WestConnex - M4 East Upgrade

Like many thousands of others from the NSW community, I am strongly opposed to the Westconnex series of tollways. I opposed to the project because the evidence provided by those who want to build it at huge public expense is weak and not accepted by expert and independent consultants. I believe the project will embed car dependency and not solve traffic problems. One only has to consider the traffic evidence and see that so many intersections are at level E or F and the tunnels would be at capacity to by 2031 to know that there must be a better use of $15.5 billion.

I would prefer to see a mix of alternatives including much better public transport across the West of Sydney. For as long as I can remember there have been complaints about under investment in public transport in Sydney, particularly in the West. The alternatives section is very superficial and does not consider in any serious way at all alternatives involving demand management as well as public transport.

I am also deeply offended by the process that has been used to push this project through.

I am strongly opposed to planning proceeding without any transparent business case. I am opposed to contracts being let before the planning process is complete. I am opposed to the fact that we d-on't know the terms of those contracts and what clauses allow for the project not to go ahead. In response to a question, the Minister for Planning Rob Stokes said that he would treat the decision about Westconnex projects in the same way as other decisions. I am told by the Department of Planning that all issues raised will be subject to rigorous assessment. I remain to be convinced - however as a journalist and a citizen I want to belief that our processes are open to evidence and decision making in the public interest. I will follow this process through and report on it.

For much of this year, I have researched the project. While I will never be an expert on transport and traffic, I have learned however that there are very serious debates about traffic modelling,and transport policy. What I do know is that this EIS does not engage this those debates or the evidence provided in already published critiques of traffic modelling.

I object to the fact that AECOM has prepared this EIS. I have spoken to AECOM people at EIS sessions for the M5 tunnel. It is quite clear that they seem themselves as proponents of the project. They lack the necessary independence to produce a study of this kind. This company has been involved in developing a business case for the Westconnex since 2013 and have long promoted it on their website. I know there are many excellent engineers working for AECOM but given their commercial interests in the project and their history of poor traffic modelling, their role in the overall management of this EIS is unacceptable.

I object to the short period that has been allowed for consultation. It has not been possible for the public to raise funds for independent consultants. I have noticed that Ashfield Council and transport Planner have pointed out many ways that
the EIS has not met the SEARS - and wonder why the Department of Planning even accepted it without requiring more work. My correspondence on this has been included in the People's M4 EIS.

I have noticed that the 'build case' depends on Parramatta Rd bus lanes that are not in the scope of this project. How is that possible? These bus lanes are not even planned for the end of this project. Indeed at a recent Urban Growth proposal session at the Ashfield Bowling Club, they were presented as one of a range of possibilities for Parramatta Rd.

I am also confused about why the Build scenario included the Southern Extension. This motorway is not yet at a serious proposal stage and is deeply opposed by many residents in the Southern suburbs of Sydney. Why does the build scenario for 2031 need to include this motorway? What benefit has it been calculated to offer? I could not find that in the EIS.


I could also find no modelling of what the cumulative impacts of BOTH the M4 and M5 would be on traffic throughout the Inner West. Residents are extremely concerned that the tunnels could be build and the management of the impacts on surrounding roads would be left to the RMS. The regional and local impacts should be modelled across the Inner West for 2021.

I am concerned at the number of issues that have been left to the design phase. Friends at Beverly Hills have found that noise walls have come down for months longer than originally predicted while residents on the M4 widening at Granville are very disturbed about the noise and contamination issues that have accompanied construction works. The latter issues were raised during the consultation period for the M4 widening but were effectively ignored by the Department of Planning. ( See submission from Granville on M4 widening EIS site signed by 66 residents.)

I am very concerned about serious problems being fobbed off to the 'condition' phase. One only has to be aware of how the new M5 proposal is remove protective policies that were part of the old M 5 to know how unreliable 'conditions' can be.

I have interviewed a number of residents along the M4. There have been consistent and continual complaints by people that they are being pushed out of their homes - there is a feeling along the corridor that WDA and construction companies behave as though they already have approval. The Social Impact study fails to grasp the extent of the social disruption through flawed and superficial methodology
As time has run out I must post this submissin

Parramatta Rd amenity and Cyclist provision:
While Parramatta Rd on road bus lane is an improvement, it is far from benefiting the full range of cyclist, from youngest to oldest. The current half hearted attempt to built a share path on existing footpath may be something to improve on.

Given the forecasted volume of traffic along Queens Rd/ Gipps St, riding along this route seems risky. A cyclist motorway on ramp from Queens St is even more so, in my opinion.

Therefore, how about a physical seperated cycleway between cooks river cycleway and Timbrell Dr (Bay Run)?


Public transport
I support the proposed Bus Lane along Parramatta Rd. Too bad that the volume of traffic east of Hume Hwy prevent it from extended further.

Wattle St exit ramp being the final cbd exit
I'm fine with that. However, it appears there is only a single lane emerging from the tunnel, and only expands to two lanes closer to the surface. There may be similar problem at the nearby Parramatta Rd exit.

Since the traffic queue are already forecast to extend back to the tunnel, a single lane tunnel exit sounds like a big problem in the future. A would be unable to carry the volume of traffic, and a traffic queue in the tunnel sounds bad.


George St and nearby Powell on ramp: Traffic forecast said it wouldn't work, and the ramp would form a barrier to pedestrian from Parramatta Rd heading into Arnott Park, erasing the council's plan for a 'green link' to Olympic Park. Time to redesign this!

Westconnex is an example of a lack of visionary, strategic thinking that uses true leadership to bring the community along for the journey. It is retrograde, based on an outdated 1950s car-based view of the world and fails to meet the needs of the community.

The EIS is premature and should not have been conducted before a thorough community-consultation process that canvassed ALL possible options, rather than having a fait accompli presented as "deal done".

Westconnex is a dubious spend of $15.4 billion, which could be more effectively spent to achieve better outcomes than Westconnex will provide.

The Project will only be a temporary reprieve and will lead to more (not less) cars on local roads, as well as no meaningful impact on traffic on the long term.

The Project will threaten the learning environment at Haberfield Public School in terms of noise, air quality and personal safety.

The Project fails to take best-practice measures to mitigate air pollution/emissions (e.g. taller, better located exhaust stacks equipped with state-of-the-art filtration), suggesting there is a low value placed on local residents' health.

The Project is a community destroyer.

SUBMISSION re EIS for WESTCONNEX M4 EAST

To whom it may concern,

I request the following issues be addressed:

1. Insufficient information and inadequate detail provided in the EIS to make an accurate submission regarding the proposal. For example; proposed design levels of road, footpath and noise walls along Wattle Street, were not provided.

2. Noise walls along the rear of my property are shown at 5 metres in height. Although I accept the benefit of such walls, I am concerned at their scale, mass, bulk and overshadowing effects, resulting in an adverse impact on the amenity of my property. If the noise wall must be 5 metres above the existing ground level, please provide transparent panelling for the top 2 metres (minimum).

3. Landscaping between the noise wall and my rear boundary is shown, and is desirable to soften the adverse effects of the noise wall. Which plants are proposed and what maintenance program will be put in place to ensure the area remains attractive?

4. Walker Avenue heritage values and streetscape amenity have been identified in the EIS as suffering greatly as a result of this proposal; what measures will be put in place to address the loss of character, and therefore, loss of value to properties in Walker Avenue?

5. Loss in value suffered by Walker Avenue properties; those who have had to sell recently report a loss of $200,000.00, on average, as a result of the road widening proposal. For those who are in a position where they have to sell, will WestConnex offer a guarantee to make up the difference between the actual sale price and one which would be reasonably expected had the road not be progressing?

Thank you for your attention to these matters; I look forward with anticipation to a satisfactory solution.

The proposal includes a right turm from the motorway to Waratah Street Haberfield. The traffic assessment concedes significant queuing at the intersection of Timbrell Drive and Dobroyd Parade resulting in queues back into the motorway off ramp.

The right hand turn appears to have the purpose of assisting in clearing this queued traffic by diverting into residential streets. This will execrable thecurrent Hawthorne Parade/ Marion Street rat run in the AM peak where intersections often exceed LoS F.

The right hand turn into Waratah Street should be deleted from the project.

As a resident of Erskineville, I believe the current plan for Westconnex will have a negative impact on the area in which I live. I think it is a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars which should be used on public transport.

There appear to be plans in place for getting a lot more cars to where the St Peters interchange will be but nothing planned for what will happen from there and I believe this will cause a lot more congestion around St Peters, Newtown, and Erskineville.

I also occasionally use the M5 when travelling to Hurstville and surrounds but I would not use this road if there was a toll attached to the section I use. I am sure that many people would be similar as it usually only saves a couple of minutes and therefore surrounding roads would be more congested if a toll was introduced for this section of the M5.

I don't believe that the government is being honest with how much this project is going to cost or with the supposed benefits it will provide. For example, the government was claiming that the expected travel time by bus between Burwood and the City on parramatta Rd to "almost halve" when this was not true at all (smh article 14/03/2015)

There are far better ideas out there such as building large interchange car parks at major stations on the western lines to encourage more people to take the train into the CBD. The last thing needed is more traffic within the CBD and surrounding suburbs.

This project appears to be a terrible idea financially and environmentally not to mention the health consequences with people effected by noise and pollution, homes lost, and Aboriginal heritage sites impacted upon.

I would encourage you to be a progressive government and invest in better public transport for Sydney. Less cars on the road and more people on trains and buses is a win for all of us.

Please refer to the attached submission.

I object to the project, as it significantly impacts my property and most likely put me at risk of financial hardship. See attached letter highlighting some of the serious impacts the project has on my property, forming part of my submission

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am a resident in 20 Carrington Street and am opposing the lack of sound barriers and vegetation barriers around the Concord Road Interchange.

We do not want this motorway to become a concrete jungle, particularly with the regeneration of Parramatta Road. It's vital to get this right. We have the opportunity for this motorway to be architecturally integrated into the landscape of the local community and that of the new regenerated Parramatta Road. We have the opportunity to set a precedent for the rest of Australia.

I have included some images of sound walls/barriers in Victoria - they seem to be creative when it comes to motorways.

I urge you to consider the sound walls/barriers around the heavy residential areas of the Concord Road interchange, and also to consider this in the future context of the Parramatta Road re-juvenation.

Many regards
Anita Catalano

Please refer attached

see attached

see attachment

Please refer to the attached letter which outlines my concerns with this project.

I strongly object to the proposed Westconnex M4East Tunnel for reasons outlined in the attached letter.

Please see submission attached

1
28 October 2015
The Secretary
DP & E Project No. SSI 6307
NSW Department of Planning & Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001
This is a submission in response to the Environmental Impact Statement exhibition for the Westconnex M4 East Tunnel Project (SSI 6307).
I strongly object to the Westconnex project proceeding. It represents an irresponsible waste of taxpayers' money.
This fact is re-enforced by the State's refusal to release a proper business plan for the project.
The history of financial failures of road tunnels built in Australia would suggest that a strong business case should be presented before such a project is embarked upon: No such case has been made for this project.
Arguments that these financial details are "Commercial in-confidence" must be rejected when such a high risk, high cost project is considered, to do otherwise is un-democratic. It is after all, the people's money being squandered.
Given that the project is now to be managed by a private company can only suggest that the government wishes to further cloud the entire project in secrecy, further suggesting the financial weakness of the business case.
I am concerned that the detailed design of the Westconnex released in the EIS does not make any concession to improve cycling facilities. One particular example is at the intersection of the current city west link and Waratah St. This intersection is part of an Ashfield Council Cycling Route, a fact that Westconnex was apparently unaware of when I contacted them in early June. The fact that this was unknown to Westconnex would suggest that the design has not been completed with any consideration to existing council facilities. I would suggest that a bicycle crossing should be included in the design at this intersection, to allow access to the well-used cycling infrastructure around the Iron Cove Bay. No provision at all has been made for cycling along the east-west corridor north of Parramatta Road.
The Westconnex M4 East State Significant Infrastructure Application Report, November 2013,
page 11, section 2.2 Core Project Objectives states that one of the "core objectives of the project is to create active transport improvements along and around Parramatta Road". In no way does the proposed project address this objective.
On contacting the then Westconnex organisation, I was told that facilitating cycling was not part of the scope of the project. How, in this day and age can ANY transport infrastructure project of this scale NOT HAVE cycling as part of its scope?!
2
The EIS discusses the number of truck movements during construction of the road, but does not describe the nature of these vehicles.
I would suggest that the use of truck and dog trailer combinations be disallowed, as these vehicles present an unacceptable level of danger to other road users. These vehicle combinations have been banned in many urban environments in overseas jurisdictions. At the very least, such vehicles should be fitted with side guards to reduce the chances of pedestrians, cyclists and cars going beneath the wheels.
The project will subject the residents of Haberfield and Ashfield to the concentrated exhaust of four additional lanes of traffic, via the proposed unfiltered exhaust stacks located in the vicinity of a large primary school, and three childcare facilities.
In summary, I object to this project as it represents a probable financial disaster that will do little to improve the living environment for the majority of Sydneysiders. It entirely fails to make any improvement to public or active transport.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Marwood
18 Denman Avenue
Haberfield NSW 2045
Email: [email protected]

Please find attached a submission from the Haberfield Public School P&C Association, which objects to the WestConnex development.

I oppose the further development of WestConnex on the basis outlined in the attached submission.

Please see submission uploaded

I object to the WestConnex proposal and would like the NSW government to take more seriously the health research indicating the dangers of concentrations of traffic emissions in residential areas. This project will not solve the congestion, it will only move it to Ashfield - Haberfield at a huge cost to the NSW taxpayers and will radically change our suburbs. The construction period will add much stress to all in the vicinity.