WestConnex - M4 East Upgrade

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.

I object to this project in its entirety. No business case for this project exists - it will not alleviate traffic, merely pushing the M4/Parramatta Rd bottleneck slightly further down Parramatta Rd to the proposed Haberfield/Ashfield exit.

It will increase pollution, cause serious health problems in a residential area due to the exhaust stacks, and destroy a heritage suburb.

How is it the government and the WDA ride roughshod over heritage laws?

This is not an answer to Sydney's congestion problem. Better investment in public transport is the only way forward.

This project is being run on the fly with little foresight and no concern for the vast opposition to it.

STRONG OBJECTION TO WESTCONNEX M4

What are the M4 East Project objectives?
A number of objectives were stated each relating to cars and what is oddly termed urban renewal but the last objective caught my attention for its irony.
* Protect natural and cultural resources and enhance the environment.
This statement means nothing if the M4 east destroys natural and cultural resources in Haberfield and other areas.
It is ironic that the WestConnex M4 East project will destroy a large part of Sydney's inner west - heritage suburb of Haberfield. Many homes will be destroyed to make way for the Project's objectives. These homes and this suburb is a significant part of early Australian culture seen through the style of homes, gardens and parks along with the eclectic mix of people who live there. The loss of these significant period homes will leave a hole in Sydney's heritage culture not to mention the heritage suburb. AND as the people will not be able to buy back into their own suburb (insufficient compensation) they will be effectively herded out to other places away from their stamping grounds. This is already having an impact on people who are forced to move including foreseeable long term health impacts as a result of anxiety and other pressures.
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
Contrary to claims or however the WDA had termed community consultation there has been no exchange of ideas with and between any of the communities.
AIR QUALITY
The claim air quality would be better along Parramatta Road due to a reduction in vehicle volume sounds like shuffling the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic (just plain peculiar).
The M4 East (WestConnex) is designed to induce more traffic than currently use our roads. However many roads are at capacity. If the M4 East is tolled it won't be cheap. It stands to reason the traffic on Parramatta Road and other roads will not be reduced as many drivers avoid tolls. It simply follows air quality will not be better.
NOISE AND VIBRATION
From experience the tunnelling process will vibrate structures, in some cases severely (juddering / shaking houses) for at least a kilometre in all directions. I have seen cracks in buildings, fences and roads not to mention damage done to underground structures pipes (water, cable, gas). This is a reality and the NSW government should be prepared to smartly address all claims.
CONCLUSION
The NSW Government has a sub-standard approach to its duty of care to its citizens. Instead its `build it and they will come' (at all costs) approach is putting people in harm's way and we are losing heritage at the rate of knots. The long term health of the city's population, improving our air quality, maintaining Sydney's heritage and bushland should be at the forefront in a showcase for business and tourism not a China like polluted destructive maze of roads.

I object to the planned WestConnex M4 East ('stage 1'). The EIS demonstrates, and independent modelling (per Leichhardt Council) further highlights several traffic issues:
- Traffic too/from the M4 will bottleneck coming into and leaving the tunnel system around Haberfield
- Wattle Street / Dobroyd Parade, being frequently congested will now become overwhelmed with traffic being disgorged via the Wattle St tunnle entry / exit
- Parramatta Road, also heavily congested, will suffer sever congestion at east of the tunnel / entry exits
- 'rat runners' will seek alternatives through residential streets, some of which are already overloaded including Ramsay, Marion, Foster, Flood among others
- The EIS indicates no filter is required for tunnel exhaust stacks. No lesson appears to have been adopted from the M5 east tunnels in this regard.
- The EIS does not properly assess transport alternatives. Whereas building new roads invariably leads to increased traffic, building public transport removes traffic from those streets. I recommend the introduction of several express-train park and ride stations at key points along the M4. Passengers can then travel quickly to the city and the airport in comfort and at lower environmental cost.

The project as proposed brings 19th century thinking to 21st a 21st century city.

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

Submission: WestConnex M4 East EIS (SSI 6307)

It is with a heavy heart and a deep sadness that I write this letter. I wish to express my sincerest and strongest objections to the WestConnex M4 East Motorway proposal. While many have put forward valid reasons such as the additional traffic, funneling of traffic into heavily congested middle ring and inner city road, the requiring of the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses.

I want to explain our objections. We are a small family. We recently had a son; our son is the product of 5 years of IVF, 4 miscarriages and countless sleepless nights. We have forgone several luxurious that most people in our age bracket enjoy. We have NOT gone on holidays, we have NOT stopped working, we have NOT renovated and we have NOT spent on anything other than IVF. Our one solace has been that we have a HOME!

Did you know that the government no longer subsidizes IVF; so in order to have another child (due to medical reasons) we will need to pay again out of our own pocket. We also get no government benefit because we have this home in North Strathfield.

Additionally, we were not informed, nor were our home on the original plans. How then were we informed? Well on the 21/10/2015 (yes, yesterday) your representative came to our home, she didn't knock, but simply proceeded to slip the form under our door. She was quite shocked that someone was home, and our objection and concerns and disappointment were all raised! Why are we only being informed now! Over 8 houses in our street have sold, however they were all given well over 6 months - 12 months notice! Our home is a heritage home and the real value of the property will never be realized! We are in an absolute bind! I ask, what would you tell, your brother or sister, mother or father or husband or wife to do in this situation? Would you be happy or supportive if this happened to your family member?

Additionally, I with to register my strong objection to the governments awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released and before the EIS has been published and the public has exercised its right of participation. The present procedure makes a mockery of that right.

I hope that you take the time to read our objection and consider it honestly, sincerely and with integrity. I would like confirmation that you have read and received my objection. I would also like a personal, not automated response to discuss further, how a process has been missed and we have only been informed yesterday. This is not a small project; this has required planning and other legal processes, the involvement of many people and lots of hours of work. I cannot fathom nor understand how we, and our home are going to survive this.

I await your response.

I object to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. As a pedestrian and public transport user, I would like to public transport boosted rather than the building of yet another motorway. All research shows that the building of new roads does little to ease congestion, and actually increase the number of cars on the road.
I would like to see alternative explored in a thorough and transparent manner.

Predominately, the impact it will have on toll avoidance drivers using local streets, resulting in issues such as safety for children in the local areas. Also smoke stacks and impact on property values.

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 strongly object object to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. Roads are a 20th century solution to the current 21st century problem. International experience has demonstrated that motorways just generate more traffic for both the motorway in question and surrounding roads. You people need only look at the USA for evidence of this.

What public transport alternatives have been considered and can you please describe them? Why has the WestConnex been presented as the only solution to Sydney's transport problems?

I wish to register my objection to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released and before the EIS has been published and the public has exercised its right of participation.

I am concerned that the cost of this project will make funds for future transport projects unavailable. For example, what are the opportunity costs of this project measured in terms of other solutions to Sydney's transport issues?

I am outraged that the EIS as failed to honestly and fully discussed the social, environmental and economic impacts of the project.

I implore you not to continue with the project.

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

I also wish to object 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 also fails to consider significantly more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions AND reduce traffic.

Decades-long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity.

Moreover, if public transport were improved, a huge amount of people would take it more often. For instance, personally, I feel very negative towards catching several legs of tranport, and it taking triple the amount of time of driving, to visit my father who lives a couple of suburbs away. I am about to buy a car for this reason. This is coming from a person who is passionate about protecting the environment and a supporter (in general) of Sydney's public transport. Public transport decreases traffic, not new roads.

Please reconsider where taxpayer dollars will be spent. I object to the WestConnex and support public and active transport investment.

My family and I are strongly against the existing route proposal as it will disrupt our lives, cause stress and negatively affect the value of our property. We would greatly like the State Government to revert to the original route under Parramatta Road.

If our request cannot be met, we ask that we are financially compensated for the affect that the new route will have on our property.

My family and I are strongly against the existing proposal as it will disrupt our lives, cause stress and negatively affect the value of our property. We would greatly like the State Government to revert to the original route under Parramatta Road.

If our request cannot be met, we ask that we are financially compensated for the affect the new route will have on our property.

I have lived in Tinana Street in Haberfield for more than half of my life. Tinana Street is parallel to Parramatta Road, one block in, and connects to Parramatta Road via Chandos Street at one end, and via Rogers Avenue at the other end. Those two streets are a few blocks east of where the new WestConnex tunnel's outlet will be.
The cars and trucks that emerge from the tunnel will encounter a busy Parramatta Road, and many will avoid Parramatta Road by turning left soon after they exit from the tunnel and "rat-running" through local streets like mine.
Haberfield is currently a quiet, safe suburb. Many of the residents are elderly, and many are young couples with small children. Their safety will be threatened, and their sleep at night will be disturbed, by the increased traffic.
I understand that Chandos Street in Haberfield will be blocked off at Parramatta Road during the WestConnex construction phase.
I request that this blockage be made permanent, and that other small side streets near the tunnel's outlet, including Rogers Avenue and St Davids Road, also be at least partly blocked to prevent eastbound Parramatta Road traffic from entering them.
Yours sincerely
Ezio Di Giusto
4a Tinana Street Haberfield

Submission: WestConnex M4 East EIS (SSI 6307)
I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. If built it will gen- erate 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 busi- ness 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 extraor- dinary 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 capac- ity. That is why, globally, they have fallen out of favour and are no longer seen as a solution to congestion.

Presbyterian Aged Care operates PAC Haberfield, a 43-bed residential aged care facility at 169-171 Parramatta Road, Haberfield. As such we operate 24 hours / 7 days per week, as well as being the home for our residents.

The proposed WestConnex M4 / Parramatta Road interchange at Ashfield is to be constructed directly in front of our building.

We note the EIS proposals concerning the standard hours of work proposed do prevent work on Sundays or Public Holidays, but there is some capacity for surface work to be conducted at night, presumably to reduce impact on peak hour traffic. Given we are home to up to 40 older people, we hope noisy night-time work will be kept to an absolute minimum. We also note the potential impact of noise and dust on our property will need management throughout the project.

We understand the plans do not involve interruption to traffic along the city / east direction flow of Parrmatta Rd. This is critical for PAC Haberfield, as we must maintain access for emergency vehicles (e.g. ambulance, fire) to our building at all times.

We are keen that the work includes, as far as practicable, an improved landscape. We will have 10 lanes of traffic outside our aged care facility once this work is complete, so it is critical to the amenity of our residents and staff that the pollution, visual and noise impacts are minimised and the environment improved.

Submission: WestConnex M4 East EIS (SSI 6307)
I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. If built it will generate additional traffic, funnelling it into heavily congested middle-ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.
I also wish to register my objection to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released and before the EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation.
The EIS process is supposed to allow for genuine public input and to result, potentially, in approval, non-approval, or approval with modifications, of the project. The present procedure makes a mockery of that right.
Government funding for this proposal - as part of the whole WestConnex proposal - will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years to come. This being the case, I am outraged that the EIS has failed to honestly and fully discuss its social, environmental, and economic impacts or to explain why it is preferable to other, alternative public- and active transport solutions.
In particular I draw attention to the EIS's failure to:
* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that has been promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal.
* Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.
* Publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' funds.
* Properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.
* Consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions.
Decades-long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity. That is why, globally, they have fallen out of favour and are no longer seen as a solution to congestion.

Submission: WestConnex M4 East EIS (SSI 6307)
I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. If built it will generate additional traffic, funnelling it into heavily congested middle-ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.
I also wish to register my objection to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released and before the EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation.
The EIS process is supposed to allow for genuine public input and to result, potentially, in approval, non-approval, or approval with modifications, of the project. The present procedure makes a mockery of that right.
Government funding for this proposal - as part of the whole WestConnex proposal - will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years to come. This being the case, I am outraged that the EIS has failed to honestly and fully discuss its social, environmental, and economic impacts or to explain why it is preferable to other, alternative public- and active transport solutions.
In particular I draw attention to the EIS's failure to:
* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that has been promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal.
* Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.
* Publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' funds.
* Properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.
* Consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions.
Decades-long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity. That is why, globally, they have fallen out of favour and are no longer seen as a solution to congestion.

I don't agree with the proposed west connex tunnel. I don't think it is going to relieve traffic congestion as the proposed increase in the number of apartments to be build on parramatta rd is going to put more personal vehicles on that rd and in the tunnel. Also its disappointing that the location of the tunnel has been moved from under parramatta rd to a distance from that rd to meet the needs of developers but will affect residential homes and flats that are to be demolished. The reduction in traffic in local streets such as concord, five dock and haberfield is also unlikely to change as motorist will be using local roads to avoid toll charges. The demolition of heritage homes in concord, homebush, ashfield and haberfield is disgraceful instead of maintaining our heritage its doing the opposite. Haberfield in particular is a heritage area and walker and Ramsay streets are losing many heritage homes. The location of the ventilation stack on parramatta rd near walker street adds to the degradation of the haberfiled estate and will increase the pollution that already emits from parramatta rd coupled with the additional traffic noise and pollution from the on/off ramp at wattle and Ramsay streets. The changes to Sydney st at concord and loss of heritage homes in that street and the affect on homes on concord rd due to the street widening will be of great concern to owners. Local residents in all areas affected by the tunnel will have to put up with heavy trucks rumbling through their suburbs emitting dust and noise and damaging local road for something like 3 years. This proposed tunnel is changing the character of suburbs affected by it permanently and leaving long term health affects while the tunnel is not likely to achieve the stated benefits.

The residents living at St Davids Rd, Haberfield have concerns that traffic will increase a considerable amount, during the construction & once the WestConnex has been completed. When Cars & Trucks on Parramatta Road, are faced with a build up of traffic, they are going to seek an alternative route, which will be , avoiding Parramatta road &
" rat running " through our local streets. Most cars don't keep to the 50km sped limit. At peak times, this is happening now & will be much worse during construction of & after West Connex is complete. Please consider partly blocking off the entry to St Davids road, from Parramatta road, permanently.
To keep our neighbours safe, and all the families & children that walk to and from McDonalds & Ashfield Park.

I object to the M4East project. I live in Haberfield, an area to be greatly impacted by the M4 East project. I am concerned at much of what I have read in the EIS. But have barely got through a fraction of the volumes of material supplied by the proponent.

I am currently travelling overseas and unable to make a proper submission in response to the EIS at this time. I do not return to Australia until November 7th, so request an extension of my submission period until at least the 17th of November. I would appreciate an response to this request. Thanks.