WestConnex - M4 East Upgrade

I object to the Westconnex on a number of grounds. Every person I have spoken to in my community of Lilyfield is against this ill-conceived road project.

The Westconnex would bring more traffic into the Inner West and create congestion on a number of roads.

I object to the environmental impacts that the Westconnex would create, both by bringing more cars to the roads, and also by concentrating the exhaust fumes in unfiltered exhaust vents/towers.

I object to the short-sighted concept of building more roads, when what we really need is public transport infrastructure.

The Westconnex is a waste of a vast amount of money, and the Government and planning authorities have been deceptive and calculating in their delivery of critical information about the project. I object to the lack of transparency surrounding the Westconnex.

I object to the impact on our local area and community that would occur if the Westconnex is built.

I strongly object to the M4 East tunnel project and the entire WestConnex project, not only because of the potential impacts upon us as residents living near the City West Link in Lilyfield, but also because the overall premise of the plan is flawed. The solution to Sydney's significant transit problems will not be solved by simply building more roads.

In addition, I strongly object that:

- The EIS has been lodged before a full business case has been made.

- The government has awarded contracts worth billions of dollars of public money before any planning approval was given. This is a clear failure of due process that undermines confidence the community could have in the project.

- The traffic modelling in the EIS is clearly deficient.

- The EIS consultation and display period has been rushed and inadequate. The community has not had sufficient time to comprehend the EIS, which contains numerous contradictions and inconsistencies, in order to develop a complete and detailed response.

- The EIS fails to consider, evaluate and compare more effective public and freight transport options that will produce better outcomes at less environmental cost.

- The EIS's fails to fully evaluate and describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.

- Hundreds of people are being forced from their homes and businesses and that over 290 properties will be compulsorily acquired for the M4 East alone.

- There will be years of 24-hour construction work which will have significant impacts on communities. There will be thousands of diesel truck movements a day. The EIS states that noise and vibration impacts will "cause stress and anxiety, affect the enjoyment of outdoor spaces and disturb normal indoor activities [and] sleep patterns with consequent impacts on health and wellbeing." This is unacceptable given the uncertainty of the project's effectiveness.

In light of the above, and the multiple other concerns generated by the rushed and inadequate approval process, there can be no confidence that the WestConnex project will achieve it's stated goals.

please see PDF attached

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

I am particularly alarmed at the lack of sufficiently detailed maps on the proposed Wattle St, Haberfield access ramps and road widening indicating which homes would be demolished and what the sightlines of the proposed connection to the City West Link from Parramatta road would look like once built. I haven't been able to find this information on the http://www.westconnex.com.au site. I have looked and merely found the WestConnex_M4 East_SSI Application Report, which had vague appendices and general statements about "potential" benefits and but no detail regarding actual feasibility studies.

Also, considering I care a great deal about this development, I find it very strange that I have not been notified even heard of any real consultation with the community.

I do not wish for the lane widening at Wattle St and M4 connection to the city west link to go ahead in its current form because I believe it will mean the unnecessary demolition of homes within the Haberfield conservation area and the compromising of community heritage for what will remain. These works will fundamentally alter the character of a unique suburb of Sydney irrevocably, and not for the better.

If I am wrong, I demand that better information including detailed maps, 3-d renderings of the completed project (including height details of ramps and shadow projections) and a list of homes scheduled for demolition be made public and sufficiently publicised.

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 Â- as part of the whole WestConnex proposal Â- 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 EISÂ's failure to:

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

Â* Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.

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

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

Â* 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 write to provide feedback on the WestConnex EIS. I do not support this project for many reasons. This submission however relates directly to the impact on my household and as members of this community.

Please refer to my family property on your plan - 88 Chandos Street Ashfield. Our property has not been acquired, although all properties bar one between our house and the existing Parramatta road have been acquired, on both sides of the street. As such our streetscape will dramatically change and, at the conclusion of the project our house will be located next to the realigned Parramatta road with up to ten lanes of traffic (six on Parramatta road and two lanes in and out of the tunnel portals which will be located very near our property). In the interim our house will be located beside and in front of construction sites, facing several years of disruption and construction noise.

This project will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the value of our property, and as a member of the community I should not have to suffer financial loss as a direct consequence of this project. The ongoing construction will make it very difficult to sell our property at market value should we need or choose to over the next several years. In addition, in the longer term we will also suffer loss of value to our property, given the relocation of Parramatta road much closer to our home.

It is not acceptable that residents (myself and others like me) are currently being overlooked in this process. We have had no direct contact from Westconnex regarding this project and it's direct impact on us. We face not only years of construction, but also the widening parramatta road and the tunnel portals close to our home, as well as the loss of our neighbours.

I request that consideration be given to financial compensation for the impact this project will have on the value of properties directly impacted, like mine. Whilst I had no plans to move from my family home, the impact on my street and the realignment of Parramatta road is leading me to reconsider the need to move my household away from the disruption and future landscape. Financial compensation should also take into account the longer term loss of property value that is inevitable as a direct consequence of this project.

The problem with WestConnex M4 East is not what it sets out to achieve but, how how it is being implemented. Why must the works involve the demolition of so many homes in a listed conservation area? Haberfield is a suburb of national and international significance. To proceed in this way makes a mockery of the whole notion of heritage conservation. We understand the proposed scheme may represent best value for money but, surely there is another solution? Why build a ventilation stack when alternative technologies exist to treat polluted air entirely underground, rather than emit it a few hundred metres from local schools?In any case why does this option need so much area? Again, surely there is another solution that proposes no such extensive impact?

Long-term, we would point out that car numbers are tipped to decline. This seems to be in line with "peak-oil" aswell as the emergence of alternative technologies, transport options and community attitudes generally. It would be a sad irony if,in the name of progress so many homes were sacrificed for a public utility that may or may not be of benefit in the short to medium term but is of questionable value for future generations. Once those heritage buildings are gone and the works as they are proposed proceed ,Haberfield will be damaged forever.

Please re-consider the current scheme.

We implore the government to reconsider how they are going about this.

I write to vehemently object to all aspects of the M4 "WestConnex" extension, and for the subsequent later stages of the project.

The project has not been thoughtfully assessed and should be scrutinised as it is a fait accompli.

We as residents on the affected corridor were unexpectedly surprised when the plan was changed from a cut and cover into Parramatta Road, to a tunnel and interchange in stage 1 from Concord to Haberfield under already thriving business and residences.

This decision does not sit well with the residents effected and does not assist in growing the project any support. The EIS is flawed and should consider that if this tunnel is built, it will further enhance and promote use of private motor vehicle use projections in the EIS may not meet usage levels as described if the Government hopes to continue with this new road.

Where is the government priority of public transport? I object on the principle that the Government is pushing ahead without a business case for this project and without provisioning for more public transport on the route. The project has not had approval for any of the current works such as drilling and for any contracts being signed with infrastructure partners.

Overall, this project as outlined in the EIS for WestConnex can be viewed as a regrettable expense on the public purse of this state, that which could be better well spent on public transport options.

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.

How do you justify demolition of heritage listed homes?
How do you justify the destruction of some of the most highly regarded inner west suburbs such as Haberfield, Leichhardt and Annandale?
More importantly, how do you justify the wholesale destruction of highly functional communities?
How do you justify exhaust stacks next to primary schools? Would you like YOUR child to attend the same school?
You may be solving congestion on sections of Parramatta Rd but you are merely shifting the problem areas to the inner west - a little like re-arranging the chairs on the Titanic - only more expensive by about 15 billion dollars. The M4 is being widened and there will be a tunnel - these might have proved a solution if the number of people using them was to stay the same. But it is not! New suburbs are sprouting out west In the greater Penrith area faster than one can blink; and the euphemistically titled 'Urban Growth' intents to pile tens of thousands of people along the Parramatta Rd corridor. Within 10-15 years of completion (if not less) we will be back to square one. I remember when the M4 was widened to 3 lanes each way and how amazing that was touted to be. Now its 4 lanes. How exactly does anyone propose to expand it to 5 lanes in 15-20years time?
Perhaps a less short-sighted solution would be serious consideration on the types of public transport that 15 billion dollars could provide.
Westconnex East PLUS Urban Growth PLUS Council Amalgamation. An absolute nightmare! Could not think of a better way to destroy the fabric and essence and functionality and strong community sense prevailing in the inner west today.

I write to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal and any subsequent stages of the project as outlined on http://www.westconnex.com.au/explore_the_route/urban_revitalisation/index.html.

Investment for this road will mean the destruction of communities and the annexation some of these communities. I object to the forced ideology by our current State Government.

We are living in the 21st century and need to reconsider our 20th century idea of road infrastructure and focus on the digital infrastructure as jobs and industry change with technology.


It is disconcerting that the State Government had signed on for contracts for the WestConnex before this EIS was even placed on public display. In this aspect, it should not lend support by the community if the community would be undermined by the State Government in this way.

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

I object to this proposal as it encourages more cars instead of public transport, and fails to provide a long term solution to traffic and congestion.

I object to the forced and compulsory acquisition of properties and substratum of properties for this project. The project should consider alternatives to the current EIS plan.

To summarise, I object this project as a complete option for our state and our city.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I make the following submission to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) exhibition for the Westconnex M4 East Tunnel Project
(SSI 6307).

I am opposed to the construction of the M4 East tunnel as outlined in the EIS as this would destroy the amenity of the garden suburb of Haberfield and also Ashfield.

Of particular concern to me is the impact of this road on
an investment property which I own at 19 Loftus Street Ashfield which is adjacent to the proposed Parramatta Road Interchange at Ashfield West of Rogers Avenue through to the Bland Street Intersection. The backyard of this block of 9 units (2 Stories above Ground Floor) will become exposed by the demolition of adjoining properties acquired for the new Interchange along Parramatta Road from Chandos Street through to Orpington Street. I note in Volume 2C Page 47 of the EIS that there is a table detailing that there will be a Maximum Increase in noise levels of 11.2 Decibels at 19 Loftus Street Ashfield once the Interchange has been constructed. During the daytime our tenants will experience noise levels of 59 Decibels and at night 55 Decibels at night in the first year post construction of the WesConnex. These sound levels are sufficient to disturb sleep at night and even more so for shift workers trying to sleep during the day. Rightly so the EIS states that 19 Loftus Street Ashfield qualifies for Noise Abatement measures in the form of Building Treatment and Architectural Treatment. It also mentions that the noise exceeds the Building Cumulative Limit. The EIS states that noise abatement measures will extend only to the Ground and First Floors in all multi-story buildings. However traffic noise will no doubt radiate to the Second Floor of 19 Loftus as well so I request that it consideration be given to noise mitigation measures on all levels of this building. In particular this building is on a sloping block such that at the rear of the building the first floor is just over 1 metre from ground level.
I would suggest a site inspection is required to assess this situation as to all intents and purposes the first and second floor units should be considered for noise mitigation. These measures should include window double glazing where possible or replacement windows should these sliding Aluminium windows be unsuitable for modification.

I would also like to request a WDA-funded Dilapidation
Report for 19 Loftus Street Ashfield prior to commencement of construction of the Parramatta Road Interchange.

The EIS indicates that there will be a Construction site office and amenities block as well as a laydown area and access road adjacent to the backyard of 19 Loftus Street for 18 months. This will adversely effect my Tenants due to excessive noise, lighting ( at night) , dust and vibration ( vehicular movements).

There is the potential that these units closest to Parramatta Road could become uninhabitable during this year and a half resulting in a great loss of rental income. Should this occur I would expect some form of financial compensation for lost income from the Government/ Contractors.

Consideration should be given to provision of a noise wall closest to the roadside as there will be some residual land between the roadside and the backyard of 19 Loftus Street
to act as a buffer zone. If that is not possible perhaps the planting of some fast growing Conifer trees along the back fence line of 19 Loftus Street could be considered ( at the Government's expense) to screen out the WestConnex.

As well as this property I am also affected by the WestConnex because I live at 34 Denman Avenue Haberfield in the so called "Toxic Triangle". I purchased the house 13 years ago and up until now have enjoyed living in Haberfield. Three of my children attend the Haberfield Public School and their learning will be adversely impacted by the WestConnex construction due to the increase in Noise Pollution, Dust and Vibrations. I fear for their pedestrian safety with the high number of Construction vehicle movements which will occur along Parramatta Road and rat running in back streets. I expect construction workers vehicles will be parked all day along Denman Avenue due to its close proximity to the Walker Avenue Construction Zone.
This will cause chaos for parents of Haberfield Public School students trying to find a parking spot and inconvenience for residents as their driveways become obstructed.
I am not looking forward to the 2 and a half years of noise,pollution , dust and traffic disruption whilst Stage 2 of WestConnex is constructed. Our house is also less than 400 metres from the Ventilation Outlet so I am anxious about the effect of vehicle emissions on the health of myself,my wife and our four children ( all under the age of 10). Stage 3 of the WestConnex (to be announced in December) will most likely be passing under my house so I am concerned about that as well .

As a mark of respect for the amenity of local residents such as myself and family please consider restricting tunnelling and truck movements to business hours rather than 24/7.

Please consider these concerns and address them in your response to the Community's submissions to the EIS.

Yours Sincerely,

Dr John Raneri

It appears that the Heritage Status of Haberfield is meaningless when compared with the interest of the developers.
at school drop off and pick up times

The M4 East will not work. You only need to look at traffic going from the Bunnings at Ashfield to the Crescent and ANZAC bridge to see that it is at a standstill in morning and evenings. When I ride my bike along the bike path along the Bayrun I can go faster than the cars!

The M4 East will only encourage yet more cars to drive to the city making this even worse. Human nature is for the demand will simply increase to fill capacity and you will again have the same mess you have now. Also look at why the M5 is now at a standstill in the morning going to the city. Adding more lanes, will make it great for a few years, then it increases demand, encourages people to travel further distances and achieves nothing as it will again reach saturation.

The only long term solution is more public transport - trains, trams, buses.

Where possible encouraging people to live closer to where they work. More flexible work conditions, work at home, starting early finishing early etc.

I object to the proposal. If built it will generate additional traffic, funnelling it into heavily congested inner-ciy roads requiring the demolition of hundreds of homes. I also object to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released, and before the EIS had been published. I draw attention to the EIS's failure to consider more sustainable public transport and freight rail options, and also its failure to consider the impacts of air pollution in neighbouring suburbs, and also how it might affect commuters within the tunnel itself.

I wish to object strongly to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. If built it will have a disastrous effect on middle ring and inner city roads and will entail the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses and seriously affect other homes and businesses left standing close to motorway.

Due process concerning environmental impact and community participation has not been followed and big business has definitely been favoured.

Public transport is the only way to go.

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

Submission: West Connex M4 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 into heavily congested middle ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses to make way for road widening 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 odelling the very large increase in apartment construction and therefore 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 options that will produce a lower level of green house gas emissions.

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

Why not a good rail system like the London tube system and their new cross rail lines that are being put in.

Yours faithfully
Mandy Dodds
2/11/15

Request for abolition the concord interchange.

the goals of the project will be met if the concord interchange is abolished.

I cannot see any substantial reason for the interchange. Strathfield and Rhodes are not major nodes (more like suburban shopping areaa servicing the local area). Rhodes would be catered for by the homebush bay drive interchange.

The interchange will comprise surface roads and an overpass over concord road which will create traffic noise for local residents and residents of apartments very close by.

In addition I think the interchange is out of place in an inner west area and is more suited to an area where there is more open space.





The interchange itswlf wll compeise sr

Xx m x

I Object to the WestConnex M4 East Motorway proposal.

WESTCONNEX PROJECT: Environmental Impact Statement for M4East Tunnel Project (EIS)

Date: 2 November 2015

The Secretary

DP&E Project No. SSI 6307

NSW Dept. of Planning and Environment

GPO Box 39

SYDNEY

NSW 2001

I make the following submission in relation to the above EIS. I strongly object to both the M4 East extension and the entire WestConnex project of which this is part, and request a reply to the following concerns:

1.I object to the lodging of the EIS before a full business case has been made public, and to billions of dollars of public money being signed away on contracts before any planning approval is given. This is a travesty of democratic and transparent planning.

2.I object to the traffic impacts that WestConnex, including the M4 East tunnel, will impose on Sydney's population. The Government's own figures for the first M4 widening stage of WestConnex show that re-imposing a toll on the current M4 will push thousands of cars and trucks onto alternative routes - Parramatta Road, the M2 and Victoria Road. Research shows that toll roads only provide temporary relief from traffic congestion. The evidence in the EIS is that the M4 tunnel and the proposed M5 tunnel would already be full by 2031 and many local streets and intersections across the entire project area would continue to be severely congested or even worse if the project is completed.

3.I object to hundreds of people being forced from their homes and businesses for the over 290 properties that will be compulsorily acquired for the M4 East alone. Many affected property owners report that the prices offered by the Government are grossly undervalued and they would not be able to afford to buy in the same area. Many tenants are also being evicted with little prospect of finding equivalent housing.

4.I strongly object to $15.4 billion being spent on this toll road instead of significant public and active transport improvements. WestConnex is already making living conditions worse for people in suburbs such as Granville and Auburn, and offers nothing to residents beyond Parramatta who have been treated like second-class citizens when it comes to public transport for far too long.

5.I object to the fact that business owners were not consulted for the economic impact study.

6.I object to the impact that years of 24-hour construction work will have on communities. Across the route there will be thousands of diesel truck movements a day. The EIS states that noise and vibration impacts will "cause stress and anxiety, affect the enjoyment of outdoor spaces and disturb normal indoor activities [and] sleep patterns with consequent impacts on health and wellbeing." This is totally unacceptable to me.

7.I object to the toxic pollution that will come with the M4East tunnel including unfiltered stacks. Pollution in local areas near portals will be worse. Traffic pollution has been linked to higher rates of respiratory and heart disease and lung cancer, and impaired lung development in children. This is completely unacceptable given the high numbers of residents, businesses, schools, child and aged care facilities in the area.

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

I object to this project on 3 main grounds:

1. Increased road capacity simply leads to more traffic

This has been a worldwide experience, and some cities have actually removed freeways because of this effect. A new freeway may mean faster moving traffic in certain areas in the short term, but the induced traffic effect soon cancels this out. And the plans for the M4East will produce bottlenecks in other places, for example at the intersection of Parramatta Rad and Norton St Leichhardt.

I note also that figures on road usage demand provided the M4 East consultant are questionable. In the past, demand for roads (eg for tunnels) has consistently been overestimated in consultant reports, while figures for public transport usage have surpassed expectations.

2. Infrastructure for private road vehicles belongs in the last century
In a world where it is essential to reduce our greenhouse gas impact, private vehicular traffic based on fossil fuels must not be encouraged. The NSW and Federal governments must fund projects that are compatible with reducing global warming, not increasing it. It will take time to transition from the multi-car household as a predominant model, but change is happening, especially in areas where pubic transport is adequate.

3. Money would be better spent on public transport projects

Let us work on fast, frequent public services to cross Sydney instead. Ecotransit has outlined a number of innovative projects (such as the Pippita Express, and Parramatta light rail extensions) that will benefit many parts of Sydney, reducing the pressure on the M4 and encouraging residents in outer suburbs to rely less on car traffic. As a former resident of Marsden Park, in Sydney's west, I acknowledge that new freeways can save time in travel - but the need to do that (sometimes) by car is because public services are too time-consuming when they are infrequent (especially on weekends) or indirect. Ecotransit's model for changed signaling for trains would instead be a worthwhile investment, increasing the speed of services.

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.