EMISSIONS - STACKS SHOULD BE FILTERED
The RACV website advises the following re vehicle emissions - Air pollution has negative health effects, especially for vulnerable people, including those with allergic and respiratory conditions, such as asthma, hay fever and sinusitis, and respiratory and lung conditions commonly associated with the elderly. Research suggests that certain air pollutants (e.g. benzene) are carcinogenic.

Air pollution is not uniform across a city, but varies with concentrations of industry, traffic conditions, land form and weather patterns.

Emissions from vehicles include carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, hydrocarbons, and particles. Passenger vehicles contribute 47% of carbon monoxide emissions, 40% of nitrogen oxides, 27% of hydrocarbons and 4% of particles (1998 inventory of Melbourne's air pollution by EPA Victoria).

Evaporated fuel is also a pollutant. About a third of vehicle hydrocarbon emissions are from evaporation, which occurs when driving, during refuelling, and even when stationary. Evaporation is increased by poorly sealed fuel tanks (including poorly fitting fuel caps or caps with worn seals), spillage, and overfilling of the fuel tank.

SO PLEASE don't allow the extra cars on the roads be a negative affect on the locals.

Its about time this road was stopped as the NSW Government will not filter the tunnel emissions simply because it will cost at least an extra $700,000 per stack per year to clean. Multiply that by all the extra stacks the NSW government has decided to install and its big bikkies our government is avoiding and of course the citizens will suffer health issues as a result. SHAME and another reason not to support this irresponsible road.

I object to the manner in which the Interchange interfaces with Sydney Park. Sydney park should be considered the primary public asset, secondary to roads. Much of the interchange could be underground, and the footprint reduced substantially. Sydney park could actually be increased in size to the south rather than being reduced as is currently proposed.
Sydney Park should be protected from vehicle noise and pollution, and should have interfaces with adjacent neighbourhoods improved, not diminished by increased road widths.

I believe that the WestConnex new M5 is a last century approach to solving a traffic problem and a waste of billions of dollars that could be more profitably used elsewhere.

I often drive along Euston Road and McEvoy Street and experience delays through heavy traffic and crowded intersections now. There it is no way that these roads will handle the extra vehicles funnelled onto them by the M5.

There is also the issue of air pollution. I understand that levels of PM 2.5 particulate pollution will worsen due to this development which is unacceptable in this modern age. Transport planning should aim to improve community health not degrade it.

Building more and wider roads is not an appropriate way to move people around the city in the 21st century. This proposed development should be scrapped and replaced by heavy rail and or light rail with cycleways.

I object to the WestConnex project on the basis that I think it is poor long term urban planning. Roads like this are costly, provide only a short term solution and are likely to be obsolete in the the face of new technologies soon enough. Please limit or ideally stop this project and reinvest in public transport.

I strongly object to this proposal.

There are five significant concerns:

1) Building new motorways doesn't work.

International studies of transport systems in advanced economies show that time and time again motorways are a short term solution to congestion. They attract people away from other modes of transport (rail and buses) and eventually fill up to the point of congestion. Very soon we'll be back to square one.

Dr Michelle Zeibots, amongst others, has repeatedly demonstrated that Sydney is no exception to this phenomenon.

2) Energy security is still a problem and encouraging car use with a potential energy crisis looming is a dangerous move.

Currently oil prices are extremely low and the world seems awash with oil - with many economist stating that concerns about peak oil are no longer a concern. This is short sighted and incorrect.

Conventional oil costs producers between $30 and $40 a barrel to produce. Unconventional oil is much more expensive to produce with a break even price for producers sometimes as low as $65 per barrel but usually around $90 and sometimes even in excess of that - all clearly way above the current sale price of $29.

Saudi Arabia has flooded the market for various reasons that are politically motivated, and now the price of oil has crashed and is less than $30 per barrel. However, that low price is an illusion. What many are failing to see is that the unconventional producers are now in severe financial difficulty and they can't keep producing at this low cost and continue to sustain these severe losses. As a result future investment in unconventional oil is being cancelled. Unfortunately, new projects have long lead in times until any oil is actually produced.

Despite the current oversupply problem, the world now uses more oil than that which we obtain from conventional sources (i.e cheaper oil), and we are dependent on the 'top up' from unconventional sources (the expensive oil). While prices are cheap now, the reserves will ultimately run down as the unconventional producers go bankrupt and projects are cancelled. This is happening now. Demand will easily outstrip supply as this scenario runs its course, and oil will once again become expensive due to undersupply. A bottle neck is well and truly looming.

In short -peak oil is here, its just manifesting in a different way than everyone expected - its more appropriately described as 'peak cheap oil'. Accordingly, modes of transport with low fuel consumption should be the priority for the Government.

Ultimately it is the working poor and disadvantaged who will bear the brunt of higher fuel prices if (when) they eventually arrive, and therefore encouraging reliance on personal motor vehicles in these communities is most unhelpful. Research by Dodson and Snipe shows that Western Sydney is particularly sensitive to fuel price. South West Sydney and the area north of Penrith are particularly at risk due to their poor access to transport combined with that price sensitivity.

3) The project is diverting money that would more appropriately be invested in public transport.

These misspent billions would go a long way to improving Sydney's public transport network. That is obvious.

4) The project is now resulting in significant parkland being lost.

To sacrifice parkland that is well used and well loved to make way for a motorway is archaic thinking at its very worst.

For all the reasons outlined above, this project is a mistake. To think we are going to lose part of such a valuable community resource to accomodate it is tragic.

5) Sydneysiders would rather the money be spent on public transport.

Research shows that between 60% and 70% of us would rather the money be spent on public transport. So, if the public doesn't want it, planners and academics are saying there is no need for it (with a significant amount of empirical research to back them up), why are the politicians forging ahead?

I truly hope the NSW government will rethink this project, and divert the funds to infrastructure that we really need.

Thank you for taking the time to read this submission.

As a resident close to Euston Rd & Sydney Park Rd I strenuously object to the new M5 St Peters Interchange as it will unreasonably exacerbate:
- Vehicle congestion and noise which is already an issue not being managed well in Alexandria / Erskineville
- Air pollution and noise pollution which is already an issue with increasing levels of construction in the area.
- The lack of infrastructure (parking, amenities, inadequate train service frequency - which will worsen) for a growing inner west population by adding additional travellers / visitors.
- The already limited quiet, quality residential streets in Alexandria with travellers moving parallel to Euston Rd (Lawrence St - my street) and creating additional thoroughfares
- The quality of Sydney Park as an enjoyable, recreational meeting place - adding constant traffic noise and additional pollution.
- Access to Sydney Park, for at least another 2 years with the construction compound. It has only just been reopened after years of limited access with the fabulous renovation project.

I would like to know the options available for compensation or a grant to insulate my 1950's fibro home due to exceeding noise level during and upon completion of this project.

My home is locate at the end of Rosebank Ave (opposite the Canterbury Golf Course) and already my husband and I hear the traffic ( trucks air brakes and motorcycles revving/zooming) in the middle of the night and early hours of the morning from the M5 motorway. Removing the existing earth mound and replacing it with a noise wall that is partly transparent for motorist(motorists don't need any side view distractions whilst driving) to accommodate even more lanes of traffic is only going to increase the noise levels with trucks breaking when going into the tunnel. Similar to houses in the flight paths in Tempe etc. I would expect the NSW Government would be willing to compensate affected dwellings as my property and others in this area are substantially inconvenienced and disrupted by the project.

I would also like to see the planting of more mature trees in Beverly Grove Park particularly at the end of Rosebank Ave which will be the closest street to the new noise walls along Beverley Grove Park between King Georges Road and Kingsgrove Road.

Hello,

I live on Terry Street, Tempe and my house is directly above the proposed new tunnel. Our house is quite old and has some areas where part of the walls are constructed of asbestos. We feel that the construction of a tunnel under our house and the associated vibrations and potential for the house to move or walls to crack puts my family in great immediate risk.

There has been no attempt by the Westconnex builders to make contact with us regarding the tunnel under our property and this makes us concerned that this project could go ahead without our neighbours knowledge.

I also have concerns about the location of the exit and exhaust location at Canal Rd. My daughter attends St Peters Public School and will spend most of her days within 200 - 300 meters from thousands of cars exhaust fumes. We're also worried about the traffic and safety implications on the streets around her school.

There are so many negatives and dangers for local residents should this construction go ahead.

My family and I are strongly opposed to the WestConnex New M5 proposal. Please reject Westconnex. I expect that you will provide me a written response to my objections.

I object to the project. The government should be investing in a rail network that works rather than wasting money building another road. The project will ruin Newtown and the surrounding areas. The project will destroy Sydney Park which is where the ashes of my friend are buried. It will increase traffic and noise in the area and ruin the inner west. I strongly object to it. The visual impacts will also be unsightly and unacceptable. Where are the photomontages? The Australian government is a complete joke.
It is unclear where the vents from the tunnel will be located. This is something that should be identified. We don't need Westconnex. We were never told about the proposal by the Applicant. Only by Council. The Applicant has not followed process.

SUBMISSION TO M5 EIS

Name Basil Mourtos
Full address 355 Belmont Street Alexandria NSW 2015

I strongly object to the proposed New M5.

The roads around the St Peters interchange are already at an unacceptable Level of Service and are getting worse because of in-fill developments not allowed for by the EIS:
* Green Square: 61,000 residents
* Ashmore: 6,000 residents
* Waterloo Estate: 30,000 residents
* Central 2 Eveleigh: 56,000 residents, 25,000 workers

With an extra 150,000 people in an area of a few square kilometres, this is going to be the most densely populated area in Australia.

There is no evidence that the traffic models have factored in this huge increase in density that will occur in the area.

The EIS clearly demonstrates that the traffic on roads in the Alexandria area will deteriorate as a result of WestConnex. But it also predicts that Level of Service will improve at many intersections even if nothing is done - in the case of Euston Rd/Sydney Park Rd, from D to A, in the PM peak. This is clearly wrong - so wrong that it suggests that the traffic modelling is broken (the EIS does acknowledge that "modelling is probably optimistic") and it suggests that the level of service on local roads will be several levels worse than predicted, either with or without the project.

According to the business case, Euston Road is supposed to handle 61,000 cars on 3 lanes each way. This is almost 10 times what it can handle on 2 lanes. There is no way it can handle 61,000 cars, however many lanes are added to it. Adding extra lanes to Euston will not help because the roads that Euston Road feeds are also gridlocked. Traffic does not simply dissipate once it leaves the M5. It will only increase the damage done to the area and cause rat-running.

Meanwhile, usage of the M5 is not growing, and has not grown for some years. This project only makes an existing road more expensive for commuters. It will save little time, if any, and at an exorbitant price. As the EIS acknowledges, the tolls are going to force drivers off the M5 and onto local roads, and no wonder. The Updated Strategic Business Case shows that for almost all of its users, the Value of Time saved is less than the cost of using WestConnex.

This project will carve 11,000 square metres from Sydney Park and expose the rest of the park to vehicle fumes and noise. This damage is particularly felt, because this area already has one the lowest amounts of public open space per person in Australia, even without considering the future in-fill projects that are already in progress.

Alexandria residents are already exposed to levels of PM2.5 particles that exceed national guidelines, yet the EIS predicts that these levels will only worsen.

The new M5 is an unfair waste of taxpayers' money that could be better used elsewhere, such as on projects that improve transport infrastructure out west or in the regions, or in our area to help us cope with the massive rise in density that we are facing over the next ten years.

Finally, I strongly object to the quality of the EIS. There is too little information on the traffic volumes that will occur in Alexandria, and there is also conflicting information on possible mitigation strategies. Although the diagrams in the EIS show right-hand turn lanes in all four directions at the Sydney Park Road/Euston Road intersection, the text of "New M5 EIS Vol 2B App G Traffic and Transport" instead indicates that there will be a "banned right turn from Mitchell Road into Sydney Park Road [because of] the banned right turn southbound at the Sydney Park Road / Euston Road intersection". The text also indicates that there will be a "north-bound lane [which] will go as far as Maddox Street, where it becomes a new left-hand turn lane", but the diagrams do not show this. Not having clarity on which of these two scenarios is planned makes informed consultation impossible. If these right-hand turns into Sydney Park Road are not permitted, there will be enormous volumes of traffic on local roads as drivers try to rat run. Likewise, the extra left-hand turn lane, if it is actually planned, seems destined to drive traffic onto local roads.

Roads, especially tunnels, are expensive, and move relatively few people - perhaps 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane. This is a fraction of what can be moved by heavy rail, or light rail, or bicycles. Even pedestrians can move more commuters per lane than can be moved by car.

The EIS business case says that with toll roads, "losses to investors [are typical] due to traffic demand forecast being overly optimistic. This has led to a situation where it is likely the private sector sponsors will be unwilling [and the NSW Government is likely to have] to take on all or part of the development and start up traffic risk". Why does the NSW government think that WestConnex can be profitable when the private sector does not?

I call for the M5 EIS not to proceed. As a NSW taxpayer, I want better value for money.

This project will only degrade my area and reduce our quality of life. Effective public transport is the best solution to moving people around rather than encouraging more cars on proposed expensive tolled roads.

Yours Truly,



Basil Mourtos