WestConnex - M4 East Upgrade

Dear Team

RE increased traffic south bound traffic on concord rd.

With the traffic modeling / design you have not included the intersection of concord Rd and Homebush bay drive. when you look at the increase of traffic on to coming south over the ryde bridge there will be an increase 1000 vehicles on concord rd and only 100 on home bush bay drive. surly we should have through traffic on the arterial roads .

I raised this at the first community consultation at concord rsl and was tolds you

Dear Team

Re removal of Bus Stops

In the EIS you have indicated the removal of the buss stop on concord rd near the Sydney st ( you described it as merged with the stop Patterson st stop yet you indicate the location to be the same as the current Patterson st stop)

Please reconsider this as it is the only stop near us as there are no buses on Parramatta rd ( between Concord rd and Burwood Rd)and you are pushing public transport further away from this area, this is creating a void of public transport.

Please reconsider. or add buses down Parramatta rd

See uploaded attachment.

As a resident of Carrington Street, North Strathfield it was with dismay that in the middle of August 2015 I was informed by WestConnex personnel who called at my home, that the M4 East tunnels would be going directly under my home. For months prior to this I had received many notifications in the letterbox about the WestConnex project, none of which gave any indication that this would be the case.

My concerns regarding this project are:
1) changing the site of the tunnels from Parramatta Road to Carrington Street, North Strathfield;
2) the disruption to the lives of the residents of Carrington Street;
3) the noise factor following completion of the tunnels resulting from an increase in traffic volume in and out of the tunnels and onto Concord Road, and
4) the visual aspect of the project.

Addressing the above concerns, I make the following comments:
1) if the decision to move the tunnels from Parramatta Road to Carrington Street was to accommodate the further development of high rise residential buildings along Parramatta Road, as recently mentioned in Parliament by the local MP for Strathfield, this in itself would contribute to an increase of traffic in the immediate area with a large number of those unit owners driving cars and not necessarily using the tunnels.

2) For the past three years the lives of the residents of Carrington Street and surrounding streets in the vicinity of the North Strathfield Rail Underpass have been greatly disrupted with 24 hour/7 day noise, dust, lack of access to their properties and damage to roads. Even though the Project Authority advised that roads would be repaired, to date this has not happened.

With the WestConnex project timeframe being three years as well, during which time in and around Carrington Street there will be major truck movements, associated noise and air pollution, possible restricted access to our properties, this will be a total of six years of disruption to the residents of this area.


3 & 4) Current plans of the WestConnex interchange do not provide visual or noise barriers
for the new network of roads around the Concord Road Interchange at North Strathfield.
The plans should be amended to include:

1. A sound wall to be built along the tunnel entry and exit of the Concord Road Inter-
change and also along the M4 east motorway facing the residents of Sydney Street
and Carrington Street.

2. This substantially high wall to be populated with sound absorbing vegetation. This
will not only help to reduce the impact of the noise but will also provide an aesthetically pleasing barrier to the motorway for residents in Sydney Street and
Carrington Street.

3. An aesthetically pleasing and sound reducing wall to be built on Carrington Lane to
replace the temporary construction fence that will be pulled down once building has
been completed. Tall trees be planted against this fence to provide a visual
barrier to the freeway.

4. Once construction has finished, the green space between Sydney Street and Carrington
Lane be turned into a park with amenities for the local residents.

5. That fast growing, hardy, tall trees be planted along the edge of both the Sydney
Street Exit of the motorway and the edge of the M4 motorway facing the residents of
Sydney Street and Carrington Street.

Thank You.

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.

To whom it may concern,

I make the following submission to the Environmental Impact Statement exhibition for the Westconnex M4 East Tunnel Project (SSI 6307):

I am opposed to the construction of the M4 East Tunnel and do not believe that spending $15.4 billion to achieve a 6 minute travel time saving is justified. The Government has ignored the community by signing contracts to build this road before releasing the EIS, the full business case or obtaining planning approval.

The EIS shows that this unjustified project will irreversibly destroy the heritage values of Haberfield, Australia's oldest garden suburb.

I want the following addressed from the EIS:

Filter the smoke stacks and relocate away from schools and childcare centres.
Build a nose wall for properties in Ashfield next to Parramatta Rd interchange, during and after construction.
Stop rat-running through Haberfield and Ashfield, by removing the right hand turn into Waratah St, Haberfield and close Chandos St at Parramatta Rd after construction.
Offer voluntary acquisitions and WDA-funded dilapidation reports for those properties near construction sites in Northcote, Wolseley, Wattle, Walker, Ramsay, Chandos and Loftus Streets.
Restrict tunnelling and truck movements to standard construction hours - no 24/7 truck movements.
return acquired properties not required after construction to Ashfield Council for community use and public open space.

This project will not solve Sydney's traffic problems and NSW taxpayers money is better spent investing in Public Transport.
Infact it will only encourage bad behaviour and environment damage. Money should be invested in the railway networks, ferries and other forms of public transport to create a joined up network.


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


Yours sincerely

L Monk

Hello,

Roads modelled by the noise and vibration assessment only include those subject to proposed design or engineering changes - with receivers located next to these roads potentially being considered eligible for mitigation / treatment.

However, the proposal will cause an increase in traffic volumes along the length of the City-West Link, due to city-bound traffic using this route rather than Parramatta road. Therefore, the proposal may cause a significant increase in noise levels along City-West Link and associated impacts on suburbs including Haberfield, Leichhardt, Lilyfield and Annandale. No assessment of impacts on these suburbs has been made. As such, I submit that the study area for the noise and vibration assessment must be extended to cover all roads where the proposal will cause a significant increase in traffic volumes, not just those that are subject to proposed design or engineering changes.

Failure to do so limits the efficacy of the EIS in assessing impacts of the proposal.

Thank you for considering my submission.

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.

It seems clear that more road capacity leads to more traffic and ultimately more congestion. More public transport will free up the road network, make our city more livable and more functional.
Please wake up Mike Baird you are a smart man with a vision for this great city, we could do so much more good, for transport with this vast amount of our money.

Not more cars in inner city!

Will result in funneling of too many cars into the CBD. Will bottleneck traffic in the inner west, and not solve Sydney's transport problems.

17 October 2015


The Director
Infrastructure Projects, Planning Service
Department of Planning and Environment
Application Number SSI 6307
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001


To The Director,
We are the residence of 154 Ramsay Road, Haberfield and would like to bring to your attention the following concerns that have caused unnecessary stress to our family since the announcement of the current proposal of Westconnex.
1. Air Quality: We are at odds to understand that the current proposal states Â"that ventilation outlets would be better off unfilteredÂ". How is it possible that unfiltered air be better for any resident in this area or any area for that matter? Current car emotions a spread along all the roads with each resident sharing the air quality, however, with this proposal you will be funnelling all the fumes to the one outlet. We were also advised that this is not only planned for this project but also for the future upgrades on the M5/airport connection.
Our request would be to install filtration systems on the ventilation outlets.

2. Increased Noise: This current proposal will move Wattle Street within 30 meters to our house, once the current dwellings will be demolished. This will significantly increase the traffic noise as the current intersection is more than 100 meters from our property with the currently dwellings still there.
Our request would be for some Architectural treatment to reduce the noise such as double glazing on all our windows and doors, surrounding the entire house.

3. Driveway Access: By moving the Wattle Street intersection within 30 meters of our driveway, it will make it virtually impossible to reverse out of our own driveway. Currently traffic already commences the queuing up of cars at the intersection with just taking up to 9 cars before access is blocked. The new intersection would only require for 3 cars before restrictions commences on trying to reverse out of our driveway. With two 70 year old driving residents currently living in this dwelling, reversing out of the drive way to travel to Haberfield for the essential would no longer be an option.
Our request would be for a property adjustment by installing a turning bay which would enable us to drive out of our driveway rather than reversing out.
4. Increase of Traffic: By installing a right hand turn from Wattle Street into Ramsay Street, you will not only increase the traffic congestion into Ramsay Street, but also giving an alternate route for cars to avoid traveling on the new Westconnex and avoid paying the tolls and bypassing the City West Link.
Our request would not to have the right hand turn into Ramsay Street approved. Cars would still be able to access Haberfield via Parramatta Road and Dalhousie Street if required.

We are more than happy to discuss these concerns with you and would much appreciate your thoughts and comments.

Kind regards



Pasquale and Rosa Calautti
Home Owners/ResidentÂ's

Objection to Proposed Alignment of Underground Tunnels Running Under Burwood Residential Area

As a local Burwood resident, I would like to lodge this submission to express my reservations and objection which pertains to the above-mentioned proposal of putting tunnels under Burwood residential properties. My concerns are detailed as follows:

1. The unexpected proposed tunnel alignment is considered objectable. This will inevitably create enormous disturbance to Burwood residents and property owners during tunnel construction; including vibration, underground rock mass characteristics that leads to soil instability and water movement etc. These will bring adverse structural impacts to the existing properties sitting directly above the proposed tunnel alignment and its vicinity.

The proposed tunnel alignment in the WestConnex publications appears to be ambiguous. In accordance to the publication, it is difficult to determine the precise area and the actual numbers of residential properties affected by the tunnels. This is attributed to the fact that the Authority may wish to maintain utmost flexibility; however, this might lead to attract more bitter criticisms regarding transparency and dispute.

2. Burwood suburb is also renowned for its heritage properties. This also implies that a lot of underground services; such as drainage, sewage and gas pipes might not be able to endure the harsh construction processes. Any unpredictable incidents which result in damage and subsequent replacements involves undergoing tedious, painstaking and long-term time and efforts to have the issues settled. This will bring excessive threats and stress to Burwood property owners and local residents.

3. Generally, local criticisms can be condensed to the concerns that the subject proposed tunnel alignment will lead to the anticipated adverse consequences of causing damages to the property structures and underground service facilities, bringing inconvenience and disturbance, and affecting property values due to the associated massive construction and drilling.

4. It is also noted with concern that the proposed tunnel project does not bring a favourable light to Burwood locals; in terms of direct accessibility and utilisation. This does not strike the balance between the envisaged adverse effects and disturbance create to Burwood area and the improvement or benefits done to the area.

5. The effectiveness of reducing traffic congestion also raises another query. Should there be an expense incurred when using the tunnel, motorists would still prefer using the Parramatta Road; which is already extremely congested.

It is also envisaged that part of the potential tunnel users would also spill the traffic onto the the current local streets and roads. This will, actually, shift traffic problems and burdens to the surrounding local road system.

In respect of the above, I, therefore, submit my objection to the Authority. It is also suggested that the Authority considers to re-adopt the original proposal of constructing the tunnels under Parramatta Road . This may rest assured that the subject project will not adversely affect the Burwood residents at all.

Dear Sir/Madam

I object to WESTCONNEX -

1 It will funnel traffic into already congested areas

2 It will destroy a heritage area ... I distinctly remember going to Council meetings in recent years where the desirability of heritage buildings was discussed and approved. Once destroyed it's gone forever. The proposed destruction of the heritage houses is proof that there is no value in the word of Councils -

3 I object to the tunnels being dug under housing to allow high rise along Parramatta Road - developers and the powers that be will make a fortune while devaluing the properties of the locals

4 Adding more housing to the area will negate any supposed benefit that may be gained by WestConnex by adding thousands more commuters to the equation

5 The only real benefits that will be gained are by the developers

6 The ventilation stack on Wattle Street and Parramatta Road is in close proximity to many schools and will cause health issues

7 Stop forcing more and more people into the major cities - they weren't designed for it. There is plenty of room in central Australia ... use that!

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 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.

In addition to promoting public and active transport, alternatives to deal with an increased population growth can be found in decentralisation. Create business and cultural opportunities outside already heavily populated areas, i.e. outside the Sydney Basin and develop rural centres.

I wholeheartedly agree Parramatta Rd. needs to fixed.but I don't think a tunnel is the answer. Good public transport is what's needed if you want less cars on the road.
I live near Wattle St. where the stacks will be placed. My understanding is that they will not be filtered. I strongly object to this. Filtering is a must.

I support the permanent closure of Chandos st after the west conned finish the road works

St Davids Road and Rogers Avenue, Haberfield, should be closed at Parramatta Road to prevent those roads from being used as a "rat-run" by motorists trying to avoid congestion on Parramatta Road caused by traffic spilling onto Parramatta Road from the WestConnex tunnel. Entry to suburban streets from Parramatta Road in the vicinity of the WestConnex tunnel should be limited to Dalhousie Street.

The Petition of citizens of New South Wales brings to the attention of the House the risk of proceeding with the $15 billion WestConnex toll road when the full business case has not been released for public scrutiny; the community consultation process has been inadequate; and Australian and international research indicates WestConnex will fail to deliver the benefits or revenues promised.
WestConnex will irreparably damage thriving inner-city communities; subject densely populated areas to increases in deadly air pollution; force scores of families out of their homes and businesses; and expose New South Wales taxpayers to huge financial risk and ongoing costs if the toll road fails.
The undersigned petitioners ask the Legislative Assembly to:
1. Call on the Government to halt the tender and construction processes for WestConnex - including the acquisition of homes and businesses for all stages of the project; and
2. Call for a full parliamentary inquiry into WestConnex and for the full business case to be released.