WestConnex - M4 East Upgrade

1. Filtration should be put on the smoke stacks.
2. Move the filtration stack away from schools and childcare centres.

I wish to express my strong objection to the West Connex M4 East Motorway proposal. I've seen the stupidity of the City West Link having been built with traffic lights rather than on and off ramps so it brings more traffic and makes it slower. I don't believe that all the money on the road is good I think it would be better spent on public transport making more light rail lines so people only have to walk 5 mins not 10-15 will make a big difference to attitudes and people leaving their cars at home.
I don't like the idea of bringing more traffic in on different roads and eating up valuable public space and homes. Give us a city with access for all and make us competitive with the best world cities.

Hi,

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

This proposal does not appear to be justified by any business case that is available to the public and it is concerning that the NSW Govt signed contracts before the EIS was available for the public to view.

Westconnex Submission - 2 Nov 2015
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing regarding the proposed Westconnex M4 East Tunnel Project
(Project) (SSI 6307).
I have serious objections regarding this project in it current proposed form. I
believe the project is based on a flawed premise and must be paused to allow
proper and diligent consideration and community consultation to address the
underlying issue to bring about a more effective (and equitable) outcome.
Firstly, the Project is but one option, yet the NSW Government has leaped to the
conclusion that this is the only viable option. This is patently NOT the case, as
there are a variety of (cheaper) alternatives available that could be implemented
that would yield equal or better outcomes. As this option is an expensive, socially
disruptive option, it is surprising that the Project has been allowed to progress in
light of less divisive alternatives being considered by the wider community.
Secondly, the Project only seeks to treat the symptom (road congestion) rather
than be part of a holistic response to the underlying cause. As a result, it will
have a limited impact over the medium-to-long term. The Project's own
modelling indicates that there will be no material benefit for the local
communities in terms of road traffic on local roads and, if anything, local road
traffic will only worsen.
Thirdly, this lack of effectiveness over the medium-to-long term brings into
question the efficacy of the treatment and allocation of resources for the Project.
The $15.4 billion funding for the Project could be better and more effectively
used to address the underlying issue and better treat the symptoms.
Fourthly, the Project reeks of hubris with the assumption that it is a fait
accompli. The Project as it has been executed violates the fundamental tenants of
both the free market and democracy - namely, transparency and full
information. The NSW Government has ignored the community by signing
contracts to build this road before releasing this EIS, the full business case or
obtaining planning approval - which reflect a reprehensible lack of transparency
and proper procedure required for good governance and effective markets.
Without seeing the business case and options available, the community has no
way of knowing what other alternatives were considered and what their
associated costs were. As a former merchant banker, the Premier would be well
versed with many of these concepts, so it is surprising that these have been
conveniently overlooked for a project of this magnitude.
Fifthly, I am troubled by the `consultation' with the community. This process has
primarily been done in a way that disempowers the community from feeling like
they can influence the outcome, which flows from the apparent fait accompli
perception noted in point four. True community consultation would involve the
community at the start of the process, which has not happened in this case.
2
Sixthly, the Project will have a devastating impact on the Inner West, and
particularly on the communities of Ashfield and Haberfield, which affects me
directly. Ashfield is one of the most densely populated communities in Sydney
and Haberfield has great historical significance, therefore, the decision to
proceed is all the more bewildering. As one parent said at a recent WestConnex
information night held at Haberfield school, the feeling is one of Haberfield
Public School (HPS) being at the centre of a "toxic triangle" of pollution stack and
portals under the current WestConnex plans. We now have serious concerns
what this could mean for our child who will be attending HPS.
Additionally, there will be four construction zones within several hundred
metres of the school operating for at least three years. As HPS draws more than
60 per cent of its students from the Ashfield side of Parramatta Road and the
Five Dock side of Wattle St - turning both roads into 10-lane motorways will
literally carve two giant holes through the middle of the community.
Seventhly, I do not believe that the community's concerns about WestConnex
have been adequately conveyed in the EIS. There are issues concerning:
- the location and height of the ventilation shafts, especially with regard to HPS,
as relocating the stack to a topographically higher point further west along
Parramatta Road would result in emissions being released higher into the
atmosphere and achieving greater dispersal (i.e. lower concentrations),
especially if it was also taller;
- the lack of filtration on the ventilation stacks - if spending $15.4 billion on a
roadway to save six minutes of travel time, is the minor cost increase for better
air quality coming out of the stack a significant burden to bear? Given the recent
scientific advances in understanding the negative impact of air pollution on
health and mortality, is the NSW Government truly saying that the health of local
residents is not worth considering?;
- noise and dust from construction for HPS students that will detrimentally
impact learning due to the proximity of construction and machinery movements;
- the frequency of heavy-truck movements during school hours that raise safety
issues.
Given the inability of relocating HPS, much greater attention to reducing and
mitigating detrimental influences must be taken.
Eighthly, one the stated priorities of this project is to "Create opportunities for
urban revitalisation, improved liveability, and public and active transport
(walking and cycling) improvements along and around Parramatta Road". It is
evident from the EIS and statements by WestConnex representatives at the HPS
information night that there is no evidence of such improvements planned for
our community. Forsooth, when raised at the HPS meeting, the Westconnex
representatives seemed surprised that the community would request such
improvements.
Ninthly, the Project is already having a significant and direct social impact on our
local community. Many families have been forced to leave their homes, and some
3
of them will be unable to remain at HPS because the compensation they receive
does not allow them to rent or buy in the neighbourhood in future. This is
devastating for them, and the children and adults who have become their friends
through school. Many heritage homes and buildings will be demolished, to be
replaced by an ugly and enormous ventilation stack and widened roads. These
will be a constant reminder of the loss of community wrought by this Project.
The community does not feel the EIS adequately acknowledges or compensates it
for this impact.
In conclusion, the Project in its current form is inappropriate, represents an
abrogation of the need for proper community consultation and process, lacks
transparency, fails to holistically address underlying issues and merely seeks to
provide temporary relief to symptoms, as well as failing to adequately consider
the health, safety and learning-disruption effects for Haberfield Public School.
The NSW Government needs to pause the Project and begin again an effective
community-consultation process that considers all options, not just the Project.
Sincerely,

Attn: Secretary
Dept of Planning & Environment

I am writing to register my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East proposal.

I strongly object to the EIS's failure to consider total negative impacts against the total claimed positive aspects. While the M4 East EIS repeatedly refers to the positive impact of the entire WestConnex when arguing for the project, it fails to consider the negative impacts of the whole project, including loss of housing, heritage and biodiversity.

I strongly object to a process in which each section of WestConnex is assessed separately. Vague rationales for the whole project are used to justify the serious negative impacts of each stage. Projects such as the Southern motorway F8, which are not even at a planning stage, are included in the argument for the project without explanation.

I strongly object to the lack of transparency in the entire WestConnex process. Billions of dollars of contracts have been let without a full business case having been released or the project being subjected to independent Gateway reviews.

I strongly object to $15.4 billion being spent on WestConnex for small savings that will not benefit most commuters. Instead of spending this amount of money to benefit a very small percentage of drivers in Sydney, and cut just one minute off overall road network traffic speeds, the NSW Government should be investing in public transport, traffic management solutions, and regional city centres to address traffic congestion and boost NSW's economic prosperity in the long term.

I strongly object to the poor analysis of alternatives undertaken in the M4 East EIS. This section of the EIS is superficial and amounts to nothing more than a roundabout way of saying that the M4East tunnel project is preferred by WestConnex.

I strongly object to the short 55-day timeframe in which members of the community have been given to respond to the EIS for the M4 East. This document runs to nearly 5,000 pages, but the public was only given 55 days to respond, even though hundreds of people have called and emailed the Minister for Planning to say this is not long enough.

I strongly object to AECOM being paid millions of dollars of public funds to play the key role in the EIS for the M4 East. AECOM has been awarded other WestConnex contracts that give it a huge vested interest in the project going ahead, and this is demonstrated by the lack of independence and superficial analyses that characterise this EIS. In addition, AECOM has been sued for being negligent in relation to its past traffic studies, and has already paid more than $250m in settlement costs.

I strongly object to the EIS's failure to provide enough data to allow independent experts to verify its traffic analysis. For example, a detailed study undertaken by SGS Economics & Planning for the City of Sydney concluded that WestConnex would make traffic worse on Parramatta Rd, Victoria St and many local roads. The M4 East EIS claims it will improve traffic, but offers very little data that would allow experts to objectively assess this analysis.

I strongly object to the total inadequacy of the M4 East biodiversity assessment. This `analysis' is based on insufficient studies. No attempt is made to assess cumulative impacts of the entire WestConnex project on loss of open space, gardens and other vegetation.

I strongly object to the huge impact that the flow of cars and trucks out of tunnel exits will have on local roads through out the Inner West.

I strongly object to hundreds of residents being forced from their homes and businesses for the M4 East, and the failure of the EIS to assess the social impacts of this. Forcibly acquiring and destroying over 200 homes and businesses will result in massive social disruption in communities. There have been numerous reports of homeowners and tenants being inadequately compensated for the loss of their properties. These acquisitions were in motion before the EIS was even completed. Yet the EIS Social Impact study failed to do any direct research on the impact of forced acquisitions on residents.

I strongly object to the health risk and air quality analysis, which fails to assess the true impact of the M4 East. The claim is even made that WestConnex will improve local air quality - which will surely make it the first motorway in history to do so!

I strongly object to the wholesale destruction of heritage homes and precincts. This is not acceptable, particularly for a project that will not resolve but add to Sydney's traffic congestions.

I strongly object to the failure of WestConnex consultants to directly consult with business owners. Local business owners were not approached by WestConnex about the impact the M4 East would have on their livelihoods, despite the fact that many stand to see their businesses destroyed as thriving streets precincts are drowned in traffic.

Global experience and research has shown conclusively that these kinds of toll road mega-projects are hugely expensive and counterproductive. WestConnex will increase air pollution and traffic, and expose NSW taxpayers to unacceptably high levels of financial risk. 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 recognise there is pressure on several NSW Departments, including Planning and the Environment, to approve this project. I remind public servants of their obligation to the public and to the potential social, health and economic costs of spending $15.4 billion on WestConnex when it provides no solution to Sydney's transport needs.

I therefore call on the Minister for Planning to reject this project, and to formally respond to each of the concerns I have raised.

Yours sincerely,

Sydney NSW 2131, Australia

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 am writing on my parents behalf with regards to the proposed work to be undertaken on Ramsay road Haberfield. They live right on Ramsay road next to Wattle st and Parramatta rd which is where (from my understanding) the interchange will occur. My parents (as am I) are concerned with the level of pollution both noise, air and traffic, which will arise once the road works begin. Not too mention the possible structural damage which could occur to their property during the digging process. Who will pay for that? They are both elderly but living independently in their own home.. However, once the major roadworks begin, I believe their quality of life will ultimately be effected. Will their be the opportunity for them to be rehoused during this process if need be? Or will their home be insulated with sound proof windows to diminish the ongoing noise of transportation during the development process. Furthermore, in order to decrease noise and air pollution during this stage, one would need to keep windows and doors shut. Thus the need for air conditioning in the home would need to be considered. At what cost and by whom? I honestly think more time and money should have been spent on improving the transport systems rather than increasing the roads which will ultimately increase the amount of cars, trucks and bikes that will be utilised. At the end of the day more roads = more cars, more cars= more accidents, more congestion and more traffic.

I strongly object to the Westconnex proposal

Building toll roads is a costly, ultimately unproductive use of funds, as any benefits are consumed by increased traffic and pollution. The billions being spent on this project should go into sustainable public transport solutions. The project is failing to meet the objectives it has set itself.

From a local perspective the proposal will ruin precious amenity of areas such as King St and Sydney Park.

Westconnex should not be allowed to be developed further; it will not relieve traffic congestion, and no proper studies have been conducted proving it worth.

There must be a marked improvement to air quality along Parramatta Road especially around stacks and tunnel entrances and exit points. They must be filtered so we don't deal with any increase in toxic fumes.

Safe bicycle paths must be put in so that locals can get around without their cars, especially while the work is being done. There are more than enough people trying to cross Parramatta Road around Haberfield without disruptions to traffic and noise of major building/tunnelling work. What will be done to ensure locals can get around safely and not be disrupted 24/7 with works. Work should be carried out within the regular works period.

Please provide a business case to prove that this toll road will be used enough to pay for itself and the subsequent sections.

Please provide a solution to the tunnel which funnels less cars onto our roads and assists us to access public transport.

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

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
Will make our air dirtier and impact health and wellbeing of residents throughout Sydney
Will contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming by increasing fuel consumption and air pollution
Will pollute local waterways and groundwater, and mean meeting this is precious green space and parklands
Fails to compare this project against alternative public transport options
Is not justified by any publicly released business case

Honestly, I don't know where to start. There's the pollution, the devastating effect on local residents and business, the destroying of existing green space, and the lack of transparency around the project. But, for me, the worst effect is that I believe it will encourage more traffic to the area and fail to provide a long term solution to traffic and congestion. I strongly oppose this plan.

I oppose the westconnex project, and believe that it will not solve transport problems in Sydney and that the $15.4 billion being spent on the tollway would be better spent on public transport. I believe that the process of signing contracts for the project without planning approval reflects a problem with transparency and accountability, and indicates corruption. Companies such as AECOM and Parsons Brinkerhoff have allegedly failed to provide adequate services in traffic modelling, yet have contracts as advisors, in construction and in planning for the project. It is shocking that companies that have failed to provide acceptable service for similar projects are receiving contracts.

The EIS documents reflect a range if problems with the project. these problems include that the presumptions are based on weather modelling that ignores changes in our climate, that dozens of homes and businesses have been acquired without planning approval and that communities for parramatta to Haberfield will be forced to live with construction, pollution and traffic for years to come.

The fact that the NSW Government has said that the pollution stacks will not be filtered shows a shocking disregard for the health of our communities.

The traffic modelling shows that in 30 years there will be no significant change in traffic speeds in Sydney. This project is incredibly short sighted and not reflective of the global liveable city that Sydney should be striving to be.

The westconnex project must be stopped, and all activity halted immediately. There is no business case, there is no transparency, and splitting up the EIS process into at least 5 sections makes it impossible to assess the effects of the project as a whole.

I strongly object for the following reasons:

1. The EIS was released AFTER the construction contract was negotiated and executed. That's not fair and reasonable consultation.
2. Westconnex threatens the future prosperity of NSW by wasting an outrageous amount of on an expensive project with poor outcomes.
3. There are less expensive options with far better outcomes.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 that 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) 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 permanently give up all their entitlements. They wouldn't sign it, for good reason.

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.

To the Director, Major Planning Assessments, NSW Department of Planning,

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

Sydney's experience of major toll road construction has been extremely unsatisfactory. In every case cost blowouts and revenue shortfalls for private operators have cost the NSW public dearly, without making any appreciable difference to peak traffic congestion.

This tollway will funnel more traffic into our inner city medium density living spaces, negating the low carbon lifestyle efforts of
those choosing to live more sustainably.

WestConnex will increase air pollution and encourage car use whilst only moving the congestion to different locations.

Innovative solutions to Sydney's traffic problem like mass transit, cycleways and other cycle friendly policies, and improved, properly integrated and resourced, people friendly public transport would mean actual improvements to the situation (sans the negative impacts of more roads and cars).

Health outcomes (and the resulting costs for our health system) will be negatively impacted by this motorway and the increased traffic.
The abovementioned alternatives will improve the health of residents and users, and save us money.

I'm especially unhappy that this motorway will destroy some of the few small pieces of remnant bushland left in the Inner West.
During my work as a WIRES rescuer I realized that we have nearly lost the fabulous benefit and amenity of having native wildlife in our suburbs.. We can't keep on making choices which put our living spaces last.
The pathetically inadequate EIS didn't adequately look at the impact on biodiversity along the toll road corridor, the field surveys were limited in both duration and seasonality. Additional surveys carried out didn't address this inadequacy.


Finally, I'd like to point out that 'if you build it they will come', and this motorway decision will impact hugely on my communities health and happiness.
Not choosing to reject the Westconnex white elephant is a betrayal of the people who employ you.

Thankyou for your time and attention.

Director, Major Projects Assessments General

Department Of Planning
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

Submission : WestConnex M4 East EIS ( SSI 6307 )



Construction Related Impacts to ALL :

I wish to express my objection to the proposed 24hr operation of the Construction site at C7, being next to residential properties.

The hours of allowable work:

Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm Only & Rock Breaker operation 800am to 430pm
Saturday - 8.00am to 2.00pm & Rock Breakers operation 800am to 200pm
Sundays and Public holidays No Work

Many of the Residential and commercial properties which are to be demolished contain ( ACM ) Asbestos Containing Materials and Lead.

These residential properties adjacent to the construction sites will require:
i) Complete sealing of Demolition sites for the Potential of ACM Disturbance
ii) Air monitoring at all times for any air bourne ACM particles
iii) Swab analysis of exterior/Interior of adjacent residential properties surfaces
iv) Soil testing analysis
v) Possible relocation to a residence of equal or better if "none of the above" can be met during operations.

Public Health to residents and workers must be of paramount importance when ACM is Present.
I object to the Demolition of these ACM and Lead properties.

I totally object to the use of blasting explosives and equipment as a means of tunnelling for WestConnex M4 East. This will have many negative impacts on the residents health.

I object to the increase in Noise around the Haberfield area especially at C7, that the WestConnex M4 East will cause residents.

I object to the increase in dust emissions around Haberfield area at C7, that the WestConnex M4 East will cause residents.

I object to the increase in vibration emissions around Haberfield area at C7, that the WestConnex M4 East will cause residents.

What will be done in Northcote street to Avoid increased activity from Construction workers parking . Site Inductions for this issue does not work.

I object to the Health Impacts resulting from WestConnex M4 East will cause residents has not been satisfactorily addressed. This Includes sleep disturbance from fully Laden heavy trucks running 24 hours a day.

Regards

V

It takes three minutes to fill out the online submission re: the WestConnex proposal. But we'll have to live with the changes for a lifetime.

My flatmate wrote this well-worded submission. If you agree with it, you're welcome to copy + paste and submit it to the NSW Government via the website.

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 It takes three minutes to fill out the online submission re: the WestConnex proposal. But we'll have to live with the changes for a lifetime.

My flatmate wrote this well-worded submission. If you agree with it, you're welcome to copy + paste and submit it to the NSW Government via the website.

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 would rather invest the money into preventing and responding to sexual assault and domestic and family violence. DFV alone costs the state in excess of $4.3 billion a year and overwhelming impacts upon women, children and young people.
A sector underfunded and overworked and dealing with trauma day in day out and is barely able to support the current demand. I would double the current funding and lead the world on innovative men's behaviour change programs and proper 24/7 crisis support with trained trauma specialists and lastly a whole shed load of afforable accomodation options to even make a discernible change to the horrific homicide statistics where women and children end up dead. I'd want my state to remember me as a Premier who went above and beyond to make NSW a safer state not just a guy who built a big road no one wanted.

I do not believe this project represents efficient use of $15 billion expended on transport in Sydney.
This project is overshadowed by the government's decision to award contracts to build before releasing the EIS and the business case.
Consultation has been superficial and aimed at presenting the project as a fait accompli. It is clear that consultations were not aimed at measuring community attitudes to Westconnex.

From a community and heritage point of view this project is poorly conceived. It will have an enormous impact on traffic volumes and liveability in Ashfield, a suburb which is already very densely populated and doing more than its share to offer higher density living close to the city centre - on of the government's supposed planning goals.
The heritage suburb of Haberfield will also suffer traffic impacts and the schools and daycare centres will be exposed to higher pollution. Again, no attention has been paid to these valid concerns and there are no clear assurances in the EIS that pollution impacts can be avoided.

As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, Leichhardt Council has commissioned modeling which shows there will be traffic impacts at intersections east of Haberfield along Parramatta Rd.
The EIS fails to deal with these impacts, which will have significant effects on local amenity.
Any project that proceeds must clearly show the traffic impacts on streets east of Dalhousie St. There must be measures to eliminate "rat runs" through Ashfield and Haberfield local streets, particularly off Parramatta Rd at Chandos St and Orpington St.

With regard to pollution from stacks, we understand the position of the NSW government that filtration will deliver a very small benefit. A briefing at Haberfield was told that the cost of filtering the stacks could produce better results with the same spending on pollution reduction measures for the general vehicle fleet. However there is no proposal or scope for spending on vehicle pollution reduction and the cost of filtration, while significant, is small compared to the long term health and development impacts of increased particulate and nitrous pollution close to schools and child care centres. This is an unnecessary and avoidable ill consequence of this project.

Filtering stacks and building stacks higher would go some way towards easing very significant community concerns about pollution from this project.

This project has not been well-conceived or well-explained.

1st November 2015.

Submission: WestConnex M4 East EIS (SSI 6307)

As a taxpayer, commuter and citizen of NSW, but particularly as an urban planning student - I hereby wish to express my strong objection to the currently planned M4East motorway proposal (WestConnex, Stage 1).

I see this as a completely unnecessary piece of infrastructure for the state of NSW - and find it ludicrously expensive given the most unlikely impact it will have on relieving congestion along Parramatta Road and the surrounding area. If anything, all indications suggest it may amplify it.

Given WestConnex was recommended to be `the highest priority project for the NSW Government' in 2012 by InfrastructureNSW - and now in 2015 we're still waiting for their justification in real terms, something is wrong. We surely now need to scrap this project which has failed the transparency test. It is my view also that the entire board of InfrastructureNSW be disbanded immediately, as neither it nor WestConnex have been properly scrutinised for some years now - and therefore cannot be worthy of any ongoing further investment...

How on Earth the NSW Government can favour yet another monstrous motorway - when it could be building rail projects that do a much better job of carrying people through this corridor, is beyond me. The truth is there are far more sensible projects we could (and should) be investing in to reduce Sydney's traffic congestion, but the Baird Government has refused to consider any of them and instead ploughs ahead with WestConnex, for what I can only assume is now mostly political reasons.

This would be almost amusing, were the project not so incredibly expensive. NSW is not that rich that it can afford to blow $15billion on something so unlikely to succeed.

Whilst the Daily Telegraph and NRMA continue to urge the NSW Government to deliver this road `to help the people of Sydney's western suburbs', there appears to be little credible evidence yet presented by government which ensures this particular road will make a real difference to congestion along Parramatta Road.

The fact is public transit and freight rail investments alone would almost certainly do a much better job of reducing our congestion and especially if measured by each dollar spent (when compared to a motorway). Therefore, we should also be realistic and say that the current M4East EIS, still yet to have its business case released publicly, remains highly flawed...

Please take into account the following:

1. The current M4East traffic modelling have given no indication that our world is also headed towards a global fuel shortage in the decades ahead. Despite the lower fuel prices we see of late (which has far more to do with market competition than it does supply), global crude oil production has now peaked, and will soon be in decline throughout many of the countries which produce it. As yet, humanity has no alternative energy source both plentiful and cheap enough to replace the internal combustion engine and the fuel needed to run it.

This should be of very real concern to policy makers, bureaucrats and industry professionals. It highlights a need to carefully pick the right kinds of transit infrastructure, so that we can future-proof Sydney for the century ahead. WestConnex, which supposedly depends on toll revenue to stay profitable, is not such a sure thing...

2. The number of vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) plateaued in Australia during the GFC and is likely to decline somewhat rapidly as the rising costs of future petroleum exploration and production get passed on to the consumer. This must be taken into account as something which will again limit motoring take-up into the future - and provoke a rising patronage of public transport instead.

WestConnex therefore cannot be considered a low-risk project, which guarantees profits for any future toll-operator/owner.

3. Aside from these external influences, we still have no clear indication that the traffic modelling relied upon has accounted for the latest density targets now being talked of by UrbanGrowthNSW. An additional 40,000 apartments (supposedly with their own garages) is the target planned for the surrounding suburbs, which make up the WestConnex corridor. UrbanGrowth NSW also wishes to create thousands of new jobs in these areas. If there is an absence of such detail when calculating future traffic numbers related to this project, then the results are misleading as to the benefits WestConnex can bring. They cannot be used to justify this project and must be therefore ignored as unreliable.

4. Whilst the M4 East is only one stage of the proposed future WestConnex network Government hopes to complete, stage by stage, it is far less valuable if the rest of the stages. . Both the economic and practical success of each stage, however, depends on the organism as a whole being completed within a decade. For this reason, a completed M4 East must then be built upon to return its long-term benefit. Once it reaches the CityWest Link, it requires additional capacity built in there. When that additional capacity reaches the Rozelle Rail Yards, it requires the completion of the proposed `Western Harbour Tunnel' to relieve the otherwise amplified congestion it will all bring to the Anzac Bridge (which is already at capacity). The point is, this M4East only kicks congestion up the road, to the next new stage. This is why investing in modes of transit that get people out of cars would be far more sensible, than extending our existing motorways. The additional roadspace this would free-up in our existing road network could mean WestConnex as a whole would not be necessary.

5. Recent years have witnessed the growing failure of public/private partnerships (PPP) to deliver profits to the private sector investors who have helped fund and build our urban motorways (ie. the Cross City Tunnel, the Lane Cove Tunnel and Brisbane's Clem 7 Tunnel). An unwillingness by government to help absorb such financial losses means we now have a reluctant private sector looking to fund motorways or absorb risk on new transport infrastructure projects - of many kinds.

Surely then, the idea that the NSW Government can procure the full $15.5billion for this one motorway project (which will take ten years to build in total) becomes ever harder to fathom as a realistic projection. We therefore need to ask if this first step of WestConnex, the M4East, really is the most sensible infrastructure proposal your department could approve - and is it really that the rest of WestConnex will ever be completed in full?

6. It is almost inevitable that mounting carbon efficiency targets will demand our society do more to reduce road pollution, and therefore - our individual motoring, in the decades ahead. This again will add increased risk and uncertainty to any profit projections currently estimated for the private sector.

7. Underground motorways often create serious levels of air pollution across established surface suburbs. No one in their right mind would want this. It only devalues existing neighbourhoods by adversely impacting upon the health of residents and the quality of local streetscapes.

8. WestConnex will do nothing to change Sydney's commuting behaviour, therefore, is this the best transit investment we could make? Surely the irony is plain to see, that despite recent commitments by the NSW Government to invest billions in an underground metro (NorthWest to CBD and then on to Bankstown) they are also choosing to spend billions more to re-enforce one of the least efficient modes of transit to link our two major CBDs. They do this with no additional public rail infrastructure yet committed to for the same region, nothing than can offer an alternative mode of transit to many motorists who might otherwise choose it.

Sydney needs additional high-capacity, high-speed rail links along this corridor. An amplified and extended motorway will only encourage more road traffic. If this nominated urban belt is to become a city-shaping project, then it's time to get real. If it's good enough to invest in high-speed rail connections between Sydney's NorthWest and Sydney's South (around Bankstown) through our CBD - then surely it's only a matter of time before Parramatta requires a connection of equal efficiency. This is yet another reason to reject the WestConnex motorway escalation now.

WestConnex is likely to become the biggest, most expensive urban tollway in the world - and the ugliness of this particular stage (the M4East) is that it paves the way to create an argument for the rest of it. Once this stage is built, the congestion moves to the next bottleneck and so it goes on until every stage is completed. Despite this, at the end of it we'll still have everyone in cars - and everyone congested. Congestion itself cannot be stopped by building ever more road space in an attempt to dilute it. More bitumen only encourages more road-usage. The idea that motorists should be able to bypass all of Sydney and never see a traffic light until they reach their destination suburb is indulgent in the extreme, environmentally unsustainable and wasteful economically.

The individual motorist needs to be told no - as the old saying goes, "you're not in traffic - you ARE traffic!."

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.

The Baird Government is no doubt ambitious, but please reject this WestConnex project - in full. I strongly object to any of it going ahead and insist that public transport and rail freight alternatives be investigated immediately, with transparency, as an alternative to help keep our city's future planning sustainable.


Sincerely,




Nathan English **

2nd November, 2015
Balmain East 2041
[email protected]

**POLITICAL DONATION DECLARATION:
Please note, I have not made any donations exceeding $1000 in the requisite period.