The proposed road changes in the inner west of Sydney are not acceptable. It is not at all clear the WestConnext is needed, and there has been almost no discussion of alternate options for traffic or using the 16+ billion dollars to provide public and goods transport within the greater Sydney area

I object in the strongest possible terms to the WestConnex St Peters Interchange and indeed anything to go with WestConnex.
Modern fast public transport is the best alternative.This frees up the roads for commercial purposes and gets people to work safely and efficiently.
The City of Sydney has just spent 10 million dollars on Sydney Park. It is magnificent, is people oriented and provides breathing space for inner city suburbs which are overwhelmed by traffic already.
More and more people are moving into Erskineville, Alexandria Green Square etc with the most amazing proliferation of high rise apartments in history.
HUMAN BEINGS NEED GREEN SPACE AND CLEAN AIR.
WE OBJECT TO WESTCONNEX TOTALLY

I'll keep this short and to the point. I would like to register my frustration and anger regarding the West Connex project and clearly state my opposition to it continuing. It is a poorly planned and outdated concept that will dramatically and negatively impact communities across the inner west. Independent research has shown that it will increase traffic congestion around St Peters and Green Square. It is not being planned with any consideration of other infrastructure projects in the area it the needs of local communities. It also is scheduled to destroy public parkland, which is a further affront.

This project is so ill thought out with no regard for how it will impact existing suburbs and the environment. A huge cost for no gain. How about looking instead at improving public transport?

I object to the WestConnex extension.

I have lived in the Darlington region for 18 years & I have been concerned by the increase in car traffic in the surrounding suburbs. I ride a bicycle to many places I need to go to. I oppose the enlargement of expressways & streets to carry more car traffic & I believe the investment of these funds would be better spent on investing into good public transport.
Yours Sincerely
Robert Stevens.

COMPULSORY AQUISITON COMPENSATION - HAS TO BE FAIR

The NSW Liberal Government through WestConnex are compulsory acquiring homes/properties to build a new road.
The compensation is insufficient.
Briefly, the compensation to owners should be enough so that the owner is able to buy a comparable home in the area with relative ease and no fuss and not being forced to move away entirely.
Being forced out of the family home through no fault of their own is the cause of a great deal of stress, particularly as the government will not listen to reason. These people have suffered prolonged significant health reducing stress being more or less forced to take below market prices for their homes. They then have to find somewhere else to move to uplift their lives and contents, take time off work, find new schools, and in some cases find new social lives (when they move suburbs).
The compensation should be at least 50% more than the comparable highest price in the suburb. Whilst this does not go to fully compensating someone for such a significant loss it may help them quickly sort out their future. It means they can afford to remain in the area, pay for days/weeks off work/ removalists/ taxes etc.
The NSW Liberal Government should redress this ASAP to all owners (incl. retrospectively).
The entire WestConnex cannot be justified and this is just another reason among hundreds of reasons the WestConnex should never go ahead.

UNFILTERED EMISSIONS STACKS
The several emissions stacks in the inner west and south are not going to be . With anticipated extra vehicle usage it will see immeasurable damage to human health as concentrated cancer producing particles flow into the environment proximate the emissions stacks (an environment which includes schools).
It will be highly remiss of the NSW Liberal Government to allow unfiltered emissions into the atmosphere.
It is just another reason that this callous project should be rejected.
This matter (unfiltered emissions) should be addressed ASAP.
Lab rats get treated better.

I lodge a strong objection to the M5 EIS for its lack of information on the true impact of construction/tunnelling noise and construction/tunnelling vibrations.
I lodge a strong objection to the entire WestConnex.
Introduction
For a project of this size, the biggest of its kind in the world, it lacks transparency and independent review. There are far too many contentious and damaging outcomes which do not value add to the project going ahead or to the city and its people when it's finished. In fact its citizens and the environment will be worse off. As such it should not proceed. However the NSW Government has rushed ahead without forethought or care to the consequences of a project that will destroy so much of what we value. It is a huge waste of public money.
There are numerous New M5 EIS documents, far too many to assess before the submission deadline in this rushed NSW pointless scheme.
This specific Submission is on M5 WestConnex EIS - Vibrations and Noise information
Vibrations likely to cause damage to structures
I will get to the point here. I have tried to find information on the impact of construction/tunnelling noise on all structures along the proposed route of the New M5.
In the New M5 Technical working paper - noise and vibration - appendix J - (At 192/820 of pdf) - dilapidation surveys - advised that:
prior to the commencement of tunnelling or other vibration intensive work at each site, existing condition surveys would be undertaken on all properties and structures within the preferred project corridor (the zone on the surface equal to 50 metres from the outer edge of the tunnels) and within 50 metres from surface works.
I found vibration maps for various areas, specifically three zones, St Peters, Kingsgrove and Arncliffe (Kogarah Golf course) showing blue outlines which I assume are 50 metres from the edge of the proposed tunnel as well as blue circular style outlines in other areas where I'm also guessing may be affected by vibrations and form a physical condition assessment of structures prior to drilling.
The EIS advises there will be ground borne noise and vibrations felt in structures dependent on things like the construction of the building, rock type etc. This is briefly explained at the New M5 Technical working paper - noise and vibration - appendix J - page 138 - 5.3 Ground-borne LAeq noise levels
There was no explanation as to why all areas were not affected by vibrations even though the tunnel was to be drilled/exploded was directly underneath structures. For example, there are no maps whatsoever for Tempe and yet the tunnel is to go from South to Smith St then Ikea etc, under the suburb.
I found no charts of the rock type specific to the intended tunnel under Tempe. So for arguments sake it could be sandstone which is prevalent in the Tempe area. I expect there would be significant vibrations from tunnelling through sandstone as there was when the train tunnel from Wolli Creek to the airports and beyond was constructed (1995 to 2000). It could be felt in Tempe more than 400 metres away.
It also adds to my doubts about the adequacy of the 50 metre ruling (for condition surveys prior to drilling). I imagine there will be structures outside this zone which suffer damage but will not have the benefit of condition surveys.
From my experience vibrations travelling through sandstone can be quite significant.
It appears the WestConnex are stating that Tempe will not be affected at all without actually saying it when in fact they could be wrong.
Conclusion
There is a distinct lack of detail and transparency in the EIS for this project as it is being rushed through. This submission on the lack of detail for ground vibrations in Tempe needs to be addressed for the sake of the citizens along the entire route.
The structures along the entire length of the tunnel outwards of more than 500 metres are likely to feel some degree of vibration for some days and likely to receive some type of damage. There should be recognition of potential damage to these structures outside the 50 metres and along the entire route of the New M5.
I expect a response from the Department of Planning addressing this matter in detail.

This proposal will significantly affect the local traffic, congestion and the overall city. There is hardly any evidence that it really will provide solution to the traffic problems, rather escalate them with further additional problems.