WestConnex - M4 East Upgrade

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 will contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming by increasing fuel consumption and air pollution.

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 bicycle paths, and fails to provide a long term solution to traffic and congestion.

I strongly object to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.
It is quite clear that this massive project will be hugely expensive and will not achieve its objectives. As overseas experience has amply demonstrated, projects like this only increase air pollution and actively encourage more cars on to the road, rapidly using up any increased road capacity created.
The WestConnex M4 East motorway is NOT a long-term solution to Sydney's congestion problem.
The fact that the State Government signed multi-billion dollar contracts for the development of this scheme PRIOR to the Environment Impact Statement even being put on public display completely undermines my confidence that this is a genuine consultation process.
The EIS enunciates BENEFITS for all stages of the project ... but does not address the NEGATIVE impacts along the whole route.
The principal objections to this proposal are:
1. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, encourage MORE CARS instead of PUBLIC TRANSPORT. It would fail to provide a long term solution to traffic and congestion. If you build more roads, you just get more cars. It is as simple as that.
2. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, create significant air pollution and damage the health and wellbeing of people who live nearby, especially children.
3. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, divide local communities and force hundreds of people out of their homes and neighbourhoods. It will do enormous damage to the fabric of Sydney's inner west community and villages, including small businesses and families.
4. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, contribute to Australia's greenhouse gas emission and global warming by promoting an increase in fuel consumption and creating significant air pollution. This is not progress. It is regressive. Last century.
5. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, pollute local waterways and groundwater, and destroy precious green space and parklands that are so important to the local community. Particularly Sydney Park which has recently gone through a massive and expensive upgrade, and thus has had an exponential growth in users in the last few months.
6. This proposal fails to include any evaluation or consideration of alternative public transport options. With the proposed increase in residents in the local area, public transport and amenities are hardly coping currently, this proposal if built will add extra pressure to existing failing systems.
7. This proposal is not justified by any publicly-released business case.
In short, this is a community destroying, polluting, regressive and economically suspect proposal.

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. Although my comments are made as a private citizen, over 20 years of experience within the transport industry around the world as both an academic and public servant, show this is a 'road to failure', not the path this great city should be following as we hit the critical 2020-2030 time-period.

Experience has shown us time and time (and time) again, that building roads of this nature will offer temporary relief, enough for Mr Gay to be hailed a hero by the truck companies and property developers who are the main winners here. Yes, the ordinary motorist willing to pay the tolls, will experience some temporary relief, associated with quicker/easier travel from points west to the airport and beyond. Although there may be some small reduction in surface street volumes, given most of that traffic is local and there is suppressed demand anyway, impacts will be negligible.

However, by the time Mr Gay's grand-children are voting citizens, the legacy of this mistake will really emerge. Because travel by car will suddenly become more appealing, guess what kilometres driven will rise as existing drivers divert onto the new route and [more concerningly] people who previously didn't drive will be encouraged to do so. Eventually congestion will rise back to current levels with the double whammy there are now more cars than ever on the roads adding to the pollution, energy problems and sedentary life-styles costing the economy billions of dollars.

Then there is the more 'human' side of this problem. The additional traffic, will largely be funnelled 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. St Peters might as well be bombed, the impacts will be the same.

There are also some process issues, that have undermined the project. First, the EIS process amounts to a farce, given 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. Funds, that could be allocated to a raft of needed public transport improvements. 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 strongly object to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.
It is quite clear that this massive project will be hugely expensive and will not achieve its objectives. As overseas experience has amply demonstrated, projects like this only increase air pollution and actively encourage more cars on to the road, rapidly using up any increased road capacity created.
The WestConnex M4 East motorway is NOT a long-term solution to Sydney's congestion problem.
The fact that the State Government signed multi-billion dollar contracts for the development of this scheme PRIOR to the Environment Impact Statement even being put on public display completely undermines my confidence that this is a genuine consultation process.
The EIS enunciates BENEFITS for all stages of the project ... but does not address the NEGATIVE impacts along the whole route.
The principal objections to this proposal are:
1. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, encourage MORE CARS instead of PUBLIC TRANSPORT. It would fail to provide a long term solution to traffic and congestion. If you build more roads, you just get more cars. It is as simple as that.
2. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, create significant air pollution and damage the health and wellbeing of people who live nearby, especially children.
3. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, divide local communities and force hundreds of people out of their homes and neighbourhoods. It will do enormous damage to the fabric of Sydney's inner west community, including small businesses and families.
4. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, contribute to Australia's greenhouse gas emission and global warming by promoting an increase in fuel consumption and creating significant air pollution. This is not progress. It is regressive. Last century.
5. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, pollute local waterways and groundwater, and destroy precious green space and parklands that are so important to the local community.
6. This proposal fails to include any evaluation or consideration of alternative public transport options.
7. This proposal is not justified by any publicly-released business case.
In short, this is a community destroying, polluting, regressive and economically suspect proposal.

I do support the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal - and i strongly object on the basis of
- increased air pollution,
- exorbitant cost for minimal gain (or shifting the problem)
- lack of transparency of the planning, costing and approval process
- alarmingly poor process to involve public in environmental impact study - decsions made before steps taken
- hidden processes and demonising locals who seek transparency and to be involved or ask quesions
- will actively encourage more cars on to the road, making no gain with any increased road capacity created

This project is bad for Sydney on so many levels and MUST not go ahead.

Submission: WestConnex M4 East EIS (SSI 6307)

I wish to express my strong object to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. If it is built, it will generate increased traffic, feeding it into heavily congested middle-ring and inner city roads. The construction will require the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses to make way for road widening 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 has been published and the public has exercised its right of participation.

The EIS process should allow for genuine public input and lead to approval, non-approval, or approval with modifications of the project. The current procedure for this project makes a mockery of the public right of input.

Government funding for this proposal will be a huge proportion of the NSW transport budget for many years. This being the case, I am outraged at the failure of the EIS to examine and discuss the social, environmental and economic impacts of the proposal or to explain why it is preferable to alternative public and active transport solutions.

I draw attention the the failure of the EIS to:
- factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction and population promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalistion for the proposal.
- honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives
- publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars of taxpayers' funds
- examine and explain 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 fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

Global experience in the last four decades demonstrate conclusively that new urban roads are counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity. Globally, they are no longer seen as a solution to traffic congestion. I am extremely disappointed that the government has proposed such a narrow, expensive and outdated solution to the problem of providing efficient transport to the population of Sydney in the twenty first century

I strongly object to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.
It is quite clear that this massive project will be hugely expensive and will not achieve its objectives. As overseas experience has amply demonstrated, projects like this only increase air pollution and actively encourage more cars on to the road, rapidly using up any increased road capacity created.
The WestConnex M4 East motorway is NOT a long-term solution to Sydney's congestion problem.
The fact that the State Government signed multi-billion dollar contracts for the development of this scheme PRIOR to the Environment Impact Statement even being put on public display completely undermines my confidence that this is a genuine consultation process.
The EIS enunciates BENEFITS for all stages of the project ... but does not address the NEGATIVE impacts along the whole route.
The principal objections to this proposal are:
1. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, encourage MORE CARS instead of PUBLIC TRANSPORT. It would fail to provide a long term solution to traffic and congestion. If you build more roads, you just get more cars. It is as simple as that.
2. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, create significant air pollution and damage the health and wellbeing of people who live nearby, especially children.
3. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, divide local communities and force hundreds of people out of their homes and neighbourhoods. It will do enormous damage to the fabric of Sydney's inner west community, including small businesses and families.
4. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, contribute to Australia's greenhouse gas emission and global warming by promoting an increase in fuel consumption and creating significant air pollution. This is not progress. It is regressive. Last century.
5. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, pollute local waterways and groundwater, and destroy precious green space and parklands that are so important to the local community.
6. This proposal fails to include any evaluation or consideration of alternative public transport options.
7. This proposal is not justified by any publicly-released business case.
In short, this is a community destroying, polluting, regressive and economically suspect proposal.

I strongly object to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.
It is quite clear that this massive project will be hugely expensive and will not achieve its objectives. As overseas experience has amply demonstrated, projects like this only increase air pollution and actively encourage more cars on to the road, rapidly using up any increased road capacity created.
The WestConnex M4 East motorway is NOT a long-term solution to Sydney's congestion problem.
The fact that the State Government signed multi-billion dollar contracts for the development of this scheme PRIOR to the Environment Impact Statement even being put on public display completely undermines my confidence that this is a genuine consultation process.
The EIS enunciates BENEFITS for all stages of the project ... but does not address the NEGATIVE impacts along the whole route.
The principal objections to this proposal are:
1. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, encourage MORE CARS instead of PUBLIC TRANSPORT. It would fail to provide a long term solution to traffic and congestion. If you build more roads, you just get more cars. It is as simple as that.
2. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, create significant air pollution and damage the health and wellbeing of people who live nearby, especially children.
3. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, divide local communities and force hundreds of people out of their homes and neighbourhoods. It will do enormous damage to the fabric of Sydney's inner west community, including small businesses and families.
4. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, contribute to Australia's greenhouse gas emission and global warming by promoting an increase in fuel consumption and creating significant air pollution. This is not progress. It is regressive. Last century.
5. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, pollute local waterways and groundwater, and destroy precious green space and parklands that are so important to the local community.
6. This proposal fails to include any evaluation or consideration of alternative public transport options.
7. This proposal is not justified by any publicly-released business case.
In short, this is a community destroying, polluting, regressive and economically suspect proposal.

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 sight lines 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 visited the Office of Environment and Heritage to look at the hard copy proposal instead. I did find shadow diagrams and more detailed maps indicating the proposed route there. These should have been front and center of any web based information and not buried. However the detail is still lacking.

I find it alarming that this information is not easily available to the public. 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 will compromise the 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.

I do not agree that the optimum site for any tunnel or on/off ramps need be in Haberfield. I question why the area to the South of Wattle St was not investigated instead. I.e. the area containing Wolsely St and Northcote St, Five Dock. I also have strong objections to the ventilation stacks being located on the corner of Wattle st on the North side. These should be located as far away from Haberfield as possible. I.e. not in it.

If I am wrong, 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 should be 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 - 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.

There are two serious problems with the WestConnex M4 East project, and the EIS supporting it.

1. The stated aim of the project is to reduce traffic congestion. Published evidence shows that the project will probably have the opposite effect: overall it will increase congestion. The evidence comes from at least two sources. First, Sydney City Council commissioned SGS Economics and Planning Pty. Ltd. to model WestConnex traffic. The report found that `Sydney traffic congestion will worsen with or without WestConnex, with the project only making a minor difference to Sydney's overall traffic in the future'. Second, Leichhardt Council's officers have analysed the traffic models in the EIS. The result of that analysis can be found at http://www.leichhardt.nsw.gov.au/News-and-Events/Media-Releases/2015/WestConnex-M4-East-Heading-to-Traffic-Gridlock. The title says it all. Spending $15 billion on a project that is likely to be counterproductive is highly irresponsible.

2. The EIS supports its case by comparing the benefits of building WestConnex with conditions in which WestConnex is not built. This is the wrong comparison: spending $15 billion on WestConnex should be compared with spending the same amount on public transport. Many cities around the world have found that public transport is more efficient in easing congestion than is the building of new motorways (http://westconnex.info/?p=78566). If the EIS is to be useful, it should make the same comparison.

If the State Government can refute these arguments by releasing a full and independent business case for WestConnex, it should do so. Otherwise, the WestConnex project should be replaced with a more productive approach to solving Sydney's traffic congestion.

I object to the project on the grounds that no credible business case has been made out for a project which will waste $15bn or more of public money merely to get motorists from Point A to Point B six minutes quicker.

Any such project requires careful collection of projected data, including traffic forecasts. In Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane over recent years the "science" of traffic forecasting has been less accurate than the "science" of astrology. In September this year one traffic forecasting company was fined over $200 million for making deceptive and misleading forecasts of traffic volumes.

The project should be terminated or suspended until verifiable and believable forecasts are made public.

My main concern is all the pollutants that will be discharged from the unfiltered exhaust stack on Underwood Road. Only a few hundreds metres form my house. They haven't convinced me that 5.5 kilometres of dirty air expelled out the Underwood Road unfiltered exhaust stack will have no negative affect on our air quality.
And all the dirty air escaping out of the exit portal being carried out by cars and trucks, e.g, dirt trucks what is the empty tipper part full of emissions from the tunnel and the spaces underneath vehicles full of exhaust emissions and then are released when vehicle leaves the tunnel into the neighbour hood.
You can't tell me fans at the portal will clear all this dirty air trapped in and under vehicles as they leave the tunnel.
30,000 vehicles a day that's a lot of exhaust emissions being carried out of the tunnel.

I have lived in the Inner West for over 25 years and value its community atmosphere, heritage architecture the access to parks, and valuable remaining bushland in Wolli Creek, and Wetlands in Tempe so near to the inner city.Our unique area also provides a valuable tourist area for overseas and Australian visitors.

The proposed Wesconnex development is an outdated response to contemporary issues. We need better public transport for the entire city and especially in outer western suburbs for cross Sydney travel as well as travel into the inner city. I cannot see any other modern city investing in roads in this way, in fact in places like London, Paris, New York current practice is to reduce car commuter travel into the city not increase it. Wesconnex is a retrograde step and needs to be stopped just like it was in Melbourne.

My main concern is all the pollutants that will be discharged from the unfiltered exhaust stack on Underwood Road. Only a few hundreds metres form my house. They haven't convinced me that 5.5 kilometres of dirty air expelled out the Underwood Road unfiltered exhaust stack will have no negative affect on our air quality.
And all the dirty air escaping out of the exit portal being carried out by cars and trucks, e.g, dirt trucks what is the empty tipper part full of emissions from the tunnel and the spaces underneath vehicles full of exhaust emissions and then are released when vehicle leaves the tunnel into the neighbour hood.
You can't tell me fans at the portal will clear all this dirty air trapped in and under vehicles as they leave the tunnel.
30,000 vehicles a day that's a lot of exhaust emissions being carried out of the tunnel.

I strongly object to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.
It is quite clear that this massive project will be hugely expensive and will not achieve its objectives. As overseas experience has amply demonstrated, projects like this only increase air pollution and actively encourage more cars on to the road, rapidly using up any increased road capacity created.
The WestConnex M4 East motorway is NOT a long-term solution to Sydney's congestion problem.
The fact that the State Government signed multi-billion dollar contracts for the development of this scheme PRIOR to the Environment Impact Statement even being put on public display completely undermines my confidence that this is a genuine consultation process.
The EIS enunciates BENEFITS for all stages of the project ... but does not address the NEGATIVE impacts along the whole route.
The principal objections to this proposal are:
1. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, encourage MORE CARS instead of PUBLIC TRANSPORT. It would fail to provide a long term solution to traffic and congestion. If you build more roads, you just get more cars and more congestion. It is as simple as that.
2. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, create significant air pollution and damage the health and wellbeing of people who live nearby, especially children.
3. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, divide local communities and force hundreds of people out of their homes and neighbourhoods. It will do enormous damage to the fabric of Sydney's inner west community, including small businesses and families. This includes physical and emotional wellbeing on each individual. Lack of health then has further impact on social fabric and also economic repercussions on society.
4. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, contribute to Australia's greenhouse gas emission and global warming by promoting an increase in fuel consumption and creating significant air pollution. This is not progress. It is regressive. Last century.
5. The WestConnex M4 will, if built, pollute local waterways and groundwater, and destroy precious green space and parklands that are so important to the local community and physical and emotional well being.
6. This proposal fails to include any evaluation or consideration of alternative public transport options.
7. This proposal is not justified by any publicly-released business case.
In short, this is a community destroying, polluting, regressive and economically suspect proposal.

My property has been identified as a "residential receiver" in the EIS, and is thus eligible for noise mitigation treatment.

As the construction site is directly neighbouring my apartment, I have several concerns:
1. Noise from construction will have a significant impact on my apartment, especially at night.
2. Dust from construction will potentially damage my car which is parked in its strata allocated parking spot next to the fence adjacent to the construction site.
3. Dust from construction will settle on my solar panels on the roof of my apartment block, reducing their ability to generate electricity.
4. Dust from construction will impact both my balcony and apartment interior if a window is open for any period of time.
5. The mature trees surrounding the apartment block will be removed or damaged during construction, reducing the visual aesthetic surrounding the property and reducing air quality. These trees are on the property to be acquired by WestConnex for the construction site.
6. Traffic on local roads such as Chandos Street, Loftus Street and Orpington street will increase during construction, resulting in higher noise levels, increased safety risk to residents and reduced parking availability.
7. Once the project is completed, Parramatta Road will be a lot closer to my apartment than it is currently, with no sound barriers between the road and my apartment such as other buildings to reduce noise. Had I known that WestConnex was to be built, I would not have originally purchased the apartment.

Considering these points, I request that:
1. Noise mitigation be nothing less than double glazed glass windows and balcony doors, with airtight seals and screens to completely block noise and dust from entering my apartment, and that this is completed prior to construction commencing. Given the size and cost of the project being undertaken this should not be a huge expense to WestConnex, and given the impact of the construction and ongoing traffic noise this will make a big difference to residents who will be affected by it.
2. An airtight building such as garages be constructed over uncovered car spaces adjacent to the construction site to prevent damage to vehicles by construction dust and other airborne contaminants. A non-airtight structure such as a carport is unlikely to have as much effect but would obviously be better than nothing.
3. Dust mitigation measures be strictly adhered to during construction, with an appropriate, reliable dedicated point of follow up contact available for residents should they not be working or adhered to, and that residents are notified by post that this contact exists and is available.
4. Noise mitigation measures be taken, including:
· a noise wall high enough to be effective for the 3 storey apartment blocks adjacent to it (both for visual and auditory purposes) and that these be left in place post construction,
· heavy construction noise, beeping sounds from reversing heavy vehicles and other excessive noisy activity not be allowed outside of business hours, and
· advance notification be given to residents identified in the EIS as "residential receivers" by post when there will be significant noise required for specific activities.
5. As the new trees to be installed as per the WestConnex map will be young trees, they will not provide any benefit to residents adjacent to the construction site. I request that the mature trees close to the fence line be left in place instead of being removed, as this was the proposed course of action advised by the "Site Manager" via the WestConnex info line.
6. Chandos Street be permanently turned into a cul-de-sac where it intersects Parramatta Road to prevent local roads from becoming major roads from increased traffic levels.

To Who It May Concern,

I wish to object to the proposal. I am a local resident. The lack of genuine community consultation, and transparency of the project are concerns. So too the fact that 70% of journeys from the outer west to the city occur by public transport, but this proposal is for a massive investment that will ignore the bulk of the travel requirements of the outer west community.

Then there are the issues of traffic congestion, increased pollutiion, loss of housing and amenity for the local community around the St Peter's exit point, and the effect on local waterways and groundwater.

There does not appear to be a sound business case to support the proposed development. It is concerning that key aspects of the proposal have been pushed ahead before the community has been able to know the details of the proposals.

I write to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.
I am particularly concerned about the impacts of motorway outlets on King St Newtown and Parramatta Rd in Leichhardt /Petersham that will make all neighbouring suburbs unbearable due to traffic congestion. Combined with the volume of apartments being builtin these areas local traffic will be at a standstill.

I am concerned about the impacts on health services such as NSW Ambulance on access to RPA and surrounding hospitals and for community based health services.
Much is made of areas like Newtown and Leichhardt making Sydney a vibrant city of villages and these areas contribute much to the local day and night time economies. Increased traffic congestion will negatively impact the attraction of these areas.
This area contains large services and employers such as RPA Hospital andUniversity of Sydney that will also be impacted by increased congestion.

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 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 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.