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.

Objection to Wetconnex M4 EIS (SS6307)

I am writing to express my objection to the Westconnex M4 East motorway proposal.
As a project manager for a large multinational company a key part of assessing any project is to (a) understand the problem trying to be solved and (b) ensuring that the proposed project actually provides a solution to that problem and (c) where multiple options are capable of providing a solution, assessing the relevant pros and cons of the options to ensure that the best option is chosen to be implemented.
I am at a loss to understand why the government has refused to to provide this type of information to the general public given the volume of concerns raised in relation to the project including:-
- failure to understand why other countries and moving towards not away from public transport
- failure to address the facts that more roads leads to more traffic and any identified benefits will only be short term
- inadequate compensation for people whose houses will be acquired under compulsory orders
Additionally I have seen a number of viable alternatives which in conjunction would meet many of the targets of the proposed road at substantially lower costs, these include:-
- modernising the existing rail network including signalling which will increase capacity
- park and ride options
- adding additional stations to the airport line
- the white bay green link (which actually dovetails into the new proposed bay precincts - unlike the Westconnex)
- Cycling, pedestrian and rail access projects
I believe that the government needs to release the full business case to the public which outlines the methodology of project selection. I do not believe the facts will hold up to support this proposed road project. This failure to properly assess the facts also appears to be an issue in the EIS which seems to be incomplete.

The EIS seems to have been done in such a way as to be purposefully convoluted and rushed, published as a dense and impenetrable PDF document; as if its creators didn't actually want it to be understood or read, and certainly not responded to with submissions. It's also EXTREMELY worrying that the company charged with publishing the EIS - AECOM - has a conflict of interest and is biased to the success of the WestConnex project because of their other numerous contracts (including traffic director, design engineering services and landfill) totalling over $32 million.

I strongly object to the Westconnex project. Building greater capacity for cars will simple induce more demand and encourage more cars onto the road. "Induced demand" is a globally observed phenomenon.
Truly exceptional global cities have great public transport. Westconnex is a $15bn investment in out-dated transport solution not fit for a global city. We need more investment in public transport and less space dedicated to those who chose to travel in personal cars. Imagine what the public would say to $15bn of new schools and hospitals?
The heritage values of the community of Haberfield will be decimated by this road. Haberfield is globally recognised as the first garden suburb and this $15bn project will destroy significant heritage homes with no real benefit to the public. Haberfield and many other surrounding inner-west suburbs will be turned into "rat runs" as drivers seek to avoid the high tolls that will be required on this road.
At a minimum the right turn from Wattle St into Waratah St, Haberfield should be removed from the Westconnex planning so as not to allow rat running past Dobroyd Point School and through this heritage suburb. Preferably Waratah St could be closed at that end which should alleviate this issue somewhat.
Furthermore, the fact that work is already underway and contracts have been awarded before the EIS is complete undermines this current consultation process. It appears this is not genuine consultation.

To whom it may concern,

I am opposed the current proposed M4 East Tunnel (SSI 6307) Plan, mainly due to the following reasons:

(1) The proposed exit at Haberfield is going to have major adverse impact on residents of our street. Our daughters walk to and back from Haberfield Public School and Haberfield shops everyday - crossing at the intersection of Wattle and Ramsay St. The proposed tunnel entrance will subject them to increased accidental risks - especially to the heavy vehicles that normally would have travelled on Parramatta Rd and not coming into Wattle St. Why should you propose the tunnel entrance at this intersection that have high volume of pedestrian traffic? Why don't you plan the tunnel entrance at a more suitable and spacious place like the old rail line in Lillyfield which is much closer to Anzac Bridge?

(2) Your proposal will also prevent us from turning right into Wattle St towards Haberfield and Ashfield. Worse still, we will also be prevented from turning right into Waratah St and would not have right turn access until going into Leichhardt. This will cut us off from our own locality.

(3) Your proposed tunnel from Concord to Haberfield will offer very little, cost a lot and unnecessarily cause adverse effect on Haberfield as the location of tunnel entrance is simply not suitable to sustain such high traffic volume. Please consider extending it to a more proper infrastructure of the old railway lines in Lillyfield that is much closer to the Anzac Bridge.

Yours sincerely,

I am totally opposed to the building of the Westconnex.
Starting on a very personal level I own a car and live 7 km from the city. My usual method to go to the city used to be drive or drive to a train station. Then the light rail happened. Now that is the way I go to the city.
How the Wedtconnex authority claims a massive increase in car use will reduce petrol consumption and pollution beggers belief.
STOP Westconnex put more money in public transport
I mean it was Tony Abbotts mantra to be remembered for. That alone triggers suspicion.

I OBJECT to the westconnex Project as a long time resident of over 40 years and the arrogance and lack of honest reasons
for the change to direction of the project the lack of consideration of the Heritage buildings and the speed in which this has been rushed through leaves us all wondering why
many residences have been ignored in our protests residences have not been considered just developers and big money seem to be at the for front of your approval
Tunnels below Parramatta Rd would not restrict depth UNTRUE
Restrict opportunities for urban vitalisation living along Parramatta rd UNTRUE
This is invalid tunnel can be designed at lower depth if necessary , up to 90m com yo 50m as shown by westconnect.
As previous rout along parramatta Rd less impact on structural damage to so many residential properties,
the voters have been ignored and this is was changed to minimise the project construction cost never consideration to so many residence
Come on elections.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=7526

I wish to express my strong objection to the West Connex M4 East motorway proposal. If built it will only 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 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.

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 of 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:
1) Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase of 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.

2) Honestly discuss the public transport and freight rail alternatives.

3) Publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayer's funds.

4) Properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.

5) 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 raods are counterproductive. They generate a flood of new traffic and rapidly reach capacity. That is why, they have fallen out of favour and are no longer seen as a solution to congestion.

I strongly object to the WestConnex M4 East motorway. Like other such motorway projects it will generate more traffic so we will end up with the same congestion problems, or worse ones, in a few years. The money should be spent on public transport projects which will remove the incentive for people to use a car and therefore take the pressure off the existing road network.

The awarding of tenders before proper public consultation and other required procedures is a violation of our Democratic system. It is fundamentally wrong.

The project should be abandoned or at least put on hold until proper procedures and public consultation are completed.

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 numerous 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.
* Employ high-quality traffic modelling. The fact that the EIS depends on the work of a company, AECOM, that has been fined $280 million for one of the largest cases of misleading and deceptive conduct in Australian corporate history, after they wildly inflated traffic numbers for the failed Brisbane tollways, must mean that their work for Westconnex is utterly discredited.
* 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.

WestConnex is not a responsible project and use of tax payer money to address current and future/potential traffic issues. Evidence from around globe show that good planning places an emphasis on public transportation.
I used to live in Los Angeles, USA, which has no real public transportation system like rail. As a result, the traffic congestion is astronomical and air pollution is a persistent threat. Looking at evidence from other places, like Beijing, it is clear a reliance on auto traffic does not deliver.
WestConnex is a poor decision on a public investment

This project is a disaster for Sydney and its future. It is staggering that in this day and age, the NSW government is reclaiming green space in order to build massive freeways. We need more green space and more public transport, not more cars and bigger roads. This project represents urban planning thinking from 1950s California. We don't want Sydney to look like or be like that. WestConnex will impact very badly on the quality of life in Sydney's inner west, bringing thousands of extra cars into already choked streets, removing trees and parkland, producing even more air and noise pollution and damaging the character of local neighbourhoods. It is especially disappointing that the government has refused to listen to local communities' objections to the project, have compromised consultation processes and have ignored expert advice from the moment that WestConnex was conceived. The project should be immediately ceased and the public funds paying for this catastrophic mistake be put into public transport, expanded green space and improved amenities to revitalise local neighbourhoods.

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.

Westconnex M4 East Tunnel (SSI 6307)
NSW Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39, Sydney NSW 2001

To whom it may concern,

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

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

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

I want the follow addressed from the EIS.

- Martin Street residents will face difficulty driving into Haberfield. Residents will only be permitted to turn left from Martin Street at Wattle Street, forcing us on to the City West Link. The first opportunity we will have to turn right will not be until Leichhardt, effectively cutting us off from the rest of Haberfield. This is not acceptable if the preferred designs for Westconnex go ahead as planned.

- Pedestrian, Baby-pram and children's crossing at Ramsay and Wattle Street intersection must provide.

- Filter the smokestacks and relocate awayfrom schools and childcare centres.

- Build a noise wall for properties in Ashfield and Haberfield next to the Parramatta Rd interchange, during and after construction.

- Stop rat-running through Haberfield and Ashfield, by removing the right turn into Waratah St.

- Offer voluntary acquisitions and WDA-funded dilapidation reports for thoseproperties near construction site in Northcote, Wolseley, Wattle, Walker, Ramsay, Chandos and Loftus Streets.

- Restrict tunnelling and truck movements to standard construction hours - no 24/6 truckmovements

- Return acquired properties not required after construction to Ashfield Council for community use and public open space.

This project will not solve Sydney's Traffic problems and NSW taxpayers money is better spent investing in Public Transport. Please consider my concerns and address them in your response to the community's submissions to the EIS.

Your sincerely,

Hing Yeung

Westconnex M4 East Tunnel (SSI 6307)
NSW Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39, Syney NSW 2001

To whom it may concern,

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

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

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

I want the follow addressed from the EIS.

- Martin Street residents will face difficulty driving into Haberfield. Residents will only be permitted to turn left from Martin Street at Wattle Street, forcing us on to the City West Link. The first opportunity we will have to turn right will not be until Leichhardt, effectively cutting us off from the rest of Haberfield. This is not acceptable if the preferred designs for Westconnex go ahead as planned. Please closed Martin Street at Wattle Street and reopened at Ramsay Street.

- Pedestrian, Baby-pram and children's crossing at Ramsay and Wattle Street intersection must provide.

- Filter the smokestacks and relocate away from schools and childcare centres.

- Build a noise wall for properties in Ashfield and Haberfield next to the Parramatta Rd interchange, during and after construction.

- Stop rat-running through Haberfield and Ashfield, by removing the right turn into Waratah St.

- Offer voluntary acquisitions and WDA-funded dilapidation reports for those properties near construction site in Northcote, Wolseley, Wattle, Walker, Ramsay, Chandos and Loftus Streets.

- Restrict tunnelling and truck movements to standard construction hours - no 24/6 truck movements

- Return acquired properties not required after construction to Ashfield Council for community use and public open space.

This project will not solve Sydney's Traffic problems and NSW taxpayers money is better spent investing in Public Transport. Please consider my concerns and address them in your response to the community's submissions to the EIS.

Your sincerely,

Grace Yeung

Attention: Director, Infrastructure Projects & Planning Services

Submission for WESTCONNEX

I currently support NSW Greens and the government as a whole and in the best interest of society, I would like to express that Stage 1 is a brilliant idea. The M4 East tunnels will benefit society and the community as a whole.
The existing M4 motorway with the increase of two more 5.5 km tunnels would assist to elevate traffic levels and save valuable time for motorist travelling to and from Sydney airport and remove trucks and excess traffic from Parramatta Road whilst decreasing pollution levels and congestion.

Stage 3 is also a great well planned idea, however the exit and entry points onto Parramatta Road and so forth is not in the best interest of the community and state as a whole as if this does go ahead, it will not only cause a influx of pollution and congestion, but also destroy peoples families homes and also cause some iconic/heritage places to be claimed obsolete.

In all true honesty, I think the Department has a great idea regarding the tunnel underground, however, I don't support or believe NSW will grow as a society and to its maximum potential if the said plans go ahead in their entirety. I do believe though that we need Westconnex just the entry and exit points need to be re evaluated if I may say so.

I write this on behalf of the community and also my son and family,

Warm regards,

Carmel Livingstone Tindall

0478 080 945

Annandale, 2038

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.axz0Kp26.dpuf

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.

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.