WestConnex - M4 East Upgrade

Dear Committee Members

I am opposed to the widening and so called improvements to the WestConnex M4 East motorway because it will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions and only encourages more cars onto the road. What is required is more public transport and rail to replace truck traffic.

No planning appears to have been taken to ensure that future resource movement is undertaken by rail and none to establish the need for public transport for passenger transport.

This shows that those in authority have no concern for future generations. I tentatively hope that you will not allow this development and will consider it in the broader context of transport requirements in the area.

Regards
Felicity Crombach

I 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. This will require 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.

Furthermore I also 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 does no such thing.

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. As this is the case, I am horrified 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.

* Properly and honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.

* Publish a considered and 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 M$ EAST EIS (SSI 6307)

I wish to express a strong objection to the West connex M4East motorway proposal as this is an inadequate solution to traffic . All research leans towards public transport
being the superior option for future infrastructure in growing cities .
I further wish to register by objection to the government awarding tenders prior to a full business case being publicly released and before the EIS has been published .The public should have the right of participation and comments ...a basic democratic right .The EIS process should allow for the opportunity to provide genuine public input .The present procedure is non transparent and simply undermines Australian citizens right for participation .Its also "Un-australian " .
The funding for this proposal will eat up an enormous amount of the state budgets transport budget for many years to come .
At a minimum it would be expected that public and transparent discussion regarding social ,economic and environmental impacts are initiated and encouraged .
I as a citizen of Sydney I would appreciated to be informed and receive an explanation why the West connex M4 East option is preferable to other alternative public transport solutions .
The EIS has not addressed the following :
- discussion around freight rail alternatives and public transport
-a robust business case to discuss and justify billions of dollars of our taxpayersfunds
-consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will be more environmental friendly
-traffic modeling in relation to a large increase of apartment construction /population growth ....

This is like an episode from Utopia. Except this isn't remotely funny. This road has been rushed through with no transparency and is an extremely poor solution backed up by false traffic modelling. I live 4km from the city and I could walk quicker in to town. The buses are already slow and full by the time they get to Glebe. More roads and more traffic will worsen the situation. And the increase in emissions are especially worrying for the many young families that live in the inner west.

Is this a legacy you really want to be associated with?

I wish to register an objection to the WestConnex M4 East proposal.

As a resident of Knocklayde St, Ashfield my young family and I will be living approximately 400m from the unfiltered Haberfield emissions stack and the tunnel exit/entrance on Wattle St.

Worldwide experience and research has shown conclusively that road building projects on this scale are hugely expensive and counterproductive. This EIS shows confirms that WestConnex will see an increase in air pollution and traffic, plus expose NSW taxpayers to unacceptably high levels of financial risk. It is not a long-term solution to Sydney's congestion problem.

Having issued contracts for the construction of WestConnex before the EIS was available to the public makes a sham of this being a proper consultative process with the publics health and welfare in mind.

I understand that there is pressure on many NSW Departments, including Planning and the Environment, to approve this project. I remind public servants of their obligation to the public and to the potential social, health and economic costs of spending $15.4 billion on WestConnex when it provides no solution to Sydney's transport needs.

In regards to the M4 East EIS, I specifically object to:

* The lack of detail relating to pollution and related health impacts on the residents living nearby the unfiltered emissions stacks. Particularly those vunerable members of the community attending the 2 primary schools, 2 day care centres and numerous elderly residents at the Haberfield end alone. The claim is even made that WestConnex will improve local air quality - which will surely make it the first motorway in history to do so.

* The lack of transparency in the entire WestConnex planning process. Billions of dollars of contracts have been issued without a full business case having been released or the project being subjected to independent Gateway reviews.

* The short 55-day time frame in which members of the community have been given to respond to the EIS for the M4 East. This document runs to nearly 5,000 pages, but the public was only given 55 days to respond. I personally called and emailed the Minister for Planning to explain why this was not enough time but received no reply.

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

* Having each section of the Westconnex assessed separately. Vague rationales for the whole project are used to justify the serious negative impacts of each stage. Projects such as the Southern motorway F8, which are not even at a planning stage, are included in the argument for the project without explanation. The only mention of improvements to public transport are vague references based on completion of all stages but no actual plans are submitted.

* The failure to consider total negative impacts against the total claimed positive aspects. While the M4 East EIS repeatedly makes references to the positive impact of the entire WestConnex when arguing for the project, it fails to consider the negative impacts of the whole project - such as loss of housing, heritage and biodiversity.

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

* The lack of analysis on other local traffic choke points along the Paramatta Rd corridor such as Frederick St in Ashfield.

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

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

* The huge impact that the flow of cars and trucks out of tunnel exits will have on local roads through out the Inner West. In particular the impact on local roads around the Wattle St exit as this will continue to be a bottle neck as it is now, drivers will look for the quickest alternative route such as local rat runs taking them past Haberfield Public and Dobroyd Point Public schools.

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

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

* The wholesale destruction of heritage homes and precincts as detailed by The National Trust NSW. This is not acceptable, particularly for a project that will not resolve but add to Sydney's traffic congestion.

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

I therefore call on the Minister for Planning to reject this proposal on the grounds that:

* Even the M4 East's inadequate traffic analysis shows that WestConnex will be at capacity by 2031.
* AECOM has not even met the basic Planning Secretary's requirements in its assessment.
* This is an outdated project that is not consistent with current trends in thinking about public transport, urban planning and liveability of cities.

I live in Station St at Homebush, but my unit is in the back and is directly opposite the proposed new on ramp connecting Parramatta Rd and the M4.
I object to this and I hate your guts for even proposing it.
We already have enough on ramps on to the M4.
Leave us alone.
Very close to Homebush, some parts of the M4 and Parramatta Rd run parallel, why can't you build it there? You will save money as it is much easier to build.
You will also destroy our new park.

1. This project will spend $15.4 billion and it reduces travel times by just six minutes,I do not believe this is an efficient use of $15.4 billion of taxpayers' funds, I do not believe it will lead to the congestion improvements promoted by the State Government and the WestConnex Delivery Authority (now Sydney Motorway Corporation).
2.The Project will have a devastating impact on the Inner West and particularly on our communities of Ashfield and Haberfield. Ashfield is one of the most densely populated communities in Sydney and Haberfield has great historical significance, therefore the decision to proceed is all the more
bewildering.
3.There are more than twenty schools(high schools N primary schools) and tens childcare centres in the surround areas.Especially Haberfield Public School , Ashfield Infants Home and Ashfield Kindy Patch Childcare centre are at the centre of a "toxic triangle" of pollution stack and portals under
the current WestConnex plans. If NSW governent can spend $15.4 billion on a road to reduce travel times by
just six minutes, NSW goverment also can afford to spend the additional money required to ensure the vast majority of pollution is not released into this densely-populated neighbourhood.

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

WestConnex M4 East is a gross waste of tax payers money. Whilst it will stimulate the economy, it ultimately produces a piece of infrastructure that will be more expensive to build than the benefits it produces. If the main reason West Connex is to be built is to ease traffic congestion, then it will fail to achieve this aim. West Connex only shifts congestion and encourages increased motor vehicle use. The government cannot continue to spend exorbitant amounts of money on projects that do not benefit the community based on value per dollar spent, just because it needs a project crow about. I would rather politicians stop thinking about which way we will vote and start managing our money effectively. The money that has been thrown behind West Connex, in planning, EIS, and in the actual construction can be better spent elsewhere. This project should be SCRAPPED and the money directed to a world class SYDNEY WIDE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION NETWORK which allows all of us access to high speed, efficient, on time, affordable transport across Sydney without needing our cars. Japan is amazing in this field. Why can't Sydney have that too?? We deserve it and it's up to our government to deliver what the people want, and WE DON'T WANT WEST CONNEX. I implore the government to get out now, despite signing multi-billion dollar contracts for WestConnex before this EIS was placed on public exhibition. This will increase my respect for the government's decision- making skills, whilst continuing with this project certainly will not.

I object to it. I am very much opposed to the Westconnex M4 East motorway proposal. I believe it is a heavy handed approach to improving transport in Sydney: One which a precedent in the M4 tollway that opened in 1992 has shown to be flawed. Increasing space for motor vehicles actually 'induced' traffic, over a very short space of time.

We should be spending this vast amount of money on reducing the need to get into a car by improving our public transport system. This is how public habits are changed. In London they introduced the congestion charge for inner London which improved traffic problems. But first we need to improve rail links, rail capacity, and introduce light rail, which will take a vast number of commuters out of their cars.

I also object to the process of democracy being circumvented by the pre- approval of this project before the review process.

It doesn't reflect traffic modelling and does not take into account pollution that will be caused and the need to reduce carbon emissions.

Getting more cars to the inner west quicker will do nothing for access to the city - it is just moving the blockage.

Please provide better public transport to get people into the city without the need for cars.

I am writing to you to indicate my opposition to the West Connix project and to ask that work be halted immediately. We need to use the money allocated for public transport and rail based freight solutions not punish inner city residents with extra cars. No business case has been released and independent expert reports clearly indicate that it will not reduce use of petrol, provide economic benefit to the community but will be a financial disaster and will increase carbon pollution at a time when it is clear that the earth is warming. Making political decisions to benefit a few rather than the community is nearsighted and counterproductive in this century. Smaller countries in our region will be extremely adversely affected if Governments make decisions based on old technology and planning rather than decisions for a new century which supports the health of the whole planet. It is cost effective as well and so providing public transport to the west and south west will be well received by this region and the planet as a whole.

I am writing to you to indicate my opposition to the West Connix project and to ask that work be halted immediately. We need to use the money allocated for public transport and rail based freight solutions not punish inner city residents with extra cars. No business case has been released and independent expert reports clearly indicate that it will not reduce use of petrol, provide economic benefit to the community but will be a financial disaster and will increase carbon pollution at a time when it is clear that the earth is warming. Making political decisions to benefit a few rather than the community is nearsighted and counterproductive in this century. Smaller countries in our region will be extremely adversely affected if Governments make decisions based on old technology and planning rather than decisions for a new century which supports the health of the whole planet. It is cost effective as well and so providing public transport to the west and south west will be well received by this region and the planet as a whole.

WestConnex poses a real threat to not only my children,who live and attend school in this area,but other children as well.This is totally unacceptable for the government to not give a damn about this matter.

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 motorway proposal. If built it will generate additional traffic require the demolition of homes and business and do nothing to reduce congestion in the CBD and inner-city.

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.

I particularly object to the massive expenditure which I feel would be better spent on more equitable sustainable public transport and pedestrian/ bicycle friendly options.

We do not need more roads bringing traffic into the city - they will not reduce congestion.

Discharging large volumes of traffic into established residential areas is not an appropriate for the city traffic issues.

Forward thinking public trabsport is!

_ Concern about disruption and noise to Haberfield residents
_Concern of the lack of air filtration stations close to Haberfield Public School
_ Concern of rat race for roads off Parramatta rd eg Bland Street, Rogers, Haberfield Rd
-Haberfield Rd is already part of the "rat race" traffic off Paramatta Rd, and it is renown for its accidents- Our suggestion is to close off the street from Parramatta Rd? Liverpool rd first opportunity to turn left to avoid traffic lights.
_Parking available to drop kids at Haberfield Public School
_Haberfield as the First Federation suburb or Garden suburb converted into smoke stacks- poor air quality suburb, affecting families that have moved into the area because the houses offered enough garden space in the inner city for healthy life style-
-A suburb that is considered Heritage Listed would have now major excavations, noise, houses demolished affecting its unique character that we have been trying to maintain.
_Compensation to Haberfield Public School for noise and traffic and air quality- Move stacks away from children, filtered them and increase their height-
_Bland Street pedestrian crossing needs a Lollie Pop person. traffic lights and speed bumps that increase awareness of children and families about.
_ I would like to see how the proposed development along Parramatta Rd is not going to make West Connex redundant
_ Light rail had proven very successful, people are ready to embrace public transport and other ways of green transport.
why we are not investing on a state of the art public transport system compatible with World developed countries.

Impacts

- Visual impact of the new bridge ramp block of concrete, adjacent to the apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd. There should be another option (eg: an underground ramp?)
- Light overshadowing during the day with the additional bridge ramp
- Possible increase of lighting during the night with the additional bridge ramp lighting requirements
- Pollutants (such as coarse and fine particles) will be of higher quantity, as all vehicles pollutants will much more easily travel downwards from the bridge, while currently pollutants must travel upwards, resulting in a reduced quantity and severity
- Apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd devaluation impact, due to the huge visual impact, additional pollution etc. What is the government going to do? How is it going to compensate the devaluation?
- Noise impacts and distress during the > 2 years of work both during day, nights and Saturdays. Most days I am required to work from home and going to be constantly affected by the noise produced by the workers. What is the government going to do? How is it going to compensate?
- Currently there are no tolls when accessing the M4. Westconnex work will bring additional tolls that currently we do not have to pay for

Additional Development Proposals

- Proposing that the current entrance of M4, to be re-purposed as second exclusive entrance/exit. It should be reserved for the apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd from Concord Road to the Young St side adjacent to our building
- Proposing an additional footpath attached/parallel to the wider M4 to help crossing the railway line and head towards George St from Queen St.

Questions

- Currently there are two ways to access the M4 from our apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd, one is the entrance in Concord Rd, next to our apartment block, the second one is in Parramatta Rd just after the Fraser motorbike shop. At a glance it does not seem there will be an easy way to access the new M4. When exiting from our complex from Young St, we cannot turn into Parramatta Rd west bound, where the new entrance is supposed to be. If we have to turn right into Leicester Ave, we will have to cross 3 lanes immediately out of Young St, adjacent to the traffic light (that is not really practical nor it is safe). What are the viable options?

Conclusions

- There seems to be no positive aspects regarding the Westconnex project in regards to our apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd and our point of view
- Huge visual impact with the additional bridge ramp
- Huge reduction of light during the day with the additional bridge ramp
- Possible significant increase of lighting during the night with the additional bridge ramp
- Significant increase of noise
- Significant devaluation of the apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd
- Increase in airborne pollution, floating downwards from the new bridge ramp, much taller than the current street level ramp
- Vehicles around the complex will most likely increase due to the massive road entrance/exit
- Additional difficulties getting in and out our building, and onto the M4. There seems to be no viable option for our complex
- Distress introduced with > 2 years of constant day and possible night noise while the work is in progress, then ongoing heightened noise pollution from traffic following

I, Nadia Mannino, am writing this submission on behalf of my father, Salvatore Mannino, due to his non-english speaking background.

Mr Salvatore Mannino, of 24 Walker Ave Haberfield, would like to request acquisition of his property for the following reasons:

- Mr Mannino is elderly, and suffers from an ongoing cough of unknown origin. He has had pneumonia in the past 5 years, and feels that living in close proximity to an unfiltered exhaust stack, could increase his susceptibility to respiratory related illness. He also has considerable vascular issues in his legs. Gentle walking has been prescribed for him to manage these issues. He is concerned that with increased pollution and traffic in his immediate area, a stroll around the block won't be safe, possible, or enjoyable. He has visited his GP in regard to his respiratory and vascular issues, so has medical history notes available to support these claims.
- Mr Mannino is retired, and enjoys growing fruits and vegetables in his backyard. This activity is his main form of enjoyment and stress relief. Due to the unfiltered exhaust stack, and the widening of Wattle Street, he is concerned about the increase in pollution in his immediate area, and feels hesitant about how safe it will be for him to continue consuming the produce from his garden. Without this activity to enjoy, both he and his family fear his purpose and quality of life will decrease significantly.
- Mr Mannino is also concerned about the possible loss of property value which is likely to ensue once the development begins. He is the 'last house standing', in a long line of already acquired homes, and feels buyers will look poorly on purchasing a property directly next to an unfiltered exhaust stack, with a tunnel running below it, and a six-lane highway beyond the back fence. He migrated to Australia from Italy as a teen, and has worked hard his entire life to pay off this home, and leave it as a considerable nest egg to his grandchildren. He is saddened that the construction of WestConnex will more than likely diminish this nest egg.
- Mr Mannino is concerned about the noise levels both during and after construction. And if walls are to be built around his property to block this noise, will these walls shade his property? if so, he is concerned the decreased sunlight will exacerbate the damp issues that are common in these old federation homes, which could further reek havoc for his health.
- Mr Mannino is concerned about access to Walker Ave during and after construction. What will be done to ensure safe entry/exit for residents? And also, what will be done to ensure commuters don't use Walker Ave as a rat-run through Haberfield to avoid the tunnel and its toll?
- Mr Mannino is concerned that there will be trucks and tunnel work around the clock. If the project is approved, and he must stay, he would like to request the works be restricted to business hours of 8am-5pm.
- Mr Mannino is concerned about what will be done with the land beside his house after construction is complete. Can there be a guarantee this will not be used for industry or for unit blocks? Can this land be returned to the council for public use?
- Mr Mannino is concerned that the exhaust stack will be unfiltered, and will be an eyesore to surrounding properties. Firstly, our understanding is that other longer tunnels exist without exhaust stacks at all - why can this technology not be used for WestConnex? Secondly, if the stack must exist, it should be filtered. And lastly, a stack which visually blends in to the environment would be preferable.

Thank you for considering the acquisition of 24 Walker Ave, Haberfield.

Yours Sincerely,
Nadia Mannino

We need better public transport, not more roads that disrupt more homes.

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.ddIwhyLy.dpuf