WestConnex - M4 Widening

Dear Sir/Madam,
We are residents who live in Prince Street Granville where is very close to M4. We are worrying that the noise may increase by widening M4. Actually after M4's toll was waived a few years ago, we found that the noise produced by M4 has significantly increased. We sometimes are woken up by the loud noise produced by the truck driving on M4 at midnight, and this really has impacts to our life, especially to our children. However, we cannot deny that M4 also brings us a lot of conveniences. Therefore, we do not object to widen M4 but we hope that you can control the noise to an acceptable level by adding necessary noise barriers. We hope the noise will be reduced after M4 widening with modern noise barriers. Thank you very much.

Firstly I am objecting to the granting of the minimum legal EIS consultation period, which severely limits the democratic process and the time available for people to understand and respond to what is being proposed.

The widening of the existing section of the M4 has no identified benefits without the presumption of the later stages. Its purpose appears to be to enable the re-imposition of the tolls. Any purported benefits are entirely dependent on the completion of the Westconnex Tollway system, sections of which currently appear to be still unplanned, unfunded, uncosted and open to constant change.

I unconditionally oppose the widening of the M4 East for the following reasons and address the following issues raised or omitted in this EIS.

1. The key assumption in the EIS is that there are no alternatives. Around the world, as transport planners are well aware, all the evidence proves that new roads attract more traffic to an area, in the absence of other public transport options.

2. Appendix L, Air Quality Assessment: More traffic, in the absence of increased provision of public transport, equals more deadly pollution. The nearest air quality monitoring stations are Prospect, Chullora and Rozelle, each of them several kilometres away.
The only one monitoring PM2.5 is at Chullora, proving that there is no accurate monitoring of PM2.5.
Diesel fleets are growing rapidly and the emissions of PM2.5 and smaller are not reflected in the base 2008 fleet data used in the EIS model. There is a recognised rise in the ownership of diesel vehicles. PM2.5 and finer particles are the main product of this diesel and proven to be carcinogenic and known to cause heart disease and lung development problems for children.
The model used to estimate effects of the project on air quality does not use actual, real-time air quality readings at the receptor stations, but data dependent on the 2008 fleet base.

3. The EIS identifies a one-minute saving time (Executive Summary, p. ii). This offers no justification for the spending of $15 billion dollars, which would serve NSW commuters and travellers far more effectively if spent on public transport solutions, the need for which will become increasingly urgent as the city grows. The recent release of Business papers revealed that there is no Business case for this or any proposed section of the Westconnex tollways.

4. The Government's whole case for Westconnex has been to decrease traffic congestion. Traffic analysis in this EIS shows that half the heavy traffic (26,000 vehicles) will move off the M4 and onto Parramatta and other roads to avoid the tolls once they are re-introduced after proposed road widening. Your traffic modelling DOES NOT SHOW CLEARLY where or how this movement of 13,000 extra vehicles onto Parramatta & other roads will take place. Traffic on Parramatta Rd will clearly be worse rather than better. The EIS report acknowledges that the imposition of tolls will lead to more traffic on parts of Parramatta Road from Church Street to Homebush Bay section. The Westconnex Delivery Authority needs to address this increased pollution effect along this corridor.

5. Key to the failure of this EIS is its failure to take into account the NSW government's urban renewal proposal that plans 100,000 new dwellings along the Parramatta Road corridor, with an estimated 200,000-plus inhabitants. These recently-released figures show a massive increase of initial plans for an extra 25,000 extra dwellings. Only mass transit systems are capable of moving such large numbers of people. Roads can never be mass transit systems.

6. Taxpayers money is already being committed to a project that has not completed its planning. We have seen no cost-benefit analysis. All recent studies into transport planning for the future demonstrate that the increase in demand and usage is for public transport and that job growth areas. The RMS repeatedly identifies inadequate public transport as a major problem in its reports and this EIS and the RMS wilfully ignore that the majority of Sydney's economic arc is served by public transport that could be cheaply and easily improved. (ie: Adding extra station to the Airport Link; connecting the Airport Link to South-West Sydney and removing traffic from the M5, rather than adding to environmental destruction and pointlessly widening this section of Westconnex)


I am completely opposed to the spending of taxpayers money on an unnecessary M4 widening project which contributes nothing to long-term solutions of Sydney's transport problems and which will increase unsolvable and deadly air pollution problems and sets us up for further congestion with the added burden of massive tolls in the future, rather than the efficient public transport that people in comparable cities around the world currently enjoy.

The EIS has not provided details of the benefit/cost analysis for this stage of the WestConnex project
and it is not possible to evaluate the factors that were taken into account, or omitted in determining the benefit/cost ratio for this stage of the project.

It is stated that this stage will contribute to the overall benefit/cost of the project and that this overall benefit/cost ratio is 2.55:1.The details of the benefit/cost analysis for the overall project have not been published and it is not possible to evaluate the factors that were taken into account, or omitted in determining the benefit/cost ratio for the overall project.

Without these details it is not possible to ascertain whether the investment is the most appropriate use of funds when considered against other means of providing transport between Western Sydney, the CBD and the Airport/Botany Bay precinct.

In the absence of the publication of the benefit/cost analysis for the overall project and in respect of stage one in particular the EIS is deficient and does not provide the basis for making a determination in respect of the project.

Another matter contributing to the deficiency of the EIS is the absence of analysis of the impact of the increased flow of traffic that will occur following the creation of additional lanes on the M4.

The EIS states that the toll will be a disincentive resulting in motorists utilising alternative routes suggesting that there will not be an increased flow of traffic along the M4 after the extra lanes are installed.

Apart from the congestion on other roads created by motorists that previously used the M4,
the combined flow of these motorists and those induced by the extra lanes is likely to result in increased traffic congestion on roads east of the end of the M4 including along Parramatta Road from Homebush towards the CBD. This would offset any benefits of travel time savings obtained along the widened M4

A further matter is the historical evidence that shows extra road space induces extra traffic. This is evidenced by the M2 where extra lanes have now been installed because of congestion. That is the travel time savings on which the benefit/cost case predominantly rested in respect of that expressway have been eroded to the extent that further road works were justified to attempt to restore them.

The EIS is deficient because the experience and evidence of comparable expressways has not been taken into account.

John Howard made tax cuts worth $38 billion in 2012 (NATSEM modelling) that have permanently and drastically reduced the revenue funding infrastructure development at all levels of government.

Unemployment is rising as the sun sets on development stage of the mining boom which will further depress tax revenues.

Both sides of politics in NSW have a history of failure in public/private partnership infrastructure deals.

There is no benefit widening the M4 when the ability to fund further development of a motor vehicle transport strategy is degrading.

Encouraging private vehicle transport is more expensive for the public than a public transport strategy.

In fact it is negligent to support such an expensive vision of the future when the US and other nations are moving away from previous motor vehicle strategies and toward light rail and similar public transport.

The Sydney death toll from air pollution was recently reported at 520 people pa. Wesconnex will encourage more motor vehicle travel and kill more people compared to public transport.

Firstly I am objecting to the granting of the minimum legal EIS consultation period, which severely limits the democratic process and the time available for people to understand and respond to what is being proposed.

The widening of the existing section of the M4 has no identified benefits without the presumption of the later stages. Its purpose appears to be to enable the re-imposition of the tolls. Any purported benefits are entirely dependent on the completion of the Westconnex Tollway system, sections of which currently appear to be still unplanned, unfunded, uncosted and open to constant change.

I unconditionally oppose the widening of the M4 East for the following reasons and address the following issues raised or omitted in this EIS.

1. The key assumption in the EIS is that there are no alternatives. Around the world, as transport planners are well aware, all the evidence proves that new roads attract more traffic to an area, in the absence of other public transport options.


2. Appendix L, Air Quality Assessment: More traffic, in the absence of increased provision of public transport, equals more deadly pollution. The nearest air quality monitoring stations are Prospect, Chullora and Rozelle, each of them several kilometres away.
The only one monitoring PM2.5 is at Chullora, proving that there is no accurate monitoring of PM2.5.
Diesel fleets are growing rapidly and the emissions of PM2.5 and smaller are not reflected in the base 2008 fleet data used in the EIS model. There is a recognized rise in the ownership of diesel vehicles. PM2.5 and finer particles are the main product of this diesel and proven to be carcinogenic and known to cause heart disease and lung development problems for children.
The model used to estimate effects of the project on air quality does not use actual, real-time air quality readings at the receptor stations, but data dependent on the 2008 fleet base.


3. The EIS identifies a one-minute saving time (Executive Summary, p. ii). This offers no justification for the spending of $15 billion dollars, which would serve NSW commuters and travellers far more effectively if spent on public transport solutions, the need for which will become increasingly urgent as the city grows. The recent release of Business papers revealed that there is no Business case for this or any proposed section of the Westconnex tollways.



4. The Government's whole case for Westconnex has been to decrease traffic congestion. Traffic analysis in this EIS shows that half the heavy traffic (26,000 vehicles) will move off the M4 and onto Parramatta and other roads to avoid the tolls once they are re-introduced after proposed road widening. Your traffic modeling DOES NOT SHOW CLEARLY where or how this movement of 13,000 extra vehicles onto Parramatta & other roads will take place. Traffic on Parramatta Rd will clearly be worse rather than better. The EIS report acknowledges that the imposition of tolls will lead to more traffic on parts of Parramatta Road from Church Street to Homebush Bay section. The Westconnex Delivery Authority needs to address this increased pollution effect along this corridor.



5. Key to the failure of this EIS is its failure to take into account the NSW government's urban renewal proposal that plans 100,000 new dwellings along the Parramatta Road corridor, with an estimated 200,000-plus inhabitants. These recently-released figures show a massive increase of initial plans for an extra 25,000 extra dwellings. Only mass transit systems are capable of moving such large numbers of people. Roads can never be mass transit systems.



6. Taxpayers money is already being committed to a project that has not completed its planning. We have seen no cost-benefit analysis. All recent studies into transport planning for the future demonstrate that the increase in demand and usage is for public transport and that job growth areas. The RMS repeatedly identifies inadequate public transport as a major problem in its reports and this EIS and the RMS willfully ignore that the majority of Sydney's economic arc is served by public transport that could be cheaply and easily improved. (ie: Adding extra station to the Airport Link; connecting the Airport Link to South-West Sydney and removing traffic from the M5, rather than adding to environmental destruction and pointlessly widening this section of Westconnex)



I am completely opposed to the spending of taxpayers money on an unnecessary M4 widening project which contributes nothing to long-term solutions of Sydney's transport problems and which will increase unsolvable and deadly air pollution problems and sets us up for further congestion with the added burden of massive tolls in the future, rather than the efficient public transport that people in comparable cities around the world currently enjoy.

yours sincerely

John Gillies

Westconnex Tollway first EIS Submission.

I am totally against the proposed road widening of the M4 and subsequent construction of WestConnex.

Traffic congestion
The immediate reduction in traffic congestion when the M4 widening is opened will be due to some of the traffic diverting to Parramatta Road because this route will be toll-free.
Eventually the widened section will induce more traffic and end up as clogged as now.
All this extra traffic will have to find its way through local rat runs after it exits the end of the M4 and this affects me.
It would be much better to use the money to build more public transport where the traffic originates. In Western Sydney there is a huge need for more heavy rail lines capable of being connected into the rest of the rail system (unlike the North West rail line under construction).

Cost
Tolls are to be reintroduced onto the M4 when the new widened section opens.
The enormous cost associated with tunneling in subsequent sections of the WestConnex tollway will suck up all the state funds which might otherwise be used for schools, hospitals and useful forms of peak hour transport.
More and more of our cities' real estate is devoted to car parking and car travel. In my area this land is valuable - at least $3000/m^2 - and each car parked uses 11m^2 of street or garage space with lost rental potential of about $10,000 per annum. This is in addition to car depreciation and running cost.

Time waste
On the train line that parallels this road, it is possible to read a book, catch up on ones' emails or work while traveling. Compared to the train using this road is a time waster.

Fuel security
Building another road makes Australia more car dependent rather than less and hence more dependent on foreign energy sources as our own crude oil sources in Bass Strait are exhausted. These foreign sources are increasing in price and becoming more insecure as demand in China increases and they, in their turn, run out.

Safety
Road transport is inherently less safe than any of the forms of public transport and will lead to increased death and injury in the State.

Air pollution
Encouraging more traffic raises the level of CO and NOX in Sydney's air and more diesel trucks raises the level of PM10, PM2.5 and smaller particle sizes which are increasingly found to be harmful.

Land use issues
Increased motor vehicle use increasingly abrogates the streets from the other users, pedestrians, cyclists and in particular local children who, 60 years ago, could safely venture outside their front gates and play in the street. Not any more! (Except in the next street to mine which, since our area was made a dead end, hosts a regular game of cricket after school.)
In the narrow streets of Balmain, cars have to be parked on footpaths in order not to prevent access by the local fire brigade.
Large public parks, which date from the last century and before, being built on what are now major roads, are now surrounded by traffic and isolated from their communities.

I am sending this submission in response to the Environmental Impact Statement of the M4 Widening stage of Westconnex.

I wish to register my total opposition to the entire Westconnex scheme, including the M4 Widening. Like many others I believe the scheme to be misguided. Not only will the new road create pollution, particularly in heavily-populated inner city areas, it will not solve the problem of congestion it claims to, it will hardly cut travel times in any case, and will drain the public purse of funding for what is really needed, namely investment in public transport.

My objections to the scheme are many, not least the secrecy with which plans have been made. When I manned a stall in Marrickville two months ago, many of those I spoke to had not heard of Westconnex, despite the fact that the developments will affect them and their families directly. The secrecy continues with the `consultation process'. Nowhere on the main page of the Westconnex website does it state clearly and upfront that submissions are invited in response to the EIS. It is hard not to think that the Westconnex project is viewed as a `done deal' by the government and all of the industries and individuals that stand to benefit from it - property developers, toll operators, the fossil fuel industry and so on. Why else would so much money have already been committed to a project that has not yet completed its planning, its cost-benefit analysis, or its consultation period?

Here are some of my objections:

- The `consultation period' has not been widely advertised, and is far too short for any individual or affected group properly to study the EIS. Westconnex is required to give the community a sufficient opportunity to comment, and it has not done so.

- Various aspects of the project are going ahead before the due process of consultation has been carried out. This includes preliminary drilling.

- The community is being asked to respond to the M4 widening part of Westconnex, but by the government's own admission, this part of the scheme will only bring benefits once the full scheme is realised. The community ought to be invited to comment on the entire Westconnex project, as the implementation of one part necessitates the implementation of the whole.

- Car use is down and demand for public transport has increased, according to the NSW State of the Environment Report 2012. This is an opportunity to invest in sustainable transport solutions, not encourage more car use.

- In environmental and other terms, Westconnex contradicts the Government's own 2021 policy, including its goal to `Build liveable centres', with many more people living within 30 minutes by public transport of a major centre in the Sydney metropolitan area. Expenditure on Westconnex does nothing to meet this goal: it will drain the public purse for necessary investment in public transport, and will make many parts of Sydney `unliveable'.

- The time savings as released by Westconnex are in many cases unimpressive. They do not compare well to the times taken by public transport. A trip from Parramatta to the Airport will take 66 minutes, excluding parking, using Westconnex. The same trip (according to any train trip planner) currently takes 40 minutes by rail. If reducing travel times is the justification for the expense of Westconnex, surely it would be efficient to invest in public transport?

- The widening of the M4 will do nothing to solve congestion problems; in fact it will generate greater traffic congestion at its endpoint. The benefit claimed by the report for travel times is based on the idea that large numbers of trucks and other vehicles will move to the non-tolled Parramatta Road. This will of course massively increase pollution and congestion in those areas around the Parramatta Road that are targeted for `urban regeneration.'

- My major objection is a fundamental one, and relates precisely to environmental impact. It is obvious that the environment can only be harmed by encouraging the increased use of private motor vehicles. Recent research has confirmed that the pollution caused by motorways has an adverse affect on health, and there is a consensus amongst informed members of the scientific community that we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels because of their contribution to climate change.

I object to the construction of the westCONnex motorway for two undeniable reasons.
1. Building more roads simply encourages more drivers, it does not in the experience of countless investigators world wide result in faster travel times. I'm sure my fellow objectors have attached hundreds of studies alrerady. Vehicles will continue to use Parramatta Road free of charge up to pretty much the same level of congestion as is experienced now. Take a look at the failed cross city tunnel. If you want to make changes to handle additional commuters, try making public transport free and spend some money improving the service. The productivity increases you tout will more than cover the cost of the improvements such as widening of the rail line into the CBD, more light rail or something novel like running small commuter buses through suburbs to local railway stations. Additional cost saving will be apparent in improved health outcomes for thoise walking to the station or bus instead of driving, as well as lower respiratory illness from improving air quality. Any further income should be derived from fuel levies to penalise use of private transport. Genuine concessions or tax breaks for low income earners can be made if necessary. This would leave the existing roads for those "white vans, trucks and tradies". Heavy transport should be moved to rail wherever possible.
2. Current Federal government initiatives to shuttle renewable energy generation mean there will be scarcely enough to power homes, let alone electric vehicles. Therefore, the additional vehicle you are catering for will be internal combustion powered. The planet can ill afford to generate more vehicle trips. One of the few benefits of congestion is that it discourages drivers. What is needed is a reduction in generation of CO2, not an increase. The population needs to be encouraged to use less not more energy. westCONnex is doing the opposite.

I oppose the M4 widening and Westconnex project outright.

I am opposed to the widening of the M4 motorway and the reintroduction of tolls.

Saving motorists 1 minute travel time between Homebush Bay Drive and Church Street Parramatta in peak hour is insufficient justification for this project. It is not a significant and worthwhile benefit for the cost.

I understand that any benefit from the initial M4 widening relies on the completion of Westconnex. Any benefit from the widening of the M4 and the subsequent building of the Westconnex will be short-lived. There is substantial evidence to demonstrate that building motor ways generates more traffic and congestion, rather than reduces it. A new road will create new traffic.

This widening and subsequent completion of the Westconnex project will result in more cars on the road, particularly Parramatta Road and other free roads in the vicinity. The suggestion of a reduction of traffic on Parramatta Road on completion of Westconnex has been questioned, and the government advised it is improbable.

The suggested benefit to M4 traffic speed will be largely due to the movement of heavy vehicles and other cars on to Parramatta road and other free roads.

The official travel times released for Westconnex suggest a 66 minute trip form Parramatta to the airport. Current public transport would allow this trip to be completed within 40 minutes. This project fails to show the benefit to community given the government proposed travel times on the motorway are slower than public transport.

I oppose the concurrent urban activation project which proposes an additional 30000 to 50000 residences be built along an already congested corridor. Such an increase in residences and population will bring a significant increase in traffic. It is inconceivable that the benefit proposed by Westconnex will have a net effect of reducing congestion within this corridor.

Westconnex is not working towards the governments own NSW 2021 policy goal 20 which seeks to increase the proportion of people living near to public transport. The Westconnex project is not an integrated transport solution for Sydney. The government has failed to demonstrate that this approach to moving the population around the city is the most cost effective.

The lack of public transport in Sydney is frequently identified yet the project focuses only on motorways to move people towards jobs. Major economic zones in Sydney such as the "economic arc" of Sydney are served reasonably well by public transport. Public transport is cheaper and more effective in moving large numbers of people to and from work.

The NSW 2011/12 Household Travel Survey highlighted the growth in the use of bus and train as opposed to car travel. The population demands and uses public transport yet the government is failing to address this demand, instead proposing to invest an enormous sum of money on motorways that benefit fewer. Congestion in Sydney would be better relieved by increasing public transport opportunities and infrastructure and ensuring that the public transport currently available is working to capacity.

The case for Westconnex motorway rather than investment in rail and other mass transport methods has not been made.

Westconnex is not working towards the governments own NSW 2021 policy in particular goal 19 to enhance rail freight movement. Westconnex encourages increased movement of freight by road by heavy vehicles. Semi-traillers and other such heavy vehicles should not be encouraged on to road ways and into urban and residential areas.

Tunnelled motorway pollution released into communities via smoke stacks present significant and serious public health risks. I am very concerned about the public health risks of the Westconnex tunnel project. They have not been sufficiently considered or addressed.

The government has not provided sufficient time and notice to communities to comment on the EIS. I am disappointed the government has not fulfilled the intent of the law requiring full consultation with the community. There are members of my local community that wanted to make submissions but were not aware of the EIS or have had insufficient time to respond since learning of this process.

I write to express my absolute opposition, in the strongest possible terms, to the WestConnex M4 Widening Project. I believe that the project is dangerously flawed and utterly misguided. The urban problems faced by Sydney will not be addressed by vast new motorway construction - a response which, it seems, only Australia among nations of the developed world seems not to have learnt is doomed to failure.

The proposal represents an out-of-date and dangerous approach to a real problem. Experts in traffic modeling and transport planning, such as Dr Michelle Zeibots at the University of Technology Sydney, have demonstrated that the construction of larger motorway systems does not solve the problem of traffic congestion in anything but the shortest of terms: in fact they generate higher levels of uptake in road use which rapidly exceed the capacity of the new road, in the mean time leaving the urgently-needed complementary provision of high-quality public transport alternatives denuded of support. The proposal is also out of line with the clear wishes of Sydney's population, which has been increasingly seeking to use public transport over roads (see 7 below); and with the solutions that look to the greater health of the environment and its human population.

I do not want my children to grow up in a city that is polluted and congested, that is run, effectively, by property developers, and where ordinary citizens are kept in the dark about decisions that affect them so directly (see 1 and 8 below). I want to live in a city that I can be proud of, which leads the way in sustainable urban development - WestConnex would be a missed opportunity for Sydney to shine.

Given the extremely short period allowed for public consultation (see 1 below), I am obliged to keep my comments brief.

1. The period during which the EIS is available for public study and response is completely inadequate. When such huge sums of public money are involved, this is inexcusable and suggests a furtive intent to keep public scrutiny to an absolute minimum.
2. The WestConnex M4 Widening Project is only one segment of the much larger WestConnex project. The EIS shows that any success that may be claimed to emerge from the M4 Widening Project is predicated on the entire project being implemented. Given the fact of its integral relationship to the other phases of the WestConnex project, it would be wrong to approve the M4 Widening Project. Such approval would prejudice judgment on its later phases. The entire WestConnex project should be presented and considered as the whole which it is advertised to be. Moreover the later stages propose environmental threats on an even large scale than the first. They involve the destruction of rare and precious segments of inner south-west Sydney's few remaining native environments, notably a substantial (2 ha.) section of the Wolli Creek bushland Western Gateway. This is home to a unique combination of rainforest, transitional ecosystems, ancient and rare tree species, a substantial biodiversity contribution to NSW's broader ecosystem, and is a crucial section of a passageway for numerous rare and endangered species of birds.
3. The EIS makes it plain that the proposed widening will have no real wider benefits without the full WestConnex project (see 2 above). The creation of the wider segment of motorway will inevitably generate greater traffic congestion at its end-point. This is a demonstrated fact known to all traffic and transport experts, as well as being easily deducible by common sense. The improvement alleged for the travel times is in any case based on the introduction of 4 tolled lanes of motorway which will, it is anticipated, handle lower flows of traffic, while it is assumed by the M4 Widening Project that large numbers of trucks and other vehicles will move to the non-tolled Parramatta Road. This management by economic charge of traffic flows will have, among its many negative consequences, the effect of considerably increasing the pollution and other loss of amenity in precisely the areas targeted for `urban regeneration' along the Parramatta Road. This problem was seen and expressed explicitly more than 18 months ago by Mr Thomas van Drempt, a Senior Transport Engineer at Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc., who was contracted to work on transport options along the Parramatta Road corridor (see http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/emails-reveal-doubts-on-westconnex-parramatta-road-revival-20140807-10121c.html).
4. Furthermore, many or all of the improvements in travel time are based on entirely inadequate, soft statistical projections (the absence of adequate usage projection estimates as recently as April of this year was revealed by the release of working papers on WestConnex under Freedom of Information legislation) or are completely trivial. For instance, at page ii of the Executive Summary it is stated that `When completed, the widened M4 Motorway would save motorists around one minute on an evening peak westbound journey from Homebush Bay Drive to Church Street.' It is risible, or rather rampantly irresponsible, to propose the expenditure of $15 billion of public monies to achieve such a result.
5. The EIS fails adequately to address the potential solutions provided by public transport to the real problems facing Sydney's transport systems.
One of the most critical issues identified by the EIS - the high demand for west-to-east transport generated by the demography of employment distribution - could much more easily and cost-effectively be solved by improving existing public transport systems and building new ones. Evidence of the Government's own Traffic and Transport Working paper shows that it acknowledged that the lack of adequate public transport is the real problem: `Fragmented economic development across Sydney has meant that many jobs are in non-centre locations that are poorly served by public transport. There are more jobs in Sydney's east compared to Sydney's west, generating a net flow of journey to work trips from west to east. Furthermore, many jobs in the east are also out of centre jobs not in Sydney CBD (e.g. the southern part of the Global Economic Corridor). Strategic centres hold 41 per cent of jobs within Sydney's east. These areas are not well served by public transport, particularly from Sydney's west and WestConnex would support travel to these out of centre jobs.' To conclude that a motorway will solve the public transport shortages identified by the Government is ludicrous.
6. The WestConnex M4 Widening Project (and the larger Westconnex project) not only fail to conform to the NSW Government's own 2021 Policy, they directly subvert it: namely, for instance, Goal 20, Build liveable centres, with the target to `Increase the percentage of the population living within 30 minutes by public transport of a city or major centre in metropolitan Sydney'; while under Goal 19 Invest in Critical Infrastructure, the Government has committed to `Enhance rail freight movement: double the proportion of container freight movement by rail through NSW ports by 2020′. The EIS makes it abundantly clear that the WestConnex M4 Widening Project will do nothing to achieve this, but rather erode available funding to achieve these ends for many years to come.
7. The information provided by the Government in the EIS and associated literature such as the WestConnex Factsheet (December 2012) claims that Westconnex should be built in order to cut travel times. But the figures provided show that this is a misleading interpretation of the data. For instance, the WestConnex Factsheet (December 2012) states that the trip by road from Parramatta to the Airport will take 66 minutes with WestConnex. However transportnsw's own trip-planner shows that, even at peak times, the trip can be made in around 47 minutes, on the city's present system of public transport. Imagine how swift it would be if even a fraction of the $15 billion proposed for expenditure on WestConnex were instead diverted to the more productive, forward-looking and intelligent provision of public transport. All the statistical evidence currently available shows that the growth in uptake and further appetite for public transport in Sydney is on the increase. See esp. the NSW 2011/12 Household Travel Survey, which shows that in the past decade, the demand for trains in Sydney has grown by 23%, nearly twice the extent of the increase in the city's population over the same period (12%); while the demand for buses has similarly increased at a rate (16%) greater than that of the population.

I am vehemently opposed to the Westconnex scheme.

I find it totally inconceivable that the Baird government would put their names on the record as being the ones to develop such an outdated, uncultured, 19th century approach to solving traffic problems in a city that seeks to attract tourists, and attract world acclaim. What will be attributed is ridicule for being so short sighted as to blight our suburbs with polluting cars & trucks.

The Federal government wants to give aways some billions of dollars...let's ask for transport solutions that are 21st century, and that can be a model for the rest of Australia. Show the other states how we in NSW are FORWARD THINKING, and not just following the lobbyists' suggestions to build yet another road.

Building efficient and integrated public transport solutions will provide all the jobs that are currently claimed by the Westconnex project.

The Westconnex will exacerbate the transport problems of Sydney because it will cause more vehicles to enter Sydney. Where are all those cars meant to park? It's ironic that under this model, the best accommodations in Sydney will be taken by CARS! Why would the government spend billions of dollars to exacerbate our existing transport problems? I can't believe that this scheme is the best that our engineers/planners can come up with. Is there another agenda at play, for example the powerful automotive / fuel lobby? In the middle of the last century NSW had a functioning freight rail network, and this also was knobbled by the powerful automotive lobbies, including the N.R.M.A.! And we rue the day!
Will the planners not observe the situation with the building of the freeway in Melbourne: problems abound.

'White elephants' were created in the past, for example, Macquarie University, which was designed as a "motor vehicle university". Years later, billions of dollars need to be spent to make it somewhat accessible to those amongst us who do not have a car!

The reasons why public transport in sydney might not be used extensively are around current efficiency and access. If public transport was readily available with extensive destinations then I am sure it would be patronised greatly. The benefits are obvious:
Less pollution
Fewer auto accidents
Quicker trips for those who need to drive, eg tradespeople
Quicker trips for emergency vehicles
Ability to more accurately predict travel times
Less drain on our health services
Plus the fact that large parcels of land would not have to be set aside for car-parking!

Fuel prices are continually rising. It makes no sense to push a transport system that is dependent on fuel.....when many of our less wealthy folk will be paying the most for transport. That also is not a legacy I would have thought the Baird government would want to have it's name attached to.

I also strongly object to the associated "Urban revitatlisation" - euphemism for the grabbing of land, most of which are existing residences, and the construction of high rise apartments. No doubt the developers are beating a path to the doors of State Government to get a piece of the pie. It's despicable, and I will abhor the State Government if they buckle to these developers to allow this razing of our suburbs. It's also despicable to chuck existing citizens out of their houses to feather the nests of others!

Another important matter: this EIS is presumably undertaken before a decision is made as to whether Westconnex will go ahead. Why then did I see on the Channel 7 news yesterday footage indicating Westconnex was already proceeding? We live in a democracy where residents have a say in decisions made. Government employees are public servants!

Please, please don't go ahead with this useless and retrograde project. Tell the Federal government that there are better solutions for their financial gift. Please send engineers / planners to some progressive european cities to get ideas that could be implemented. There is NO REASON why Sydney can not also have a good integrated public transport scheme that is available to all.

Firstly I am writing to object to the extremely short period for submissions. 30 days is the statutory minimum, and completely inadequate for individuals, community groups and local Councils to respond in any depth to a document of such length and complexity. My conclusion is that the Government is going through the motions, of meeting its obligations, but without much interest in receiving meaningful comment.

Secondly I am writing to oppose the M4 widening as part of my wider opposition to WestConnex. As such, my comments are divided into two:
* on the M4 Widening EIS, and
* on WestConnex more generally

My focus is on the economics of the project.

M4 Widening EIS

Benefit:cost ratio:

The EIS trots out the same old tired statistics, endlessly regurgitated, of WestConnex delivering "more than $20bn in economic benefits to NSW" (p iv), and a benefit:cost ratio of 2.55:1 (p viii). The $20bn is by far the biggest contributor to the purported benefits of WestConnex, yet this figure has never been substantiated with evidence.

So what we have in the EIS is the same load of unsubstantiated assertions contained in the Business Case Executive Summary of September 2013, which was a glossy publicity brochure rather than rigorous analysis.

The Government has consistently refused to release a proper business case and cost benefit analysis for WestConnex. For good reason. In comparison to the NSW Government's 2.55:1 figure, the independent analysis for the equivalent East-West Link in Melbourne is a benefit:cost ratio of 0.54:1. In other words for every $1 of investment you get 54c of value. It is reasonable to assume the real figure for WestConnex will be closer to that than the figure stated in the EIS.

Cost:

I could find no reference to the cost of widening the M4 (which includes upgrading a number of intersections) as proposed. If this is the case, the EIS is fundamentally flawed in describing benefits without stating the costs. Any investment must include consideration of both costs and benefits.

Benefits:

The Government has never released traffic projections for WestConnex, and the M4 Widening EIS continues this policy. Saying that Sydney's population is set to increase by 1.5m people so we need more roads just does not cut it in strategic planning.

Comparing Sydney to `other global business centres such as Hong Kong, Singapore and Shanghai' (p i) is ironic, as instead of building the roads of the 20th C as is the intent of Australian governments, they have invested in and have excellent public transport systems. Continuing to invest in roads rather public transport consigns Sydney to being one of the least sophisticated of the cities of the region, on a par with Jakarta perhaps.

Mind you. One can understand the Government's reluctance to release traffic projections (if they have them). It seems that the traffic projections for the Lane Cove Tunnel were manipulated to encourage private sector investment, rather than objectively calculated (`How traffic numbers were into a dark tunnel', Sydney Morning Herald, 12 August 2014).

Instead, the purported benefits are stated in the EIS in a way that they are exaggerated by conflating the M4 widening with WestConnex as a whole.

Thus on p viii of the Executive Summary we discover that the stated 14 mins/74% improvement in eastbound and 6 mins/55% improvement in westbound travel times on the section from Parramatta to Homebush is dependent on the completion of WestConnex as a whole. But on p ii we discover the time saved as a result of M4 widening is a mere one minute, in the westbound evening peak, from six to five minutes. The benefits of M4 widening are therefore minuscule in relation to its (undisclosed) costs.

Without completion of WestConnex as a whole (which I do not believe will happen for the reasons given below), M4 widening will merely create a larger traffic jam at Homebush, increase traffic and congestion on feeder roads, and create pressure for further road widening. The latter is a well known phenomenon; increasing road capacity induces more traffic which in turn increases pressure for more road building.

The only way to break this cycle is to invest in public transport to get people out of their cars, to free up existing road space for the use of commercial vehicles which have no option but to use roads.

In itself therefore the M4 widening is a waste of money. Its real purpose is to justify re-imposing tolls on the M4 to help finance the rest of WestConnex.

WestConnex

Whatever the Government says in order to get itself past the next state election, I do not believe that WestConnex in its entirety, connecting the M4 and M5, will ever be built. For two reasons:
* community opposition, and
* cost

Community opposition:

The Government has already experienced considerable difficulty due to community opposition in locating just one ventilation stack for NorthConnex in comparatively low density Wahroonga. One can only imagine the difficulties it would face throughout high density inner Sydney as it tries to find an acceptable route and location for ventilation stacks. Not to mention location of portals and feeder roads, property acquisitions and blighting, and the disruption caused by construction over a ten year period.

As a result of an initial skirmish, the Government has already been forced to change its plan to use part of Ashfield Park for a WestConnex entry portal. These difficulties will be writ large for the project as a whole, and the political pain for the government of the day will just be too great (again, Melbourne's East-West Link is showing how this will pan out). As it will its cost.

Cost:

The cost of WestConnex will cripple the State budget, distorting its finances for many years.

The idea that private funding will fund the road will not stack up. The $1.8bn from NSW, $1.5bn from the Commonwealth and the latter's loan of $2bn will prove just to be a deposit on ongoing government subsidy. The government/toll way operator will not be able to set tolls high enough to meet to meet the construction costs (already estimated at an eye watering $15bn!) and operational costs of WestConnex.

For example at the NSW parliament budget estimates meeting on 21 August 2014, Roads Minister Duncan Gay confirmed that WestConnex tolls would be capped at $7.35, about the same as on M7. But an independent analysis shows that the construction cost of WestConnex to be two and a half to three times the cost of the M7 (`For whom the toll palls: light shed on cloudy costs of roads', Sydney Morning Herald, 11 August 2014) So there is likely to be a considerable shortfall in toll revenue on WestConnex.

This will mean substantial government subsidy stretching into the future. WestConnex will suck the State budget dry of the ability to fund other services such as other road improvements and public transport, and non transport services. Past the stimulatory effect of construction, WestConnex will therefore act to constrain rather than grow the NSW economy.

The nearest equivalent to WestConnex is Melbourne's East-West Link, which is more advanced, and from which lessons can be learned. Ken Davidson has written extensively in The Age on the impacts of the East-West Link on the Victorian budget (eg `East-West funding part of a bumpy road for the future`, on 7 July and `East-West Link: The case against this road gets even stronger' on 28 July 2014). WestConnex will have the same impact on NSW.

Ken Davidson also points out that funding such projects through public private partnerships (as proposed for WestConnex) is far more expensive on governments than were they to finance by issuing government bonds.

Conclusion

My conclusion is therefore that WestConnex is all about the big end of town making a lot of money out of the taxpayers and drivers of NSW, through financial deals and consultancy fees, in getting a good return for the massive superannuation funds sloshing around in the economy. In spite of how the M4 Widening EIS might dress it up, WestConnex is not about rational transport planning, which would require rigorous analysis of all alternatives.

WestConnex cannot be justified on economic grounds, and the Government has failed to demonstrate its need, how it will be financed and its impact of the state budget. It probably will never be built in its entirety. In which case the Government would be better off investing in transport alternatives other than widening the M4 between Parramatta and Homebush

I am against the M4 widening proposal because it cannot exist independent of further road works which will develop in stages to become the complete WestConnex road and tunnel way.

There is a significant equity issue in the M4 widening and the WestConnex corridor in that it necessarily imposes very large tolls on regular users. Already this is a problem in Sydney for those having to use multiple tollways. While transport of goods by truck and the provision of truck ways and intermodals to transfer freight is a reality, much private car travel is caused by a lack of alternative travel options.

Expenditure by state and federal government on the M4 and related roads is money not then available for provision of alternative public transport.

A visionary government should not only consider who and what has to travel where, which has been done by the relevant government departments, but how that travel could be reduced. the then RTA did this in part when they prepared and released information kits to help employers and employees plan for employees especially on the Central Coast to work from home. At about the same time the State Government established a work hub at Gosford for public servants to hot desk from there rather than travel to Sydney. Both these measures were attempts to take load off the now M1 motorway. While these were isolated and now look primitive, advanced innovative thinking could help reduce the need to undertake some trips, delay some trips out of peak, help people to live closer to work or work closer to home etc. This thinking could also consider involvement of the private sector in provision of infrastructure to address transport of freight, other than the obvious provision of roads. This might include re-examining the concept of intermodal points, warehouse locations etc. Tolls in some form would have to be paid, whether this was on some levy at point of purchase of goods or on use of the supplied infrastructure. Suffice it to say such thinking is necessary to save government from being forced by developers into provision of infrastructure which encourages high use of fuel and adds to inequity in the community.

I am strongly and completely opposed to the project to widen the M4 motorway, and the WestConnex project.

It is the first stage of the WestConnex project and will only "work" as part of that much larger project, yet the final plan for WestConnex is incomplete. Beginning work on the M4 commits the NSW Government to continue with the project but the final shape is uncertain and may be against the interests of the community. It is wrong to commit over $5 billion of public money in these circumstances, with another $6 billion to be spent on the whole project. It often happens that project costs "blow out" and, on this project, the builders of later stages will be able to exaggerate prices because there will be no turning back on the whole WestConnex.

It is very irresponsible for the Government to expose the people of NSW to the financial danger this situation represents.

The very large amount of money for this one project closes off the potential for many other beneficial infrastructure projects in NSW.

A recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald suggested that the "experts" who predict traffic numbers for major road projects can be very wrong in their assessments and this leads to huge wastage of public and private funds and severe results for the private companies which operate such projects. The underused Cross City Tunnel is an example.

Where there are no practical alternative routes available the travelling public may also have to pay large amounts in road tolls. This has a severe impact on those of lower income.

It is a fact in relation to motorway construction that traffic increases to fill the expanded road space so that there is no long term reduction in congestion, and since WestConnex involves significant development of new housing along Parramatta Rd such an increase is built in to the project. There will be no nett benefit for the community but severe costs due to the overall increase in traffic volume.

One of the most significant costs will be ill health in certain ares around the exhaust stacks and for drivers in the tunnels where exhaust gases will be concentrated. It is wrong to impose life-threatening environments for some citizens to satisfy expected but dubious improvements in travel times for others. In general, public transport moves people much more efficiently and cleanly than private cars.

The main benefit, and therefore main motivation, for this project is the very large profit that will be made by major construction firms and by financiers. It is absolutely wrong that good public policy should be disrupted, and huge amounts of public money diverted from better uses, for the excessive financial benefit of a tiny minority.

The minimisation of opportunity for public involvement in this process seems to confirm that it is mainly oriented to the good of minority vested interests rather than the NSW public whose care is the Government's primary responsibility

We are increasingly experiencing major traffic problems in our street often preventing us from accessing Bennelong parkway from our driveway. This will only continue and develop into complete grid lock once the Water front , the Tower blocks, School and parklands are developed in the Olympic park Ferry Wharf area. Proper planning needs to happen now. Part of that relates to the widening of the M4
The following are vital and appear to have been neglected
West bound M4 off ramp to Hill road
East bound Parramatta road off ramp to Homebush bay drive
Management plan for DFO roundabout - on a normal day this is grid lock let alone when events are happening at Olympic park
Holker Road must be opened to give better traffic flow helping with the grid locks on Hill and Bennelong -

Dear Sir/ Madam,
I am writing to stress my strong opposition to WestConnex road tollway project proposed for Western Sydney. I am also writing to urge the Government to reverse its support of this project.

I oppose the proposed WestConnex project because good quality public transport is a far better investment in the future than car and road based infrastructure projects like the WestConnex project. The social, economic, and environmental advantages of public over private transport investment should be so evident to our generation that it is shameful the WestConnex project is being proposed ahead of more viable public transport alternatives.

Of course, jobs, infrastructure and investment are important. But why not invest in jobs and infrastructure and that helps improve our cities, our quality of life and our environment, not vice-versa.

Please consider my opinion. Let's draw a line in the sand now and stop this expensive, short-sighted madness.

Your sincerely,
Andrew Taylor

Submission to the EIS (M4 Widening) on Westconnex
#SSI 13_6148.
Introduction and overview
Before commenting on the EIS itself, I make the following comments on the process attached to it.
1. I believe the application of the minimum statutory time allowed for submissions to be made - one month - is unreasonable. It is barely enough time for a majority of ordinary punters, who will be affected one way or another if this project proceeds , to become aware of its implications and to have the time to research and write a considered response. It is entirely undemocratic to allow so little time for this process.
2. It is quite strange, to say the least, that people are being asked to comment on the EIS for the first stage of this massive project when the later stages have not (publicly) been revealed. The purpose appears to be to enable the reimposition of tolls to help pay for the later stages, even though the later stages are unplanned, unfunded, uncosted and open to constant change.
3. I have seen no business case put forward for this project and no cost-benefit analysis. Given all the controversy surrounding the lack of a business case for another large (Federal) project - the National Broadband Network - and the insistence of the current Federal Government on providing one, it is surely only consistent with Government policy (and allocation of taxpayer funds) that a business case for the entire Westconnex project should have been required prior to any release of its parameters to the public. By now, the cost-benefit analysis should have been well documented and publicly available prior to any display of an EIS.
I therefore object to this EIS for the Westconnex M4 Widening. My major objection is that the M4 Widening is only the start of the whole Westconnex project and therefore has no real meaning or value without full disclosure of the entire project.
Following are some of my major concerns.
Traffic congestion linked to reimposition of tollway
The Government's major claim for imposing Westconnex has been that it will decrease traffic congestion. However, Traffic Analysis in this EIS indicates that half the heavy traffic - 26,000 vehicles - will move off the M4 and onto Parramatta and other roads to avoid the tolls once they are re-introduced after the proposed road widening.
The EIS report acknowledges that by reimposing a toll on the M4 motorway between Concord and Parramatta, traffic will soon divert onto alternative free routes such as Parramatta and Victoria Roads. Traffic modelling predicts that traffic numbers on Parramatta Road will increase from 3210 vehicles per hour to 3350 vehicles per hour in the morning peak. Furthermore, buses travelling along the western stretch of Parramatta Road will then become slower. It could be expected that there will be more trucks on Parramatta and other suburban roads as they attempt to avoid the tolls.
Tollway
It is yet unclear what charge will be applied to the M4 and on what basis. When will this information revealed and the rationale for it? What can commuters who live in outer western Sydney suburbs expect to pay on a daily and weekly basis?
Air pollution

Encouraging more traffic raises the level of CO and NOX in Sydney's air and more diesel trucks raise the level of PM10, PM2.5 and smaller particle sizes which are increasingly found to be harmful.

How will air quality be accurately and regularly monitored and how will the public be informed of potentially dangerous levels of air pollution if the Westconnex project proceeds?

Land use

Increased motor vehicle use encroaches on access to streets by other users such as pedestrians, cyclists and in particular local children .

If cars choose to take "rat runs" to avoid tolls, this will also add vehicle pressure to already busy streets.

Many large public parks, so sorely needed in an era of rising populations and dense housing with fewer private yards, are being surrounded by increasing numbers of emission-spewing vehicles making air quality ever more dangerous.

The push should surely be for fewer private vehicles and increased levels of reliable public transport - trains (light and heavy rail) and buses.

Urban Activation/Renewal
This euphemistic term, which refers to the development of massive high rise residential buildings along stretches of Parramatta Road, is a less mentioned but apparently integral part of the Westconnex project. If allowed to proceed, building high rise dwellings will cause massive disruption to residents and this will compound affected areas and commuters alike. Aside from impinging greatly on open space and amenity, such high rise dwellings will attract hundreds of thousands more residents who themselves will require transport to their places of work, shopping and leisure activities. How can tollways possibly accommodate such massive influxes of people?
Linked to Air Pollution (above), how would residents in tower dwellings be screened from the effects of diesel and other emissions from the roads? If the answer is "air conditioning", what studies have been conducted to assess the impact on global warming of the release of yet more carbon emissions from air conditioning (unless of course there are plans for the installation of massive solar panels on these buildings)?
Meawhile, just-announced exploratory drill-sites in Tempe and St Peters; and around Homebush
It has come to my attention in the last few days that borehole drilling sites for this project have now been identified. According to a report on Channel 7 on 10 September and other sources, drilling is to take place in a range of places in the Tempe and St Peters area, including parks (Kenrick), schools (St Peters Public), and industrial sites (Dial a Dump). These are among some 18 drill sites listed.
The question must be asked: who made the decision to drill in these sites including under public lands such as parks and schools? Where is the EIS that covers borehole drilling?
As at 12 September, it has also come to my attention that drilling is starting today in an area of Homebush and will last for a week. I understand that almost no notice of this activity was given to affected residents save for a brief information session in Strathfield this week and some doorknocking by Westconnex employees on Tuesday evening. Above all, WHY IS THIS DRILLING BEGINNING PRIOR TO THE EIS PERIOD CLOSING?
Why have drill sites been identified prior to the completion of the EIS for the alleged First Stage of the Westconnex project?
Conclusion
Given
* the rushed EIS process for the M4 widening (one month)
* the lack of a fully costed and accountable whole-of-Westconnex- project
* the constant changes to sections of the route at further stages; and
* the suddenly introduced borehole drilling sites in St Peters/Tempe and Homebush with minimal or no consultation with local residents (among so many other issues),
it is hard to escape the conclusion that the current EIS process is merely a "tick-a-box" exercise to pretend that a full appraisal of the impacts of the M4 widening has been revealed to the communities that will bear the brunt of the project.
The entire Westconnex project has all the indications of a political and developer-driven exercise that has displayed almost no transparency and importantly so far no real, affordable and lasting benefits for the travelling public.
It should not have to be spelled out that increased funding on a diverse Sydney-wide network of efficient public transport is clearly the way of the future from the perspective of value for money and for the health of our environment.
I am completely opposed to spending taxpayer's funds on the unnecessary widening of the M4 road as set out in the current EIS.

Adrienne Shilling
Petersham
12 September 2014

I have been a resident of Sydney for over 60 years and have seen the road system deteriorate, especially in the last 5 years. Improvement won't be achieved by spending billions of dollars on toll-roads. In our area the biggest improvement to life style has been the building of the light rail network, not a billion dollar road but a low cost smart piece of public transport. I write to strongly oppose the proposed spending of tax-payers dollars towards the construction of the WestConnex tollway. The State and Federal Governments are committing at least $11 billion to this project but as yet no business case and no cost-benefit analysis has been made available for public scrutiny.

In addition, despite repeated requests, the public is being kept in the dark on traffic forecasts, preferred routes, traffic modelling and potential travel time savings, as well as the financial plans that should underpin a project of this magnitude. I am confident that any results in travel time would result saving that finds it's much quicker to use public transport [even in it's struggling yet improving state] than to drive on the Westconnex.

This continuing lack of disclosure is remarkable. Such information is fundamental to the project's viability and the NSW Government's reluctance to divulge it is of great concern.

An Upper House Select Committee Inquiry would assist public understanding of WestConnex because the NSW Government's partial release of documentation relating to it in March 2014 did not answer ongoing community questions.

The public has a right to know about:

* The cost-benefit analysis and business case for WestConnex, compared to investment in alternative public transport options for Greater Sydney
* How proposed urban activation precincts along the WestConnex corridor will affect WestConnex's traffic flow and numbers
* How the environmental, recreational space and heritage impacts of WestConnex will affect the wider community
* The relationship and integration with other existing road systems and public transport.

My concerns are that so little information about the WestConnex project is being made available to the public while at the same time the project is being fast tracked. There has to be an Upper House Select Committee Inquiry into the WestConnex tollway.

Yours sincerely

Ray Thomas
22 Kalgoorlie Street
Leichhardt
NSW 2040

The time frame given to the community to comment on this project has been insufficient. This has prevented many from informing themselves and taking part in this process. I feel the intent of law for full consultation with community has not been fulfilled.

I oppose the M4 widening project.

The travel time saved for motorists from this initial plan is negligible.
I am opposed to further stages of the Westconnex plan.

Building motorways will generate increased traffic flow and further congestion - not alleviate it - this is well supported by the evidence / research. Why is this being ignored?

Motorways should not be the focus of transport strategies in Sydney. Incentive and encouragement away from cars is required in order to alleviate congestion and to improve traffic movement.

Public transport is a cheaper and more effective investment to reduce traffic congestion. Why is public transport not being considered to move the population to places of work? The M4 widening / Westconnex project fails to work towards the governments NSW 2021 priority to ensure residents of Sydney are close to public transport.

The project will encourage traffic to divert from toll roads to free roads and secondary and smaller, residential roads.

There has not been genuine open consultation with the community to come up with its own infrastructure priorities - who decided Westconnex was the solution?
What other solutions or ideas have been considered and not discussed? Efforts made to alert the community about the project have not been impartial.

Evidence shows that people are demanding safe, reliable, cheap and efficient public transport. Evidence exists that people are wanting to rely less on cars. This project is forcing ongoing reliance for large pockets of Sydney on cars rather than providing them with choice and access to alternatives.

This project will bring more heavy transit to Sydney streets. Again the government is ignoring its own priority within NSW 2021 plan to move freight freight transit away from roads and motorways to rail.

This M4 widening and westconnex tunnel project is a concern to community. Significant public health risks related to smoke stacks and motor car pollution seem to be being ignored and are certainly not being addressed sufficiently.

I do not support the urban activation plan that is being proposed as part of the Westconnex plan. The plan to significantly increase residential properties along an already congested corridor is flawed and a concern to the community. Activation should focus on areas above and around train stations - not congested road ways

I have looked at the proposed road project and I believe it is not in the best interest of the residents and people of the area.
More road tolls will increase problems and many object to them like myself and therefore do not use them. The boycott of the toll for the tunnel to the eastern suburbs from the inner West really should speak volumes here and the projected use became so far off that the company went out of business.
People do not want more expensive roads and more congestion or just moving the congestion further down, they actually want solutions. Better public transport and more options would by far benefit all people.
We have such an obsession with being more like America that we have lost sight of humanity and the impacts of humanity. We do not want a system that increases problems, but reduces them and is long term and forward thinking in nature.
I implore you to investigate other option like European systems.
This whole process has not been treated with the respectful and careful consideration of the residents and what people really NEED.
We have seen in the ICAC investigations the deplorable actions by developers to do as they want in the government. This is an opportunity for the Government to show that they really do LISTEN and FULLY consult with people and residents.
This is an opportunity of the Government to show that they are different and do care about the people. The position given to parliamentarians is an honour given by the people for the people! I do hope this government actually honours that position and doesn't have this as a done deal as it is already being talked about!