WestConnex - M4 Widening

A complete waste of time and money. All energy should be put into building sustainable public transport. The only form of transport for growing cities. Please show some vision.

Ms Carolyn McNally
Acting Secretary
NSW Department of Planning and Environment

Dear Ms McNally,

This submission relates to the assessment of air quality issues in the EIS for the WestConnex M4 Widening Project. I teach and research in environmental law at the Faculty of Law at the University of Sydney, including in relation to air pollution issues. This submission is made in a personal capacity.

Section 8.9 of the EIS addresses the potential air quality impacts of the project. It does so using out of date methodologies that do not correctly identify the spatial reach and health impacts of air pollution from motorways. In particular the EIS is defective in failing to address the health impacts of the additional concentrations of ultrafine particles (UFPs) likely to result from higher traffic volumes on a widened M4 Motorway.

A growing body of scientific literature has identified the wide spatial reach and significant health effects associated with air pollution from motorways (see in particular Australian Government: Department of the Environment and Heritage, Health Impacts of Ultrafine Particles (2004), Morawska et al, `Ambient nano and ultrafine particles from motor vehicle emissions' (2008) 42(35) Atmospheric Environment 8113 and Health Effects Institute, Traffic-Related Air Pollution (2010)).

Open motorways, whether they be at grade, depressed or elevated, generate poor air quality outcomes for areas several hundred metres either side of the roadway. Nitrous oxides and ultrafine particles remain at elevated concentrations for up to 300 metres of the roadway edge during daytime, and up to 1000 metres at night time and during pre sunrise hours (despite lower traffic volumes) (see Hu et al, `A wide area of air pollutant impact downwind of a freeway during pre-sunrise hours' (2009) 43 Atmospheric Environment 2541). This exposes residents in ventilation buildings to unsafe levels of airborne pollution, particularly during night-time in summer months.

The EIS makes no mention of ultrafine particles, and makes no distinction between daytime and nighttime concentrations of pollutants, despite clear identification in the scientific literature of significant diurnal variations. This renders the EIS incomplete and inaccurate in its assessment of the environmental impacts upon communities adjacent to the M4 Motorway.

Assessment and modelling of emissions from the widened M4, and other sections of the WestConnex, should be conducted according to best international practice for assessing motorway pollution rather than the limited methodology set out in Approved Methods for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales (DEC, 2005). The EIS should take into account the extensive body of scientific research undertaken since 2005.

In view of this planning permission for the M4 Widening should be withheld unless and until a complete and accurate EIS is undertaken, and consideration is given to possible options to mitigate air quality impacts (including the construction of roadside barriers, and the planting of appropriate vegetation, which have proven effectiveness in reducing the impact of roadway noise and certain pollutants).

Dr Tim Stephens
3 Logan Avenue
Haberfield
NSW 2045

I have thought about this for ages I did ring and tell someone and they thought if not bad and to put it in writing.

I thought if we were to take the Oncoming Traffic lane out on the M4 in peak hour, from Penrith to Concord Rd. Only have entering traffic all the way from Penrith and no exits till Concord Rd. and vise versa in the afternoon. From Concord Rd. to Penrith. The same as is done on Windsor Rd. at Northmead. Parrmatta.

Yes it would mean a lot of entry points in the morning and then we use the same points as entry points in the afternoon.

There would be no stopping, turning, one speed and if they run out of petrol they get booked.
I am sure it would work.
You get on at Penrith, if that is where you start, and then get off at Concord Rd. The only traffic jam would be at the entry points. No changing lanes, should be little stopping if any. As there would be no merging of traffic changing from 3 lanes to 2 lanes etc: Just a straight run.

I am hoping your look into this.

Yours faithfully,
Margaret Bloor.

The promise was to widen the M4 to 4 lanes each way from the end of the Tunnel at Strathfield/ Concord thru to the West of Sydney.

1. The plans show a 3 lane widening as vehicles leave the tunnel heading West, not 4 lanes. Trucks and other vehicles will still continue in large nos to enter the M4 at Strathfield/ Concord heading West merging into only 3 lanes. It is obvious that this will create congestion and increased pollution. Many vehicles because of the Toll will not use the Tunnel and will join the M4 at Strathfield/ Concord. The M4 widens at Homebush Bay Drive to 4 lanes.
The work being carried out by 'Urban Growth' in trying to Revitalise Parramatta Rd with the possible long term plans to have light rail running down Parramatta Rd and massive residential growth, will add to the traffic entering the M4 at Strathfield/ Concord. Especially once the Badgerys Creek Airport kicks in.

2. The 4 lanes proposed from Homebush Bay Drive to the intersection with Silverwater Rd, then narrows from 4 lanes to 3 lanes, creating a bottleneck, congestion and increased pollution. Obviously, then vehicles backing up to Strathfield/ Concord and Parramatta Rd. Beyond the intersection with Silverwater Rd, the M4 then widens back to 4 lanes. This is ridiculous. Not rocket science to see what is going to happen over the next 5-15 years as Badgerys Creek Airport and the West of Sydney grows and comes on line. No long term planning is evident in the design.

3. As Parramatta grows, the intersection at Church St and near Woodville Rd needs to be enhanced with improved access to the M4. Again, no long term planning is evident in the design.

4. Of an evening and on the weekends vehicles will continue to use Parramatta Rd to avoid the M4 Toll. This flies in the face of the work being carried out by the Urban Growth in trying to Revitalise Parramatta Rd. Possible long term plans to have light rail running down Parramatta Rd and massive residential growth which will be in conflict with the Off-Toll Traffic. Parramatta Rd will be a nightmare

Please consider a 4 lane each way M4 from the Tunnel to West of Sydney.

The WestConnex proposal is animportant inititiative to get right
i am deeply concerned about the following
1 imposing a toll will only push no paying traffic onto local roads -this needs to be resolved -it is not acceptable to have a gold pass to paying users only to allow local streets to again become clogged -that is a step backwards
2 a new scheme the size of this one needs also to allow for future public transport lanes for buses rail /light rail -put this space in now for future use
3 I request a wider planning strategy which fullyaddresses the needs of aSydney 2nd circle road /bus/rail facility -this west connext then needs to feed into this broader plan -planners are employed to think but the past 50 yearshas just seen total chaos on our commuter roads the system is clogged and is not working -the job of traffic planners is to resolve this -this is tied into density & approval of developments which local 7 state govts allow to happen without any forward planning which is why we are in the traffic mess today -fix it properly this time -we are sick 7 tired of bandaid solutions

I consider that the money budgeted for this project should go into public transport, in particular light rail. Light rail would reduce the number of vehicles on the road and create a situation where this extra tollway would not be necessary. Besides which, research indicates that the amount of traffic on the M4 tollway, peaked 6 years ago. A feasible plan for passengers from heavy rail and buses to alight at a junction point on Paramatta Rd (submitted by EcoTransit) and join frequently running light rail services, seems a far better solution from an economic, community and environmental perspective. I am also concerned at the compulsory acquisition of buildings and residencies which would ultimately lead to high density housing which monetarily benefits developers and decimates communities that have been in existence for decades.

My family opposes the westconnex M4 widening. Investments should be made on improving public transport infrastructure.
Westconnex project is too expensive, our economy cannot support the costs, and it will NOT solve our traffic and congestion problems, it will create more issues to resolve.

It is of major concern to me that the public hasn't seen any detailed information of costings or the proposed efficiency of the West Connex. The widening will cause significant loss of homes (some that have been lived in for generations and hold much history), destruction of heritage and environmental zones, and the little information provided has residents across affected suburbs deeply troubled and finding it difficult to forward plan.

Without a detailed case provided to the community, this is a project that will cause people to drastically rethink the way they vote and support their government.

Issues that will directly affect my family will be traffic congestion, parking difficulty, increase in pollution, rat running and distressingly so - possible compulsory acquisition.

This doesn't include reduced spending on public transport, and that with population growth traffic congestion will increase. Travelling internationally shows that investing in mass public transport is the cleaner, greener, most efficient option.

Until I can see the statistics that spending this much money on a toll road will benefit the community, I cannot support it.

The M4 needs to be widened to an absolute MINIMUM of 4 lanes in each direction, more like 5-6. Sydney needs to stop playing catch up with transport and build in future capacity. No matter what time of day you travel now it is a car park. The M4 is already 3-4 lanes wide in some places AND STILL CAN'T COPE. Please have some foresight and build in future capacity NOW. We build a Harbour Bridge in the 30's with 8 lanes and build freeways in the 2000's with only 2 lanes each way, STUPIDITY.

The same goes for the proposed tunnels, THEY NEED TO BE A MINIMUM OF 4 LANES IN EACH DIRECTION. Preferably don't build tunnels and put the freeway in the air like most sensible cities around the world do. Put the freeways in the air and eliminate the need for toxic exhaust stacks. Tunnels are great for trains, not for cars and trucks. You have an incident (and they occur almost every day) and the whole road is shut for half the day extracting the vehicle. The M5 tunnel is a case in point, it is an absolute disaster of a road, toxic as hell to drive through (you can see the smog haze it is that bad) and downright dangerous having big semi trailers bearing down on you - tailgating you, through that tunnel. Add to that the fact that capacity was not built into it and you have a toxic car park, 2 lanes only - utter stupidity.

Put the freeways in the air with loops and flyovers for entries and exits that merge with the road way, NO TRAFFIC LIGHTS. You have traffic lights at the entrances and exits and of course traffic will bank up.

The City West Link also needs to be widened to a minimum of 4 lanes in each direction. If this is not done then again, of course traffic will bank up in the tunnel, just like the toxic M5. There is no point simply shifting a traffic jam further down the road.

Please build in future capacity NOW, we want solutions to Sydney's traffic nightmares, not hotch potch catch up jobs. Put the freeways in the air with a MINIMUM of 4 lanes each way. Take a trip Thailand (a 3rd world country) and see how freeways should be built. Sydney's roads are an embarrassment in comparison.

This is a short term solution for a long term problem and the band-aid proposed just won't work for the future of Sydney commuters. It will cause heartache for local businesses, home owners and commuters who will have their business or home taken or their current transit and parking options taken away.
Short-term additional space created on the M4 will attract more users - which will quickly use up the new capacity and mean large increases in traffic volumes on the City West Link, Parramatta Road and other main arterial roads.
This will see more traffic congestion at key intersections and more rat running in small residential streets which becomes dangerous for local communities and added expenses to the local governments for maintaining roads in their areas due to increased traffic.
Better solutions would be, to look at cities around the world that have "got it right" copy and improve their transit models. Create faster, cleaner and more efficient public transportation.
Regards

I live in Albert Street Granville approximately 20 metres from the M4 freeway. I've lived here for 17 years. In that time there have been increases and noise levels and dust from the motorway. I feel vibrations through the floor when heavy loaded trucks drive pass on the elevated motorway. In summer it is difficult to open windows due to noise from motorway traffic engines, truck breaks, and traffic driving over a near by expansion joint. I have to turn the TV volume up louder than I'd like to hear over the noise.

I'm very worried that the new motorway will be way too close to my house as the newly proposed construction brings it a further 12 metres closer to my home. The new viaduct will block the light from my home and backyard during winter. I cannot believe that the new motorway is coming so close that they have spoken to me about using part of my land for construction but have not offered to buy my property.

It's unreasonable for anyone to have to live with something towering right over their house. Bottles and rubbish smash onto my house roof and in A'Becketts Creek next to my property from the viaduct. I'm worried this danger of falling objects, bottles, etc. will come closer. My home will have more noise, dust and pollution getting into my house and a big towering structure right next to it.

The value of my property will be ruined and rendered un-sellable.

It's unreasonable for anyone to live in these circumstances. I don't want to move out of my house. I like where I live and the location is very convenient but if this project is to go ahead, I'll have to move because of the conditions becoming unlivable.

I understand the project is going ahead no matter what, so I believe I need suitable compensation to find an alternative home within my current area.

I believe this is the right thing to do because it's unreasonable to impose such inconvenience without suitable compensation. I don't want to feel like a troll living in the dark under a bridge. Without compensation for all the inconvenience and loss of lcoation and livability, I will be forced to fight this project tooth and nail.

In several sections of the EIS, traffic intersection performance is reported. This is provided in the form of Level of Service (LoS) and vehicle delay. LoS is reported as a letter A to F and vehicle delay is reported in seconds. However, for any LoS of F, the delay is reported as ">140". The actual delay value is not reported, which is inconsistent with the reporting of other LoS (A to E). When comparing scenarios, if their performances are reported as LoS F, it is not possible to compare because their delay values are not reported. Why are the actual delay values not reported?

I oppose the project for the following reasons:

There has not been enough community consultation or preparation. It is all being done in secret.

The EIS period is too short.

The Government has not given sufficient time and plenty of notice to allow the community tine to comment. The Government has not fulfilled the intent of the law requiring full and proper consultation.

The project requires more time to prepare submissions that cover all aspects of the project.

I am particularly opposed to The M4 widening. As it is predicated on benefits that won't emerge. The Westconnex M4 widening EIS makes it clear that the widening will have no real wider benefits without the full Westconnex. The widening is designed to reduce uncertainty in travel times, which the RMS has determined is threatening its market share.

I Oppose the project outright, totally and unconditionally.

I object to the above project on the following basis:

1. The proposal's aims can be achieved effectively at a lower cost and in a more long term sustainable manner;

2. The EIS process has been corrupted. Specifically that the project has been announced as "approved" politically, funding has been allocated without genuine, transparent, planning and without in depth consideration of alternatives.

Regards,
Scott Birrell

could we please spend more money upgrading public transport, so that more people will use it , instead of more cars on the roads, often having only 1 or 2 people in each car. a good example is the Hong Kong public transport system, which is marvellous. it's cheap, and even with their great population, there's hardly any traffic jam.

Submission to Westconnex M4 Widening
Dept of Planning & Environment, Project no. SSI 13-6148

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the EIS noted above, although I protest that there was not nearly enough time allocated for proper submissions by myself and by the citizens of sydney to study; absorb, and comment on this EIS. A summary of my submission however is as follows:
the proposed works will be a disaster for NSW that will forever change the travelling culture and the geographic scope for greater Sydney and force us into an American style car based transport system. It will be an expensive fiasco and I urge you to turn away from it. As a citizen of Sydney I don't want it!
In its place I strongly suggest using the generous donations promised by the Federal Government to build a world class, comprehensive and inclusive public transport network incorporating light rail; existing rail; buses, and also an extensive grid of cycle- and pedestrian-ways.
Aiming to attract commuters and others out of their cars and onto other forms of travel will have great social, health and economic benefits in that there will be fewer vehicle accidents, along with improved air quality.
The residents of Western Sydney will incur increased ongoing costs.
I believe that the construction of these various networks would be far less costly than that of a westconnex, but at the same time, will provide many job opportunities, as would the westconnex.

The EIS report seems to indicate that it is already a 'done deal'. In my mind I keep seeing the quote: "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"1. All the justifications given for constructing the westconnex suggest that the only way to fix our traffic challenges is by a tollway. For example, the NSW Government's Long Term Transport Master Plan states that this integrated transport revitalisation project will link Parramatta to Sydney's CBD, airport, Port Botany, and the M52. This linking can be easily and efficiently made through public transport options.

The authors of the Executive Summary admit that road congestion is costing the NSW economy more than $5 billion annually 3. It does not take a brilliant mind to deduce that encouraging more vehicles onto the roads will actually make the congestion, and therefore the costs, worse!

I am astounded that the authors claim the positive competitiveness Sydney will enjoy as a result of 'spaghetti junctions and tracks'. My observations of sophisticated and pleasant cities overseas is that the transport options all provide a variety of options, and mostly travellers don't use cars because there are better options.
Might there be some interested stakeholders here who are keen to be involved in this project? In light of the current ICAC sessions, please forgive me if I am just a little bit cynical!

It is a fact that housing in outer western Sydney is significantly cheaper than closer to the sydney CBD, leading to the deduction that the people who live there may not all have income levels as high as their city counterparts. Yet this proposed Westconnex will impose heavy daily tolls on the very residents who can least afford to pay them! Our Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey recently claimed that poorer people don't drive so much, but this is demonstratively wrong! As well as the heavy daily tolls, these residents will also continue to have to replace their cars sooner, and will have to budget for car expenses greater than their city counterparts, including fuel, servicing, tyres etc.

The projected savings in travel times quoted are at best questimates, and are unimpressive! Consider the per km cost of "a saving of one minute on the evening peak westbound journey from Homebush Bay Drive to Church Street"4. Seriously, would anyone think this was a good benefit-cost ratio? I certainly do not.

The EIS acknowledges that there will be increased traffic on Parramatta Road and other roads due to toll avoidance5. That will have significantly negative effects on all the nearby roads and residences, creating traffic unsuitable for those streets and suburbs.

In aiming for 'amenity benefits' a Westconnex is not required! In fact, amenity benefits are far more likely to be achieved through transport options that include various means of travel, rather than predominantly by the car.

The EIS states the M4 Widening project supports NSW key economic generators. As stated earlier, this suggests the stakeholders, and I imagine there are many developers ready to become an economic generator with the 'urban revitalisation' associated with the project.

Finally: it is acknowledged that currently there is traffic congestion in the greater sydney area. A simplified solution would be to either increase the roads for the existing and projected future road traffic, or to decrease the numbers of vehicles using those roads. The latter option wins on just about all parameters!

I urge you to abandon this project and use the funds for more creative solutions to our traffic challenges.

Spending State and Federal money on any stage of WestConnex takes away money that can be better spent on properly planned infrastructure and other much needed services.

The focus on building roads and tunnels, to the detriment of building better commuter rail, freight and other integrated public transport services is the wrong focus in this day and age.

The widening of the M4East, with, no guarantee that ALL stages of the WestConnex flawed concept will be funded or ever built, does nothing other than move cars and trucks more quickly down the M4, to then stall and crawl at the the parking lots at CityWest Link, Haberfield and Ashfield.

The reintroduction of a toll on the M4 motorway is outrageous, given the flawed concept of WestConnex and the premature widening of the M4.

The reintroduction of tolls on the M4 will impose a greater burden on travellers from the Blue Mountains, who already spend a lot of time and money travelling down to Sydney.

The lack of benefit, information, and the opportunity for residents of the Blue Mountains, to know or comment on the WestConnex M4East road widening EIS is a big omission in community consultation, and makes a mockery of the attention and concern by the Government and the WestConnex Delivery Authority, towards commuters from the lower, mid and upper Blue Mountains.

Local and collector roads around the motorway will become clogged, as many users will try to avoid the tolls.

Freight and commercial vehicles will jam pack Parramatta Rd, as they try to avoid the tolls, or if they do pay toll and travel the end, they will then be forced to switch back onto Parramatta Rd for the last part of their journey to the airport or port, driving along Parramatta Rd along Haberfield, Ashfield,Leichhardt, Petersham, Marrickville and Sydenham. A nightmare for residents and all drivers.

The EIS public display period was much to short, denying many people the opportunity to comment and engage in a meaningful consultation.

The WestConnex community information sessions, held late 2013 and early 2014, and referred to in the EIS glowingly, were a sham, a disgrace and an insult to the communities directly affected by the current WestConnex concept plan. The sessions were shambolic, unable to provide meaningful information, poorly run, rushed, and had the overall feel of a 'tick and flick' PR exercise. That these so called consultations are now regarded as having meaning within the EIS is an indication that this EIS consultation is also a sham, disgrace and insulting.

I have a particular interest in health and air quality issues. I paid particular attention to these issues in Volume 1 of the EIS

I paid closer attention to EIS Volume 4. Appendix L.

As a result of my reading of the EIS, I concluded and am concerned the EIS is working on a decade old methodology for air quality ("Approved Methods for the modelling & assessment of Air Pollution in NSW" (2005).

In addition the TRAQ assessments referred to are based on
'free flowing traffic' models. These tools fail to take into account the impact of ultrafine particulate matter ( PM 2.5 & PM 1) in the data measurements.

The impact of these ultra fine particles on human health are only now being understood (see Cesaroni et al,
"Long term exposure to ambient air pollution and incidence of acute coronary events: prospective cohort study and meta-analysis in 11 European cohorts from the ESCAPE Project" British Medical Journal 2014;.(Published 21 January 2014)).

A major issue for me is the concept of 'free flowing traffic', which in a Sydney rush hour, is but a pipe dream. Extra capacity on the M4East motorway will bring more traffic which will then soon become log jammed during peak travel times.

The WestConnex transport concept demonstrates failed 20th century thinking. What we really need and expect are creative 21st century transport solutions which will enable Sydney to grow and still be a liveable city.

The planning to date, with various changes and Government announcements about the whole of WestConnex, does not install confidence that either the State Government, or the WestConnex Development Authority have any really clear plan, or idea of what they are doing. It is all too ad hoc, and seems to be planning on the run, with a emphasis on constructing at haste, some of the WestConnex 'enabling' road projects.Plus, no business case revealed, poor traffic modelling, and no proper attention or full reference to the growing body of studies which raise the alarm about ultra fine particulate matter, air quality and health impacts. As well, the community consultation is as deeply flawed as the current WestConnex concept.

I do not support this first stage in the West Connex, as the whole project has still not been demonstrated to be viable.
Where is the business case for the whole of West Connex? Cost benefit analysis that takes into account social, economic, environmental and health costs as well as number of traffic lights to be avoided? Especially when cheaper, more environmentally sustainable public transport options continue to be ignored?

There are key issues relating to the different stages of West Connex that are not resolved, e.g. ventilation of tunnel, location of stacks, impact of urban consolidation/rezoning of Parramatta Rd, validation of traffic predictions. If they have been worked out, why have they not been released? If not, then how can stage 1 be approved when the following stages are clearly problematic?

What is the point of widening a bottle neck at great cost, just to funnel traffic to an even greater bottle neck further down the road? What else could we do for $5 Billion to relieve congestion between Parramatta and Concord? What about for $15Billion for the overall project?

Have we learnt nothing from projects like the M5East and Cross City tunnels?!

This project seems to have been approved first, and then let the consultants work out the actual plans, which are then modified subject to whatever political pressure is brought to bear by certain MLCs or vocal groups in marginal seats.

This is political engineering, and is no way to design an integrated transport strategy. It is clear that where public transport is available, people will use it, e.g. greater patronage generally on trains, light rail extension to Dulwich Hill, similarly for safer movement of cargo, rather than having B-Doubles and Triples choke our roads.

Please go back to the drawing board and provide full details for an EIS of the whole project as required. Review the underlying rationale of the project to ensure that it is about facilitating the effective and efficient movement of people and goods around our city for the long term, rather than just benefiting some construction companies.

I write to submit my objections on the M4 widening for several reasons:

1. Given the well-known 'induced traffic' effect, widening the M4 will only attract more cars to the M4 so the benefit in opening up space to reduce congestion will only be a short-term one.

2. The tolls that drivers will face to partially fund the construction of this project mean that a proportion of them will use Parramatta Rd which will remain untolled. This will drive up traffic on that road.

3. This effect will be amplified by the State Government's plans to build high rise developments along Parramatta Rd, thereby increasing local populations who will inevitably add to local congestion as well.

4. The longer-term benefit of the M4 widening will only occur if the full WestConnex proposal is implemented and there are multiple hurdles before all sections of the project are formally adopted (environmental, financial and political challenges being amongst these).

5. Traffic forecasts on other road projects have been famously flawed, so I have little trust in the figures quoted in the EIS around projected time savings.

6. Many economic and traffic expert commentators have pointed out that government investment is much better spent on increasing public transport options than building tollroads, particularly given changing demographics, the increasing price of petrol and global trends.

7. There has been little meaningful community consultation with locals and the four weeks allocated for individual, business and community group submissions is inadequate.

We object to the proposed WestConnex motorway for the following reasons:

1. Building more roads leads to greater car use and this is not consistent with creating denser, healthier and more efficient cities. Private car use contributes to pollution and obesity, takes up precious land, and creates barriers to walking and cycling. This is not a future we want for our children in Sydney.

2. It will divert scarce resources from other more productive areas of spending, such as investment in public and active transport in Western Sydney and job creation closer to where people live.

3. We are not aware of any credible modelling of the demand for the motorway at the time the project is due to be completed or of proper consideration being given to future economic and social changes that could render the motorway a white elephant. Other cities are moving away from investing in urban motorways and it is worrying and perplexing that Sydney is going against this international trend.

4. We object to our taxes being used for this purpose.