WestConnex - M4 Widening

I oppose the widening of Westconnex for the following reasons:

1. it will encourage more people to drive into the cbd and inner west thus creating greater traffic in the side streets.

2. I also oppose it because by encouraging people to use cars instead of public transport it will result in an increase of CO2 + other noxious gases.

3. it does not include dedicated bus lanes.

NOTE THIS WAS SUBMITTED A FEW DAYS AGO - I DID NOT RECEIVED A CONFIRMATORY EMAIL, SO TO BE CERTAIN IT IS RECEIVED, IT IS BEING SENT A SECOND TIME.

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.

Please try to make all entry and exits uniform on all freeway and highways. It is just embarrassing when compared to the care and uniformity of other countries. Stop focusing on turning a profit and make it the BEST it can be - first and foremost.

On leaving a freeway you SHOULD be able to turn left OR right from any and all exits. For example: James Ruse Dr exit, you can only go left up to Rosehill when you should be able to also turn right to get to Parramatta Rd/Auburn - if you don't have a navigating device or are not from around the area it can be deeply confusing and may force some drivers to do silly things (pull into and do u-turns in residential streets) out of fear and frustration.

Comments from the Mighty Duck River Restoration Collective.

1) The EIS generally intimates that as the ecological value of the corridor is low then the remaining ecological elements and constructed ecological elements can be discounted. This is refuted by the MDRRC. All ecological elements in the corridor are valuable and the project should offset all damage to result in a net improvement to the environment.

2) The project should purchase adjacent lands to revegate to offset all loss of degraded bushland and revegetation.

3) it should be recognised that the riparian revegetation along A'Becketts Creek from Church St Parramatta to Duck River was established as an offset for damage done by the RTA during the construction of the cycleway along the creek. As this is an offset, any clearing of this site should be further offset, preferably at a minimum of 2:1 to compensate for the maturity of the site.

3) the expansion of the motorway to the south of the existing infrastructure will prevent any future reengineering of A'Becketts Creek to intruduce ecological and geomorphological values. This prevention of future improvement should be offset by other riverine restoration works in the Duck River catchment.

4) it is good that the revegetation and landscaping along the corridor aims to emulate pre European communities. The species mix should include at least 100 species per community, to maximise the resilience of the replantings. This constitutes around 30% of community species.

5)The remaining natural vegetation in the vicinity of Hill Road should not be damaged or compromised at all. If there is damage then it should be offset by a ratio of at least 10:1 and works undertaken by qualified bush regenerators.

6)the damage to mangrove and saline wetland communities should be offset at a ratio of at least 10:1 and include reprofiling lanfill areas to allow expansion of mangroves and ecological restoration works.

see attached

Please find our serious petition.
Thank you

Please find our seriuos issues in our petition, dated 11 November 2013.

Please see attached

See pdf attached

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached a PDF copy of my submission for WestConnex M4 widening to Homebush Bay Drive.

Kind Regards,

Victor P Taffa

I support the proposal as exhibited, however I think that the James Ruse Drive exit ramp (westbound) will not resolve congestion that currently exists. In fact it potentially moves the congestion from the left hand lane to one of the centre lanes, which may well worsen the problem.

I see there are two choke points in very close proximity that cause the bulk of the delays on the M4-westbound. The Silverwater road on-ramp has an added lane which ends after the old toll bridge and about 800mts before the James Ruse off-ramp. As lane two starts to slow due to the need to allow merging traffic, through traffic on the M4 (prior to the Silverwater on-ramp) drop into lane one to jump up the queue, and the problem exacerbates. Then, just as soon as 4 lanes have merged to 3, the left lane is now handicapped by slow moving traffic resulting from the traffic lights on James Ruse Drive at the end of that off-ramp.

I have not seen on-line a complete map of the extensions from Silverwater road through past the James Ruse off-ramp, but I assume that the intention is to barricade off the traffic entering at Silverwater road until they are onto the new southern bypass bridge. That would minimise the ability for unnecessary lane changes; and the addition of the 4th lane to and beyond the James Ruse exit will eliminate the first bottleneck.

I believe that the second-bottleneck at the base of the James Ruse off-ramp, can be eliminated by the removal of the traffic lights at that intersection and the use of the new southern westbound overpass to drop James Ruse northbound traffic into the left hand lane. See Attachment. Not sure of the engineering challenges of dropping an overpass down on the bridge across duck creek but there appears to be the real estate to make it feasible.

I would also close the Martha Street access to James Ruse and make for a dedicated entrance lane into James Ruse for M4 traffic exiting Southbound.

And one final comment: Traffic exiting M4-eastbound onto James Ruse includes a lot of trucks heading towards Newington who must be in the far right lane within about 400 metres. Traffic exiting from M4-westbound onto James Ruse (northbound) includes lots of cars wanting to turn left towards Parramatta ASAP. As a result there is a very chaotic mess of lane changes that occurs at the point that M4 eastbound traffic joins James Ruse at Rosehill station.

Currently there are three lanes on the James Ruse overpass northbound that merges to two just before the M4 eastbound traffic joins. I believe that it might almost be possible to cut a hole in the base of the overpass to allow the M4-eastbound exiting traffic to join James Ruse in Lane 3 instead of Lane 1. If you kept the Northbound traffic into 2 lanes from the M4 exit to Rosehill Station, that would further reduce the ability for overtaking in the left lane and unnecessary merges. thus further improving the smooth flow.

Upload below

Uploaded Objection document

Submission re. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for WestConnex M4 Widening from Parramatta to Homebush

We are completely opposed to the Westconnex project and its associated urban redevelopment.
* We are aware that the State Government claims they are 2 separate projects but they are inextricably linked because the project is a Trojan horse for the State Government to compulsorily take our homes, businesses, parks, schools etc to be sold to developers to build high-rise and tollways throughout our suburbs. It has been admitted openly on Channel 7 news that the Government will make significant profits out of this land grab.
* We want to express our anger that only the minimum time has been allowed for consultation on the EIS, especially since the project involves the compulsory acquisition of homes/businesses, and pollution from increased volumes of traffic and fumes will having a detrimental effect on the health, safety, environment and quality of life of residents, plus loss of open space and amenities. Indeed, the short time allotted to the consultation raises the question as to whether or not the Government is interested in a genuine consultation process
* We were unaware of the EIS consultation until very recently, and many of our neighbours are totally unaware of the EIS let alone the limited timeline for submissions
* The Government has not fulfilled the intent of the law requiring full and proper consultation with the community.
* $5.3b of public money is being committed to a project that has not completed its planning process. Furthermore, the Government has withheld from the public what their current plans are, ie where the tollway is actually going, what streets are affected and whose homes will be compulsory purchased, and where the ramps, stacks and high-rise development are going.
* This project will not resolve traffic congestion, as it will only cause further congestion down the road. The NSW State of the Environment Report 2012 shows the numbers of people using public transport have increased while those using private vehicles have dropped
* The NSW 2011/12 Household Travel Survey shows public transport is in greater demand than ever - in the past decade Sydney's population has increased by 12% but the demand for Sydney's trains increased by 23% and Sydney's Buses by 16%. Yet the NSW Government proposes a $15 billion dollar tollway.
* An examination of the Government's own travel time figures shows that their claim that the project will reduce travel times is false, and, as stated by Mathew Hounsell, President of NoWestconnex - "In the official travel times released for the Westconnex, the government shows a drive through traffic of 66 minutes for Parramatta to the Airport (excluding parking). However, using any train trip planner it shows a 40 minute ride, with a change at Central. Most of the governments travel times show Westconnex will be slower than public transport."
* A tollway is not the answer to congestion, expanding upon existing public transport with links to light rail is a far more cost-effective and efficient solution to the current congestion. For genuine solutions to Sydney traffic problems see -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNdgHBf_gJ0
Also - http://ecotransit-votes.info/?page_id=56
* Is the Government more interested in the bonanza of funds that they will get from compulsory purchase of properties and re-selling them to developers under Westconnex and the associated urban reactivation plans, than solving the city's transport problems?
* Currently, the Government has a dark cloud of corruption hanging over it, the Westconnex/urban reactivation project is a breeding ground for further such corruption

I have uploaded my submission

See attached

I am uploading my comments as a PDF.

the version submitted yesterday should be discarded and replaced by this version which incorporates a minor correction

Please find attached the main reasons for my objection

Please find attached uploaded files outlining our objections to the M4 Widening Project.