expense of the public.

Tunnel external aesthetics-

The present tunnel design appears obtrusive and of bad taste. The height and prominence is of particular disturbance to the residents of Walker Avenue.

The outer material looks industrial and harsh- why are there not more options on the aesthetics of this permanent structure/ landmark?.

In light of Australia's fame in winning the International design award of the high rise apartment block in CENTRAL - which uses rainwater to maintain vertical gardens along the sides of the apartment block.

Haberfield is renowned as the Garden Suburb- why not capitalise on this and make the stack an appealing, sustainable feature rather than an eyesore?

Concerns re: health effects during and post construction;

* My retired elderly parents live in Walker Ave, Haberfield and will be directly impacted by the effects of the years of construction and long term effects of pollution. They have pre-existing conditions that will be exacerbated by the noise and particle debris during construction. What alternate accommodation arrangements will contractors offer when there are periods of increased noise and debris?
What mitigation and or compensation will be offered for the negative impact the environmental noise and air quality will have on my parents health?

I'm not sure if this is a waste of time and its just a requirement for the project to get feedback and pretend to care about the needs of the community, yet continue to do as they wish (please prove me wrong)......

I am writing this submission to object to the proposed westconnex in its entirety.

The over priced EIS states that the improvement to traffic flow will be minimal, destruction of two heritage suburbs , increased noise and traffic congestion on surrounding streets not too mentioned an outrages waste of money which would be better spent on public transport.

They only people to gain from this project would be developers, consultants and politicians hence my objection.

As an opening comment I am against the WestConnex. I envisage the scale of the end product to be comparable to the Gore Hill Expressway and at the proposed width it will permanently bisect our community. This money could have been better deployed on mass transit. True global cities such as London and New York are not spending infrastructure funding on roads but instead on mass transit options. I fail to understand why NSW/Sydney considers itself different. That said, if I accept that this project will proceed then I make the following points in response to the EIS.
1. HABERFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL
My children will all attend Haberfield Public School during the construction period. The proposed works depot is a few hundred metres from the school and the emissions stack is a similar distance. I do have concerns for my childrenÂ's health and safety and submit the following proposals to mitigate this concern:
a. An air quality monitoring station should be installed at the school immediately. The air quality of the school should be measures, prior, during and permanently after construction to ensure that there is no deterioration. I believe the general public would agree that exposing our children to toxic exhaust emissions or construction by products is unacceptable on every level and would not begrudge permanent monitoring and appropriate remedial action if air quality is found to deteriorate. The results of the air monitoring should be published for all to view. Furthermore, consideration should be given to increasing the height of the stack and all possibly precautionary measures (similar to asbestos removal) be taken to minimise construction by products drifting into the school. Any risk here is not one worth taking.
b. The EIS reports that we can expect the school to suffer Â"high worst caseÂ" noise during the school day. A future generation of Australians will be trying to learn necessary skills whilst this is happening. I submit that all windows at the school be double glazed and the rooms air-conditioned to minimise the impost of the noise on the childrensÂ' learning environment. Furthermore, where possible high noise activities should take place outside of learning hours (that is, before school, after school, recess and lunch time)
2. CITY WEST LINK CROSSING
The substantial widening of the City West Link and associated increase in traffic will bisect Haberfield from Five Dock, the Bay Run, Timbrell Park and other destinations on the northern side of the road. Pedestrian and bike overpasses or underpasses should be constructed at Ramsay St (for access to Five Dock and the other side of Haberfield), Waratah St (for access to Timbrell Park and the nature reserve) and Timbrell Drive/Mortley Avenue (for access to the Bay Run). The cost of such construction would seem to be minimal in the overall cost context and provide some mitigation against the dis-integration of the area. It will allow residents (and children) to continue to have their existing amenity and not provide a disincentive for exercise.
3. LOCAL TRAFFIC
The EIS did not contain any detail of substance on the impact of the WestConnex on local streets. Haberfield is already a known Â"rat runÂ" when the City West Link and Parramatta Rd are slow moving. During construction we can reliably expect further delays on these main roads and, therefore, more cars driving, at speed, through HaberfieldÂ's local streets. The known short cuts are down Bland St (past the school!), along Ramsey, into Empire, then Barton and finally Hawthorne before joining Marion and also across Waratah along a similar route. The course is reversed in the afternoon where children are crossing the road from the tennis courts and netball courts on Hawthorne Parade. I have witnessed a number of Â"near missesÂ", reported them to council but nothing has been done. I submit that:
a) a fixed speed camera be installed on Bland St to slow traffic past the school.
b) speed control measures (speed humps or chicanes) be installed on Bland and Empire St.
c) speed humps be installed on Hawthorne Parade to slow traffic as the current chicanes and roundabouts are ineffective with the regular rat runners who know the right approach angle to not wash off any speed.
d) Marion St be designated as a clearway (rather than Â"No StoppingÂ") during the morning and afternoon peak times. There are regularly cars parked across the road from Lambert Park that sends Ramsay St and Hawthorne Parade into chaos as cars are forced to merge to avoid the illegally parked car.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a response and for your serious consideration of the topics I have raised.

Concerns re: traffic risks post construction
* During the construction phase Walker Ave, Haberfield will be temporarily converted into a part cul-de-sac- to deter traffic from Parramatta Rd (city bound) turning left into Walker Ave.
This is a sensible decision and has been considered in previous years due to traffic risks of vehicles turning right out of Walker Ave (at a dangerous blind spot) into Ramsey Street OR worse still rat racing through the lane and via the back streets of Haberfield Public School putting pedestrian children at increased risk.
Could this part cul-de-sac be considered as a permanent road configuration post construction?

I strongly OBJECT to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.

the Westconnex tollroad project is enormously expensive and counter-productive. It will increase air pollution and encourage more car use, quickly filling the increased road capacity. It is not a long-term solution to Sydney's congestion problem.

The State Government signed multi-billion dollar contracts for WestConnex before this EIS was even placed on public exhibition. I have no confidence this is a genuine consultation process.

I OBJECT to this proposal because it:
- takes funds that would be better used for public transport.
- Does not provide a long term solution to traffic and congestion.
- directs additional traffic into already heavily congested streets, like Parramatta and Victoria Roads.
- will require demolition and compulsory acquisition of hundreds of homes.
- gives no consideration to alternative public transport projects.
- has no public access business case.

Additionally the compulsory acquisition of homes for medium to high density will mark out our city's vertical slums of the future because there is insufficient supporting hard and soft infrastructure planned. They will reduce and cheapen the community fabric that makes western Sydney vibrant diverse and inclusive.

To whom it may concern,

I am writing as a concerned resident who will be directly impacted by the recent design changes associated with the WestConnex project.

I am apprehensive that there has been a rushed decision into design changes associated with the WestConnex project. While I generally support the intentions behind this particular project, the new changes to the concept design will directly impact the local community severely. In addition, I do not believe this revised design is the most appropriate one. As a business case was not completed for the WestConnex Project, it will likely run into financial problems and/or infrastructure deemed unsuccessful to the purpose of the project intent.

I feel that the secondary effects of drilling (vibration) and all other associated activities causing increased noise and pollution levels have been trivialized and not thoroughly considered. What is currently a very peaceful and well-established neighbourhood will be thrown into chaos and heavily disturbed. It is not simply the 2-3 weeks of disruption and noise whilst tunneling is occurring directly underneath my house that affects my family, as for the entire 4year length of the project, there will be daily, constant disturbances in very close proximity. These disturbances will cumulatively affect the mental health and wellbeing of my family. People who work from home will be permanently in this volatile environment.

For multifactorial reasons, I am writing to address the following items.

ITEM 1: REQUEST FOR ABOLITION OF CONCORD INTERCHANGE
The presence of the Concord Interchange significantly increases cost and severely impacts local community. The overall objectives of the WestConnex Tunnel including goals of NSW 2021 (vol. 1, section 3.1) will be met if the Concord Rd Interchange is abolished.

In the absence of the Concord Rd Interchange, the following advantages will be achieved:

- Still able to maintain existing entry from M4 Westbound travel and exit point for M4 eastbound travel
- Local residents near the interchange will continue to travel local roads for eastbound direction unaffected
- Less traffic congestion around Concord Rd
- Access to nearest interchange at Homebush Bay Drive is less than 2.3km away
- Alexandria, Edward, Sydney and Young streets and Concord and Taylor lanes will not be acquired not shortened.

An alternative option for the interchange would be to go from Leicester Ave straight onto the M4 extension. Properties along Leicester Ave and the adjacent Parramatta Road area are currently under development and hence concurrent WestConnex project development would not have as big of an impact.


ITEM 2: UNNECESSARY THREE LEVEL 'LIGHTHORSE INTERCHANGE' TYPE BRIDGE AT CONCORD RD INTERCHANGE

The proposition of an overpass bridge (9m wide X 250m long with a maximum height of 8m above Concord Rd) to carry vehicles (of all sizes) from Concord Rd southbound to M4 westbound, results in having to generate a three level interchange, is completely unnecessary and unsuitable on a non-artillery road such as Concord Rd. It is aesthetically unpleasing not to mention bringing a detrimental increase in noise and pollution to the local community. Above ground noise travels far and local residents will be significantly affected with only a trivial noise-reducing feature proposed.

The benefit of having the interchange is not warranted as the previous design satisfied the overall objectives and goals associated with the WestConnex tunnel already.

ITEM 3: REQUEST FOR MY PROPERTY TO BE ACQUISITIONED IF CONCORD ROAD MAIN CONSTRUCTION SITE FOR TUNNELING AND NEW DESIGN TO GO AHEAD

Concord Rd construction site is proposed to have the most plant/equipment types used (referred to Table 6.23). Heavy vehicles and vehicle constructions will operate 24/7 with continuous concrete delivery and disposal of tunnel spoil (18 heavy vehicles per hour outside standard hours totaling 260 heavy vehicles and 80 light vehicles per day, p 6-49), over a 2.5 year period. My wife suffers from migraines fairly often and this persistent exposure to noxious stimulus during construction will significantly increase the frequency and magnitude of her condition. She also is very sensitive to noise and being home most of the time means her exposure to the detrimental environment is constant.


In addition to the main tunnel being directly under our property (only 16m into the ground), there will also be an access tunnel drilled and in use throughout the entire duration of the project. This means two separate tunnel drillings and usage serving as a constant source of noise and disturbance not to mention potential instability of foundations underneath which may not become apparent until later on down the track.

In summary I believe that the new design changes are unnecessary and that the previous design for the WestConnex project adequately addressed the affiliated objective and goals. A cost benefit analysis is lacking and I do not believe it will reflect advantages associated with the new design if it were to be performed. Whilst it is important to consider housing development potential associated with properties on Parramatta Rd, it is more crucial to consider unnecessary impacts, both social, physical and mental, that will occur to local residents with the unjustified new design changes.

Concerns re: land use on Walker Ave, Haberfield- 'grey area' post construction-
* Several houses are being demolished so that the vacant area can be used during construction for trucks to park etc.
I have grave concerns as to the use of this land post construction- in particular will the zoning in this section of the street be at risk of changing?
How can the Haberfield and in particular the Walker Ave community have a say in how this land is used once vacated?
Options for community use- is a 'green space' for residents to care for a community flower garden with storm water design for water efficiency. Coupled with park bench, swings and Aboriginal totem polls and gathering area (such as in Cooks River area- Steel Park, Marrickville), a reserve of some kind a meeting area for locals.

Submission: WestConnex M4 East EIS (SSI 6307)
I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. If built it will generate additional traffic, funnelling it into heavily congested middle-ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.
I also wish to register my objection to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released and before the EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation.
The EIS process is supposed to allow for genuine public input and to result, potentially, in approval, non-approval, or approval with modifications, of the project. The present procedure makes a mockery of that right.
Government funding for this proposal - as part of the whole WestConnex proposal - will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years to come. This being the case, I am outraged that the EIS has failed to honestly and fully discuss its social, environmental, and economic impacts or to explain why it is preferable to other, alternative public- and active transport solutions.
In particular I draw attention to the EIS's failure to:
* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that has been promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal.
* Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.
* Publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' funds.
* Properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.
* Consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions.
Decades-long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity. That is why, globally, they have fallen out of favour and are no longer seen as a solution to congestion.

Heritage and retro building materials etc;
* Several homes on Walker Ave, Haberfield will be demolished to make space for a truck parking area :( why not remove Bunnings instead of destroying a neighbourhood?
* Many of these homes have lead light windows, rosettes, fire places and other materials and features of value and importance. What considerations are there on how these items will be preserved?
* Will they be auctioned off?
* How will the profits of these sales be used- they should be regenerated into the Walker Ave community in maintaining a green space in remembrance of what was once a beautiful neighbourhood, of which I spent 30years of my life in.