WestConnex - M4 East Upgrade

I strongly object to the WestConnex m4 East motorway proposal. It is a travesty that a project of this magnitude using a huge sum PUBLIC money can get to this stage of planning when a FULL and detailed business case has not been made public for full public disclosure and discussion.
The NSW government is riding roughshod over the public and in the process is creating a propaganda campaign for the project not seen since the likes of Goebbels in Nazi Germany.
Spending 15.4billion on a road that gives only a 6 minute time saving is preposterous.
I object to the lodgement of this EIS prior to the full release of the business case to the public.
I object to the spend on this motorway when over alternatives have not been fully considered, again due to the lack of a full business case.
I object to the destruction of important heritage buildings and forcing people from their homes.
I object to the impacts on local business who have not been consulted at all by the proponents of this project.
I object to a project that has been "sold" the people of Western Sydney as a salvation to their daily traffic problems, when in fact it will do nothing to solve the issues, and in fact will simply create more of them and impose on them far more costs than they currently bear.
I draw attention to the EIS's failure to:
factor in modelling regarding Urban Growth's plans to build significant new communities along the Parramatta Road Corridor.
Honest discussion about Public Transport alternatives, such as the Parramatta Light Rail.
Consider alternatives that are available, what else could e build for the 15.4 billion ascribed to this project.
Time and time again it has been proven all around the world that building motorways does not solve traffic congestion in fact due to the very well documented phenomenon of "induced traffic" they very often create worse traffic issues than what they set out to solve in the first instance, how does the EIS answer this?

I wish to make the following submission to the Environmental Impact Statement exhibition for the WestConnex M4 East Tunnel Project (SSI6307).
I am a resident of Haberfield with my young family of three sons and husband, and we all oppose the construction of the M4 East tunnel that will destroy our heritage community and do not believe that the spend of $15.4B to achieve the said 6 minutes of travel time is justified for any resident of New South Wales, let alone us residents in the Inner West.
This project has not been transparent and provided the citizens with all of the necessary information, including the financial business case, for all of public to be aware of the mass spending that is to occur, and years of construction on this project. The current government instead went ahead and signed these contracts for the construction without having the proper approvals - which is the opposite of transparent, dare I say even corrupt.
The following needs to be addressed from the EIS:
- From what I can see, there remains to be a right turn lane onto Waratah Street from the City West Link/Wattle st once the tunnel has been constructed. Knowing full well that there will be a ratrace from motorists to get off of this road since it will be jammed with traffic and heavy duty vehicles. Even today when you are driving down Wattle/City West Link, there is little to no traffic movement during peak hour and so after this phase of construction I don't see how this will improve. My concern lies for all residents' in Haberfield that are directly in this driving path of vehicles turning into our suburb to bypass this jam - as well as for the young students who attend Dobroyd Point Public school that is immediately on Waratah Street, and therefore in the path of such vehicles. This turn must be addressed, and as such closed to safeguard the community and the students.
- There should not be 24/7 truck movements for this project, that is absurd. This is a thriving community of families and hard working citizens and to subject the community to constant construction is not viable and makes for a very unhappy life for all those effected.
- Where has the government considered public transit through this project? I have seen literature to suggest that part of WestConnex included public transit investments however the existing Light Rail infrastructure is not part of the project, nor is any additional investment in Light Rail. There needs to be a sustainable solution into the future for traffic from the West entering into the city core, or shall I say individuals who wish to enter (not just traffic).
- stage 3 of the project, where the tunnel will then be connected, has been drafted for consideration however there has been no approvals granted and no guarantee that this project will be put forth for future consideration. Only after the first 2 phases have been successfully financially viable will this final stage be considered. That frame of thought puts so much pressure on our communities, those of which will have all the tunnel traffic funneling to our area - where is everyone to go? And the continuous ratrace traffic will be putting so much pollution into our air, and making it harder for all those using these roadways to be able to travel efficiently throughout their daily life.
There has not been sufficient consideration to alternatives of this business case, myself being a global consultant that considers business cases of all magnitude, feel that there has only been one consideration placed on this course of action and that is the providing of contracts to favourable contractors for construction purposes. To spend $15.4B on this piece of infrastructure, there should be a much thorough community consultation which has not occurred.
Please accept this as my objection to this project.
Concerned Haberfield resident

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.

Lastly, where are all of these cars to be housed and parked?

I am very concerned about the WestConnex M4 East proposal and its potential impact on the lives of people living in inner west communities. This part of Sydney is experiencing a population boom with the development of high rise apartment housing. The health and well being of this burgeoning community will be seriously compromised by any plan which funnels more traffic into the area, as the proposed M4 East would undoubtedly do. If the State government is so confident about the benefits of this project, why doesn't it release the business case for all to see? Why isn't a serious plan for upgrading public transport options being considered as a genuine alternative?

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.
- See more at: http://westconnex.info/?p=348660#sthash.rQSkId4d.dpuf

I write to object to the WestConnex M4 East project. I live in Haberfield and my community is to be adversely and unnecessarily impacted by it. I object because the process of planning and community engagement with this project has not been transparent nor democratic. Therefore the stated outcomes of the M4 East project cannot be trusted or supported. I also write to request a personal extension of time to respond to the EIS. I am currently travelling overseas, and due to the very short exhibition period of the EIS, it is impossible for me to detail and submit all of my objections by the due date being the 2nd of November. I ask for an extension until at least until the 17th of November to lodge a more detailed objection than this. I request an email response to this request. Thanks.

Re the West Cnnex. I believe the West Connex plan to be highly flawed. Apart from the backdown of the original plan for the tunnel to follow Paramatta road and exhaust stacks to be unfiltered,dumping thousands of extra cars onto the two lane link road is ludicrous. I hear there are plans to build a new bridge at Hawthorn canal and open up Lilyfield road again. Crazy, these cars will end up meeting the link road and Victoria road traffic a kilometre down the road. Very little traffic deviates from their main goal. ie the city and beyond. Massive traffic jams are a living certainty. And what of Paramatta road? to pay for the West Connex traffic flow along Paramatta road will be slowed, and if not deliberately, by the building of an extra 40000 units along it's route.
General upgrading of the existing roads and more improved public transport would save several billion and be much more effective. To prove my point, the extension of the light rail to Dulwich Hill has proved a massive success, The carriages are full with standing room only in peak hour. Because of the route it takes most of these passengers would have driven in the past. Almost all people in our street that work in the city or close by catch the light rail. Others catch the bus ( which takes a different route obviously) If the WestConex goes ahead as planned it will ruin the living conditions of hundreds of thousands of people for nothing. It will be a blight on Sydney forever.

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 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.
- See more at: http://westconnex.info/?p=348660#sthash.NkZsYFlP.dpuf

Hi,

I wish to express my lack of support for the WestConnex project.

I believe the many drawbacks of the project outweigh the benefits.

"Further, while more roads may solve congestion locally, more traffic on the road network may result in more congestion elsewhere. In Sydney, for example, the WestConnex may improve traffic conditions on Parramatta Road, but may worsen congestion in the city."
https://theconversation.com/do-more-roads-really-mean-less-congestion-for-commuters-39508

Concerns for this project that have not been addressed sufficiently include:
- impact on cycling routes
- impact on pedestrian access - including the aged.
- concern about proximity of ventilation stacks
- impact on local heritage and biodiversity
(https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/ca0bfb2c0df5231cf0b7926956228821/M4%20East%20EIS_%20Volume%202E_%20App%20M_Part%202_Social%20Impact.pdf)

I believe that the solution for dealing with Sydney's increasing population is to do with moving forward with community / shared transport rather than supporting and encouraging private car use.

Thank you for reading my submissions.

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 appalled that many heritage homes in Haberfield are being destroyed, and am shocked and dismayed at the lack of protection provided by heritage conservation listing. Once these homes are destroyed, they are gone forever - this is a selfish and short-sighted mistake similar to the destruction of heritage homes to make way for ugly apartment blocks in the 1970s.

Investment should be made in public transport, not WestConnex. This project will ensure there are no funds left over to improve public transport. The only part of the project I approve of is the widening of the M4. The rest of the funds should be spent on improving public transport.

The public consultation appears to be a sham given that contracts were signed and work commenced prior to consultation.

I am deeply disappointed in the State Government, and the fact that they have ignored the input of Local Government and community members - the ones who are left to deal with the impact and consequences including traffic problems, inadequate public transport, noise, pollution, ugly infrastructure, parking problems and destruction of a heritage suburb.

I support the building of the WestConnex extension to the M4 and M5 and ultimate connection of the two. I believe there is a role for both public transport and roadways to help facilitate freight and passenger traffic. I travel frequently in Asia on business and cities like Bangkok have transformed their crushing congestion issues using a combination of new freeways and new rail lines.
Currently in Sydney the M4 and M5 motorways end in no man's land leaving large volumes of traffic at the mercy of already busy roads such as Parramatta Road and the Princes Highway (which of course leads into King St Newtown and is a major cause of traffic congestion there). Getting much of the through traffic off these suburban roads and into tunnels underneath is a good solution.
Singapore is often quoted for its efficient train and bus network however it should be noted that Singapore has also built, and is still building, a very wide and inter-connected system of expressways. I believe that there is no single magic bullet solution so a balanced mix of freeways, such as WestConnex and others being proposed, plus the introduction of extra public transport, such as the Sydney Metro and Light Rail projects, is the way forward.

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 M4East EIS (SSI 6307)
I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East Motorway Proposal.
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 had exercised its right of participation.
We really need to do something that is in line with current world thinking about public transport and moving people within cities. I suggest that we consider projects such as the Pippita Express Solution and modernising rail signaling to increase rail capacity, rather than pour vast quantities of money that is needed elsewhere into more roads. We don't need this. We need good public transport.

Political Donation Declaration: I have not made any donations in the requisite period.

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 the 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 has been published and the public has 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 full discuss its social, environmental and economic impacts or to explain why it is preferable to other, alternative public and 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 in 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 motorways construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are counterproductive. They will 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.
- See more at: http://westconnex.info/?p=348660#sthash.pkRro3Kh.dpuf

I object to the project on the grounds that it will only encourage an increase in vehicle use and increase the amount of congestion and pollution. As a tax payer I would like money spent on public transport,bicycle routes, and more jobs in satellite cities so that there is less need to commute to Sydney CBD. Australia is in a position to learn from other 1st world countries' mistakes, but we're playing catch-up to their mistakes instead of progressing ahead in greener alternatives which are the projects other countries are now focussing on. Australia is a 3rd world country with regard to public transport...an absolute embarrassment.

Living where I do will be impacted by this project, not enough has been discussed about what will happen to our local area. Parramatta road is congested now one can only wonder the impact to our local roads when this project is finished.

It would be too long to explain it here but the proposal is essentially flawed because it won't be a long term enough solution. Netter to find an alternate solution.
I therefore in its present form I OBJECT TO IT.