I am disappointed in the proposed plan's infringement on the suburb of Haberfield. While I understand the need for better transport options, it is unwise that an area with history and heritage be impacted:

1. Roads and highways can always be replaced and torn, but a heritage area and a suburb of character cannot be stripped and then recreated.

2. Governments are responsible to ensure their citizens lad productive, harmonious, and positive lives. It begins with each individual, expanding to their family, and then to their immediate surrounds. Close and satisfying community ties are engendered by the physical environment which surround people.


3. The imposing exhaust stack, expanded road area, tunnel exists and entrances are at the expense of peoples' homes and pedestrians' footpaths.

4. Public transport options should be examined, including underground rail, similar to metros or subways.

5. If the project's exhaust stack is to proceed, it would be preferable to have on the south-west corner of the Parramatta Rd/West link intersection, not at the proposed north-east corner which is closer to the public school and heritage suburb.

6. Any proposed tunneling to connect to M5 in the future should be under the current West Link, as opposed to under residential homes. Witness the problems that have occurred in Brisbane's tunnel under homes.

I object to the development of WestConnex. It will provide nothing but more cars on the road and more gridlock to the city. The development of precincts around Parramatta Rd, especially the Leichhardt area are is greedy development of the thoughtless. High rise buildings, no schools , no parks and no thinking of how you are going to deal with increased traffic in these areas. As I live on 32 Kegworths St, traffic is already at a gridlock every morning trying to head to the city via the City West Link. Build further public transport and get all these cars off the road. That would be a much better idea. Taking our home to clutter the area with high rise cheap residential homes is a very poor way of increasing housing for the population increase in our area.

Submission: WestConnex M4 East EIS (SSI 6307)

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. If built it will generate additional traffic, funnelling it into heavily congested middle-ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.

I also wish to register my objection to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released and before the EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation.

The EIS process is supposed to allow for genuine public input and to result, potentially, in approval, non-approval, or approval with modifications, of the project. The present procedure makes a mockery of that right.

Government funding for this proposal - as part of the whole WestConnex proposal - will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years to come. This being the case, I am outraged that the EIS has failed to honestly and fully discuss its social, environmental, and economic impacts or to explain why it is preferable to other, alternative public- and active transport solutions.

In particular I draw attention to the EIS's failure to:

* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that has been promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal.

* Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.

* Publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' funds.

* Properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.

* Consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions.
Consider the detrimental impact on local communities, and culture. Eg King Street, Newtown is a vibrant shopping strip, tourist destination. The M4, would destroy this culture, with King Street being like Parramatta Road.

Decades-long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity. That is why, globally, they have fallen out of favour and are no longer seen as a solution to congestion.

Director, Major Project Assessments
Department of Planning
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

Submission: WestConnex M4 East EIS (SSI 6307)

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. If built it will generate additional traffic, funnelling it into heavily congested middle-ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.
I also wish to register my objection to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released and before the EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation.
The EIS process is supposed to allow for genuine public input and to result, potentially, in approval, non-approval, or approval with modifications, of the project. The present procedure makes a mockery of that right.
Government funding for this proposal - as part of the whole WestConnex proposal - will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years to come. This being the case, I am outraged that the EIS has failed to honestly and fully discuss its social, environmental, and economic impacts or to explain why it is preferable to other, alternative public- and active transport solutions.
In particular I draw attention to the EIS's failure to:
* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that has been promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal.
* Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.
* Publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' funds.
* Properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.
* Consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions.
Decades-long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity. That is why, globally, they have fallen out of favour and are no longer seen as a solution to congestion.

Cheryl Handford
15/10/2015
24 Grove Street
St Peters 2044

1. I object to westconnex because it will increase traffic without a clear path of where these extra cars will be directed; it is incredibly short sighted and simply 'shifts' the problem into other areas

2. I object to westconnex as it is a hugely expensive and shortsighted project, which delivers no value. $15b could be far better spent improving public transport options, providing long term benefit to the community and better for the natural environment.

3. Having attended several talks on this project by health professionals and academics, I am hugely concerned about the air pollution health risks of westconnex

4. I believe westconnex will have devastating community impacts, extra traffic will affect the community atmosphere of neighbourhoods, cripple the outside shopping and dining precincts which add so much life, employment and income to the neighbourhoods, as well as decrease road safety and increase frustration and anger already so common as a result of traffic.

5. I cannot believe the plans to cut into parkland, so necessary for the ecosystem and well used by the community. I am against westconnex destroying green space & biodiversity.

6. I am sincerely concerned that the development of westconnex will contaminate precious waterways

7. Forcibly buying homes - of families, of elderly residents- is disgusting practice, particularly with the lack of consultation or transparency so far regarding westconnex; I don't want westconnex destroying our heritage

8. westconnex is bad news for our climate, and we cannot keep pretending otherwise; public transport would be a far better option for the climate, and we could be so much smarter thinking ahead about this sort of investment (like Germany). It is literally the only future we have.

9. Finally, I utterly object to the lack of transparency around westconnex. That work has started with no community consultation, without a public business case, without am EIS! I cannot believe this is possible. let alone acceptable.

I object to WestConnex as:
1. it will deliver more cars and more traffic congestion in my local area and will make no improvement to the already straining public transport system
2. I am concerned about worsening air pollution and health risks particularly for children and the elderly
3. it will (and is already) creating adverse community impacts
4. it is destroying green space and having impacts on biodiversity in small pockets of remaining park and natural bushland
5. it will destroy items and areas of Sydney's heritage
6. it will have adverse impacts on our environment, we should be encouraging people not to drive their cars and move onto more environmentally friendly methods (ie public transport)
7. the total lack of transparency around the project.

Dear Sir/Madam



We wish to make a submission on the above EIS.



We, and many residents of the Central Coast who travel to Sydney and through Sydney,
are concerned about the impact the $15.4bn toll road will have on Greater Sydney, in
particular the inner and middle suburbs.



As a number of cities around the world have experienced, building major toll roads
is both enormously expensive and counter productive. These cities have learned that
traffic will increase overall after expressways and motorways are built. It is not
a long term solution to Sydney's congestion problems.



Public transport is by far a better long term solution than expressways and
motorways. The money for Westconnex would be better spent building a world class
public transport system, as other cities (i.e. London, Paris, Copenhagen etc.) have
learned.





The Weatconnex as proposed (as outlined in the M4 EIS) will increase pollution and
traffic overall. This is unacceptable for a modern city. The City of Sydney and
other local councils are working to introduce sustainable urban planning (SUP)
practices in their transport building.



There are numerous references on the subject of SUP frameworks for transport and
urban planning (google Dr Ray Rauscher for recent books on the subject, including
'Sustainable Communities: A Framework for Planning

- Case Study of an Australian Outer Sydney Growth Area' (2014 Springer) and
'Sustainable Neighbourhoods in Australia; City of Sydney Urban Planning' (2015
Springer). Dr Rauscher (conjoint lecturer at Univ. of

Newcastle) can confer with the State further on the subject via
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> is you wish.



We would like to be kept up to date on progress made in this review of the EIS and
further State reports on the matter.



Yours sincerely



Ray Rauscher

Chair

Transport Action Central Coast

c/ CEN Offices

Univ. of Newcastle

Ourimbah

To the Director, Major Planning Assessments, Department of Planning

I write to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.

Global experience of major toll road construction has demonstrated conclusively that these projects are enormously expensive and counter-productive.

WestConnex will increase air pollution and encourage more car use, quickly filling the increased road capacity. It is not a long-term solution to Sydney's congestion problem.

The fact that the State Government has already signed multi-billion dollar contracts for WestConnex before this EIS was even placed on public exhibition undermines community confidence that this is a genuine consultation process.

This EIS considers benefits for all stages of the project but doesn't address the negative impacts along the whole route.

I object to this proposal as it encourages more cars instead of public transport and bicycle paths, and fails to provide a long term solution to traffic and congestion

Regards,

Romy Caen

Building more roads of this type is an outdated approach to transport planning. You've only got to look at the M2 and M5 to see that these roads to not significantly improve commuter times over the long term. Instead, what is needed is investment in public transport.

I write to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.

Global experience of major toll road construction has demonstrated conclusively that these projects are enormously expensive and counter-productive. WestConnex will increase air pollution and encourage more car use, quickly filling the increased road capacity. It is not a long-term solution to Sydney's congestion problem.

The fact that the State Government has already signed multi-billion dollar contracts for WestConnex before this EIS was even placed on public exhibition undermines community confidence that this is a genuine consultation process.

This EIS considers benefits for all stages of the project but doesn't address the negative impacts along the whole route.

I object to this proposal as it encourages more cars instead of public transport, and fails to provide a long term solution to traffic and congestion.

I also object as it will destroy the unique Newtown community that is centred especially around King Street south, by flooding King Street with more cars.