WestConnex - M4 East Upgrade

I write to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.
Global experience on experience of tollroad construction has demonstrated conclusively that these projects are enormously expensive and counter-productive. This tollroad will increase air pollution and encourage more car use, quickly filling the increased road capacity. It is not a long-term solution to Sydney's congestion problem.
The fact that the State Government has already signed multi-billion dollar contracts for WestConnex before this EIS was even placed on public exhibition undermines community confidence that this is a genuine consultation process.
I object to this proposal as it:
* Fails to provide a long term solution to traffic and congestion.
* Robs the limited NSW budget of funds to invest in much needed public transport.
* Will direct additional traffic into already heavily congested streets, like Parramatta and Victoria Roads.
* Requires the demolition and compulsory acquisition of hundreds of homes.
* Fails to compare this project against alternative public transport projects.
* Is not justified by any publicly-released business case.

Submission: WestConnex M4 East Environmental Impact Statement (SSI 6307)

To the Director, Major Planning Assessments, Department of Planning

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix U section U5 says
"As improvements to traffic flow and congestion are achieved through increased speeds, reduced
travel distances and reduced frequency of stopping, fuel efficiency is improved and subsequently
GHG emissions associated with road use are reduced. As such, it is anticipated that the project would
result in GHG emissions savings when compared to the base case scenario (`without project')."

This is utterly incorrect. Emissions are affected by VKT which will increase markedly due to construction of Westconnex.

The project should not proceed. Instead, an underground railway from west of Parramatta under the M4-East area to somewhere beyond the CBD (perhaps north of the harbour) should be constructed. The railway should be paid for with the money currently set aside for Westconnex.

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.SyGvhzdr.dpuf

I strongly object for the following reasons:

1. The EIS was released AFTER the construction contract was negotiated and executed. The whole process has been so clearly corrupt. It's as if the NSW Government is thumbing their noses and deliberately disengaging the people of Sydney.
2. The EIS was therefore and is so clearly a reverse engineering document where the body text has been contorted and massaged until it spits out the predetermined answer. Nothing worth justifying needs that many pages to justify it.
3. Here's a summary of the EIS for those who don't have time to read it:
Lets encourage the use of cars in a country where we don't make them.
Lets increase our reliance on petroleum when we are a net importer. Lets come up with a project so big that no Australian Company can take it on themselves.
Lets squander the riches of NSW and spend it all on poisoning our own people.
Lets perpetuate a high cost of travel for those living in the outer suburbs.
Lets build Westconnex.
4. It threatens the future prosperity of NSW by wasting an outrageous amount of funds for years to come on an expensive project with poor outcomes.
5. There are less expensive options with far better outcomes. Lots of them, with significantly better outcomes.
6. People use Parramatta road to get between the M4 and the city. There is a rail line that does just that - make the rail line more attractive and job done. For example: Build an almightly `Park and Ride' carpark where the m4 joins Parramatta road at Strathfield station or similar.
7. Galvanises the high cost of transport that Sydneysiders already endure, particularly those in the Western Suburbs of Sydney, and those that do business there. For me it costs about $11 to get to Blacktown using public transport. By contrast the ATO tells me it costs about $22 to drive, that's double the cost. The further from the city you are the higher the discrepancy. Those that can least afford it are for some reason being encouraged to use the most expensive option.
8. The most important point is being missed. We live in a rich city and there are as many cars as people. Only a fraction of those cars are used every day because each of makes a choice between jumping in the car and public transport - with due consideration to cost and transit times. The minute a road is widened, the number of cars on it increases and any benefit is in terms of transit times is lost. There are many actual examples. The fact remains that if everyone jumped in their car, it wouldn't matter if Parramatta road was 10 lanes wide, there would be gridlock. Public transport needs to be a better option, at the moment it is an afterthought and Westconnex entrenches this. If you were to build a city from scratch public transport would be priority #1, few would disagree with this. Then how can it be that it is the lowest priority in our established city.
9. All signs point to the fact that Westconnex is going to be built. There is a contract in place after all. Subcontractors have been approached for pricing. And its clear value and outcomes are not even a consideration. So in the face of that, please:
a. build a continuous noise wall for all residents who will have to see, hear or smell the construction or the finished product. That includes between Waratah St and Martin St which has so conspicuously been forgotten. Not a token ugly one, but one that deflect and absorbs noise and one that incorporates living flora.
b. Any noise wall should ensure that construction noise at any time of day does not increase relative to current levels at the same time.
c. Come up with a plan to discourage the Haberfield through traffic that Westconnex will encourage.
d. Compensate all home owners whose home values have reduced as a result of Westconnex.

To the Director, Major Planning Assessments, Department of Planning

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

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

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

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

I object to this proposal as it will have devastating impacts on local communities.

I strongly object for the following reasons:

1. The EIS was released AFTER the construction contract was negotiated and executed. The whole process has been so clearly corrupt. It's as if the NSW Government is thumbing their noses and deliberately disengaging the people of Sydney.
2. The EIS was therefore and is so clearly a reverse engineering document where the body text has been contorted and massaged until it spits out the predetermined answer. Nothing worth justifying needs that many pages to justify it.
3. It threatens the future prosperity of NSW by wasting an outrageous amount of funds for years to come on an expensive project with poor outcomes.
4. There are less expensive options with far better outcomes. Lots of them, with significantly better outcomes.
5. People use Parramatta road to get between the M4 and the city. There is a rail line that does just that - make the rail line more attractive.
6. We live in a rich city and there are as many cars as people. Only a fraction of those cars are used every day because each of makes a choice between jumping in the car and public transport - with due consideration to cost and transit times. The minute a road is widened, the number of cars on it increases and any benefit is in terms of transit times is lost. There are many actual examples. The fact remains that if everyone jumped in their car, it wouldn't matter if Parramatta road was 10 lanes wide, there would be gridlock. Public transport needs to be a better option, at the moment it is an afterthought and Westconnex entrenches this. If you were to build a city from scratch public transport would be priority #1, few would disagree with this. Then how can it be that it is the lowest priority in our established city.
7. All signs point to the fact that Westconnex is going to be built. There is a contract in place after all. Subcontractors have been approached for pricing. And its clear value and outcomes are not even a consideration. So in the face of that, please:
a. build a continuous noise wall for all residents who will have to see, hear or smell the construction or the finished product. That includes between Waratah St and Martin St which has so conspicuously been forgotten. Not a token ugly one, but one that deflect and absorbs noise and one that incorporates living flora.
b. Any noise wall should ensure that construction noise at any time of day does not increase relative to current levels at the same time.
c. Come up with a plan to discourage the Haberfield through traffic that Westconnex will encourage.
d. Compensate all home owners whose home values have reduced as a result of Westconnex.
e. Make all the supporting politicians agree, including the Premier and Prime Minister agree to a review of Westconnex in 12 years time. If a reasonable person would not consider that Westconnex was the best allocation of public money possible, then they should give up all their entitlements for the rest of their lives. They wouldn't sign it, of course they woudn't, because Westconnex is a load of rubbish.

I strongly object for the following reasons:

1. The EIS was released AFTER the construction contract was negotiated and executed. The whole process has been so clearly corrupt. It's as if the NSW Government is thumbing their noses and deliberately disengaging the people of Sydney.
2. The EIS was therefore and is so clearly a reverse engineering document where the body text has been contorted and massaged until it spits out the predetermined answer. Nothing worth justifying needs that many pages to justify it.
3. It threatens the future prosperity of NSW by wasting an outrageous amount of funds for years to come on an expensive project with poor outcomes.
4. There are less expensive options with far better outcomes. Lots of them, with significantly better outcomes.
5. People use Parramatta road to get between the M4 and the city. There is a rail line that does just that - make the rail line more attractive.
6. We live in a rich city and there are as many cars as people. Only a fraction of those cars are used every day because each of makes a choice between jumping in the car and public transport - with due consideration to cost and transit times. The minute a road is widened, the number of cars on it increases and any benefit is in terms of transit times is lost. There are many actual examples. The fact remains that if everyone jumped in their car, it wouldn't matter if Parramatta road was 10 lanes wide, there would be gridlock. Public transport needs to be a better option, at the moment it is an afterthought and Westconnex entrenches this. If you were to build a city from scratch public transport would be priority #1, few would disagree with this. Then how can it be that it is the lowest priority in our established city.
7. All signs point to the fact that Westconnex is going to be built. There is a contract in place after all. Subcontractors have been approached for pricing. And its clear value and outcomes are not even a consideration. So in the face of that, please:
a. build a continuous noise wall for all residents who will have to see, hear or smell the construction or the finished product. That includes between Waratah St and Martin St which has so conspicuously been forgotten. Not a token ugly one, but one that deflect and absorbs noise and one that incorporates living flora.
b. Any noise wall should ensure that construction noise at any time of day does not increase relative to current levels at the same time.
c. Come up with a plan to discourage the Haberfield through traffic that Westconnex will encourage.
d. Compensate all home owners whose home values have reduced as a result of Westconnex.
e. Make all the supporting politicians agree, including the Premier and Prime Minister agree to a review of Westconnex in 12 years time. If a reasonable person would not consider that Westconnex was the best allocation of public money possible, then they should give up all their entitlements for the rest of their lives. They wouldn't sign it, of course they woudn't, because Westconnex is a load of rubbish.

The facilities provided for bicycles are very minimal considering the cost and scope of the M4East project. My understanding is that facilities for walking and cycling should be an integral part of any road project in NSW.

Particular areas to note are:
- The bicycle path connects to the M4 road should at both ends which is totally out of step with Government policy which is to provide separated/protected infrastructure. Some cyclists may wish to ride on a motorway, but the aim of new infrastructure should be to separate and protect people on bicycles so that those of any age and skill can ride a bicycle.
- The bicycle path at the Eastern end should connect to Pomeroy St and should also make provision for riders to remain separated from traffic all the way to Princess St so that they can join existing Eastbound routes. A separated bicycle facility on Pomeroy St and Queen St would be advisable. It would also be excellent if the bicycle path adjacent to the M4 could continue East beyond Pomeroy and remain elevated until it joins Queen St. This would provide a Level of Service equal to that of motorists (which should be the aim).
- The Western end of the proposed bicycle path goes into SOP through a bus tunnel and then leaves cyclists with no clear route. The major Western point of connection to an existing bicycle route is at Adderley St E and every effort should be made to connect to this route. The design for such a connection would include a bridge over Haslams Creek just South of the M4 to provide a traffic-free walking and cycling connection to the corner of Bombay St and Parramatta Rd. The route should remain separated from traffic and could run from Bombay St further East along the North or South of the freeway depending on the findings of a feasibility study.

Dear Sir/Madam

I object to West Connex for two main reasons

(1) the EIS process (and most other administrative aspects of this infrastructure project) is flawed, and
(2) constructing very expensive tunnels to alleviate traffic congestion in Sydney is not a solution

In regard to point 1

(i) The contract for the tunnel works was awarded by the state government before the EIS was published, so it's obviously a done deal and the EIS is nothing more than a very expensive, time wasting exercise for all involved (including objectors).

(ii) Recent efforts by the state government to privatise West Connex Delivery Authority, thereby removing the potential for information (like traffic modelling, or air pollution data) to be accessed via FoI, adds insult to injury. It is a very clear demonstration that the state government does not want the public to access information which will reveal that the EIS does not stack up. Is it any wonder that the general community is so cynical and suspicious about a government that behaves in this way?

(iii) AECOM, who have done the traffic modelling, have just been fined many millions of dollars for distorting anticipated traffic numbers to artificially increase the economic case for a Qld motorway tunnel to proceed. Why should we trust an EIS which has been informed by traffic modelling by a company which has so recently been found guilty of distorting a business case for a very large tunnel being built by the Queensland Government?

In regard to point 2

(i) The construction of a very large motorway tunnel to alleviate traffic congestion is a very expensive, unsustainable, uneconomic approach, as has been demonstrated many times in Sydney, for example the Cross City Tunnel and Lane Cove Tunnel, both of which went broke and have not met their traffic targets. Why should West Connex be any different?

(ii) There is no satisfactory business case incorporated in the EIS to demonstrate the value of this tunnel project, from an economic, social and environmental perspective. The largest, most expensive capital works project in 50 years will leave a legacy for future generations to pay and there is no convincing evidence put forward in the EIS that the general community is going to benefit in any significant way. It appears that it is being done to reward the road lobby, at the taxpayers expense.

(iii) The challenge for Sydney in the 21st century is to reduce car dependency, not build very expensive tunnels to support it. It has been suggested that construction of West Connex will only save car drivers 6 mins in travel time. If even half the $15 billion cost of West Connex were to be spent on integrated public transport, cycleways , pedestrian infrastructure and the like, we would save many thousands of car commuters time, money and stress every day. Most other global cities are investing heavily in measures to reduce car dependency, not maintain or increase it by building tunnels like West Connex. It's about time Sydney's traffic planners and politicians woke up to this reality.

(iv) To maintain quality of life in a city like Sydney to the end of the century, we need to think outside the box about how people move around this lovely city and what needs to be done to support and enhance such movement in a way which does not impose an unacceptable burden on society (economic, social and environmental). The automobile was a 19 century solution to the need to move around. Car dependency undermines social cohesion, supports unhealthy, inactive living habits, pumps out green house gas emissions and contributes significantly to a global warming. Why is the state government investing so much in an out-dated, discredited approach to addressing Sydney's transport challenge? Future generations may never forgive us for letting such a ludicrous project proceed.

I strongly object to the proposed West Connex M4 East Motorway Proposal. The construction of this motorway has no regard nor has it addressed the cultural and heritage value of properties that will be demolished and destroyed in the process of the construction of the motorway.

The uniqueness and the heart of the inner that is currently thriving and attracts people from all over Australia and abroad, will be destroyed forever. In addition, there has been NIL community consultation with the inhabitants of the inner, their lives and livelihoods have not been considered nor respected. Their input to community as abiding citizens has had no consideration in the planning of such a proposal and should have been addressed prior to reaching this stage. The proposal claims to be respectful of heritage, this is out rightly untrue as areas planned for destruction have considerable heritage value. There has been no respect to the individual inhabitants that will be literally pushed out of their homes and all their efforts to preserve and beautify the inner west will be sacrificed for a motorway that will have the same outcome as the City West Link, the current M4 and numerous other motorways that transport a flood of vehicles to a culminating point resulting in gridlock. The proposed motorway is clearly not a solution to traffic congestion, nor is the construction of hundreds of high rise residential blocks in an area that clearly needs preservation and sensitivity. This proposal disregards the destruction of clearly sensitive heritage areas, adds congestion to existing congested roads in local areas at an insanely high cost to government.

I object entirely to the proposal as it stands.

Nelly Pedavoli

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

Submission: WestConnex M4 East EIS (SSI 6307)

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

Additional Comments:

* I object to the installation of the proposed ventilation outlets. The effects (short term or long term) on the health of the infants, children and adults of this Inner West Sydney area have not been adequately considered.

*As a resident of the Hammond Park Conservation Area, I was shocked to learn of the new route for the M4 East motorway, through a letter box leaflet, around June of this year. I was dismayed to learn from your Westfield Burwood Booth's display map that the redesigned route will come within 25-35 metres of the house.

*Our house was built in 1929 (by the builder Dorne - who also built houses in the Haberfield Conservation area), the house has been in my family since 1929. We have maintained the house in keeping with the surrounding heritage homes. It was relatively recently, in 2013, due to the historical significance of the area, that the NSW State Government gazetted the area to the status of the Hammond Park Conservation area.

*It goes without saying that the houses in this area are close on 90 -100 years old, and are expensive to maintain and restore in keeping with the requirements of a Conservation area and Ashfield Council. Nevertheless, the residents have spent a lot of money restoring their homes in sympathy with the historic status of the Hammond Park Conservation area. We certainly do not want our homes damaged, during or after construction. Nor do we want any vibrations or noise, resultant from your proposed tunnel, either under or close to our houses.

*I object to the WestConnex M4 East EIS, and consider that your Department, should look at alternatives, such as the railway goods line that was well patronised in the 1950s to 1970s, alleviating the need for so much of the current heavy vehicle traffic that you are now proposing to put under or near our houses.

I look forward to your response.

N. Hunt,
2 November 2015

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

Submission: WestConnex M4 East Tunnel Project (SS1 6307)

I object to the construction of the M4 East Tunnel and do not believe that the exuberant spending on this project is justified. The Government has ignored many concerns of residents and communities affected by this construction.
There is much opposition to the WestConnex M4 East Tunnel Project from various action groups. Of particular objection, I wish to point out the effect that WestConnex will have on Waratah Street in Haberfield.
As a resident of Waratah Street Haberfield for around 40 years the construction of a right-hand-turn lane off Wattle Street onto Waratah Street Haberfield will encourage drivers to "rat-run" through Haberfield and Leichhardt on their way to the City.
We live opposite Dobroyd Point Public School where there is already limited parking and traffic congestion due to parking restrictions, with available parking taken up by the public school, parents dropping off their children, and children crossing to get to school. Should additional traffic be directed up Waratah Street by road users trying to avoid tolls and divert through local streets our neighbourhood, our school, our properties will be adversely affected in safety as young children crossing Waratah Street and cars seeking a quick exit may endanger these children, accompanying parents and residents.
Further, the increased amount of noise and air pollution on a 24 hour basis will adversely affect our health and take away the enjoyment of our homes. My parents were early 1950's migrants to Australia and having worked hard to buy their home in a federation suburb whereby strict heritage building constraints are placed on Haberfield the same strict policies should be taken into consideration when constructing this major thoroughfare through Waratah Street Haberfield. The proposed works will irreversibly destroy the heritage values of the entire Haberfield Federation Garden suburb.
I also have strong concerns in regards to the tunnelling under Haberfield in regards to the safety, instability, vibration it may cause to homes. It is evident in the media with the emergence of sink holes that they are sudden, unpredictable and can cause catastrophic damage and fear.
We oppose the Westconnex planning proposal to construct the right turn lane from Wattle Street into Waratah Street, Haberfield and request consideration be given to make Waratah Street, Haberfield a cul-de-sac instead.
I would like the project assessment team to take the above into consideration as the impact is detrimental to the safety of children, parents and residents, of Waratah Street. You would not want to know that human safety could be compromised due to the introduction of a rat-run street as the result of construction of the WestConnex impacting Waratah Street Haberfield. There is also a moral conscience that needs to be taken into consideration as safety is always paramount.

Yours faithfully

Maria Cannavo

Political Donation Declaration
I HAVE NOT made any donations to any political party.

I am opposed to the WestConnex M4 east proposal because it destroys the inner west and brings more cars into the city. The money could be spent much more fruitfully by funding carparks at hub train stations like Strathfield, improving the train network to accommodate more passengers and building dedicated bus lanes and cycleways from the train stations into the CBD. Public transport is the way of the future and it is time we had a fully integrated public transport system that made travel around Sydney quick and easy.

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 motorway proposal. If built iot will generate additional traffic, funneling it into heavily congested middle rign and inner city roads. More cars will just clog up the roads even more.

I strongly agree with the intelligent and relevant comments made by Porfessor Petere Newman ( Professor of Sustainability Curtain University) when he states we need to build the cities of the 21st century, not the roads. City centres should be made more walkable and public transport orientated. I have been fortunate to experience wonderful public transport infrastructure and pedestrain walkways in many big cities overseas. Lets put the money for this into more sustainable and intelligent plans for the future and build an economically competitive sydney.

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

Global experience of major toll road construction has demonstrated conclusively that these projects are enormously expensive and counter-productive.

WestConnex will increase air pollution and encourage more car use, quickly filling the increased road capacity. It is not a long-term solution to Sydney's congestion problem.

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

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

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

The Westconnex toll road sets a dangerous and ultimately futile course towards a car dependent and sprawl ridden greater Sydney basin. Every dollar spent on private motor transport is a dollar wasted on an inefficient, space wasting and anti-social form of transport. It is clear from the precedent given by countless great cities, mostly European and Asian, that integrated mass transport is the only option for a liveable and economically successful city.

Indeed there are problems with the EIS itself. As a mathematical modeller myself, I take issue with the lack of detail, algorithms, assumptions and justifications behind the traffic modelling, as outlined in Section 2A, chap 4. There is a lack of induced demand, feedback cycle assessment (e.g. with regards to sprawl development vs density development), and stress testing.

Overall I believe the money this project costs, the heritage lost, the communities split and the dangerous threat of climate change mean that this project is simply not worth the marginal potential gains for a very small number of motorists.

Living in the Inner West (and dealing with the daily traffic issues/congestion there) I actually cannot believe that anyone is seriously considering funnelling more cars into the area. It's already ridiculous. Pushing more cars through won't help anyone. How utterly short-sighted. Why not spend money improving public transport to service the areas that need it? Get some of these cars off the road and make everyone's journey more pleasant.

Submission: WestConnex M4 East EIS (SSI 6307)

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal in conjunction with the Urban Planning's proposal to redevelop the targeted precincts along the length of the proposed WestConnex.

The building of the WestConnex will require the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road. The Urban Plannning proposal to force residents of the targeted precinct areas to sell their properties to large developers so that the government can profit from the process is preposterous and lacks the thought, planning and insight required to actually plan for a successful, sustainable urban development.

Giving a government department the right to actively seek profit from urban development at the expense of perfectly functioning communities such as the Taverners Hill precinct in which I reside, is absolutely ridiculous and in no way should be permitted by any reasonable government. The proposed new precincts are counter-productive in relation to what is proposed in the WestConnex. These precincts with up over 10 times more dwellings that are currently in place will cause substantial issues in relation to traffic, facilities such as hospitals, schools, services, shops etc and there is, of course, a substantial issue in relation to a severe lack of open public spaces. There has been little or no public consultation in relation to this proposal and the community and local government are against this proposal in every way.

The proposed WestConnex will generate additional traffic, funnelling it into heavily congested middle-ring and inner city roads, putting additional stress on already busy transport links.

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.

To the Director, Major Planning Assessments, Department of Planning

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

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

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

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

I object to this proposal as it will contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming by increasing fuel consumption and air pollution.