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.

Director,
Infrastructure Projects, Planning Services
Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001.

SUBMISSION : WESTCONNEX M4 EAST EIS (Application No SSI 6307)

I object to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.

I consider it most unfortunate that this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is concerned solely with a proposal to build a road. Sydney, and Australia, would have been much better served had it been about the city's functionality, and the citizens' needs for access and communication in the twenty-first century.

I concede that there is an argument for a motorway-standard connection between the eastern end of the M4 Motorway at Strathfield and the western end of the City West Link Road at Haberfield, in order to facilitate traffic flow by avoiding the current use of Parramatta Road. The M4 East, as planned, far exceeds the required scope for that connection.

This submission is in two parts. The first states my conclusions regarding the M4East section of the WestConnex motorway. The second is a selection of expert quotations upon which I have reached those conclusions.

I conclude that -

The project is over-designed for the purpose of simply connecting the M4 Motorway to the City West Link Road.

The project is unauthorised because the necessary planning "gateways" have not been complied with.

The justification for the project is suspect because the full business case for WestConnex was not made public before the EIS was placed on exhibition.

The EIS does not properly consider the effects of induced traffic.

The EIS has failed to adequately consider alternative transport modes like mass transit and active transport.

Promotional material for WestConnex (brochure dated September 2015) claimed congestion "relief" without qualifying the extent of, or limits to, that relief.

The proposed under-harbour road tunnel between Rozelle and Gore Hill appears to have been added to WestConnex as an afterthought, in what might be described as planning-on-the-run.

The exhibition of the EIS at City of Canada Bay Council never did include Volume 1 of the EIS.


My conclusions are based on the following expert or informed opinions -

"The public release of the WestConnex EIS.... is an insult to Sydney constituents...... This EIS process is yet another display of the NSW Government's lip-service attitude towards the people of NSW". (Cr. Jenny Green, City of Sydney, Inner West Courier, 22.9.15)

"RMS (Roads & Maritime Services) must be constrained - it is far too powerful. Reducing capacity can reduce demand. WestConnex does not recognise that demographic change is taking place - the future requires walkable cities - the knowledge economy is agglomerative". (Tim Williams' personal views, Committee for Sydney, 23.4.15)

"The smoking gun has now been revealed that the first stage of WestConnex will in fact significantly worsen congestion on Parramatta Road in Haberfield and Leichhardt". (Cr. Darcy Byrne, Mayor of Leichhardt, in Sydney Morning Herald, 20.10.15)

"The Labor-dominated Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee recommended last December (2014) that public transport infrastructure be considered as nationally significant infrastructure, alongside private transport infrastructure such as road construction. (It) told the Abbott government to fund transport - including road and rail projects - on a 'mode-neutral basis, based on assessed merit'..... The Productivity Commission, too, has criticised how projects have been selected for funding......The Grattan Institute says heavily car- based cities spend about 12 - 15 per cent of their wealth on transport services; public transport-based cities spend 5 - 8 per cent" (Sydney Morning Herald editorial, 29.9.15)

"Australian infrastructure chiefs have been buoyed by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's enthusiasm for urban planning.....and the government's new willingness to consider public transport investment" (Nicole Hasham, Sydney Morning Herald, 22.9.15).

"But it will also be tricky to shift things in NSW. The Baird government....wants to spend the best part of the next decade building the WestConnex motorway. (It) will almost certainly overload the Anzac Bridge. So the government then says it will build another harbour road tunnel......" (Jacob Saulwick, Sydney Morning Herald, 22.9.15)

"Roads Minister Duncan Gay asserts we have no choice but to build WestConnex.....The drawbacks are so significant that a deeper examination of alternatives is warranted.... public transport can deliver much lower costs per unit of passenger capacity.....the predict-and-provide technique that appears to have been used to evaluate WestConnex.....can seriously overstate the benefits. Other areas of disadvantage (by building WestConnex) include the social and environmental impacts from an increase in car dependency." (P.W. Mills, Action for Public Transport, January 2015).

"The only independent review of the business case for the $14 billion WestConnex motorway (by the NSW Auditor-General) concluded 'it was not able to form a view on whether the project is a worthwhile and prudent investment ....for the NSW government' ..... Only one independent 'gateway' review was ever organised for the WestConnex project, and this was of a preliminary and unfinished business case." (Sydney Morning Herald, 19.12.14).

"Four additional gateway reviews should have been conducted in the period covered by this audit.....The benefit-cost ratio released by the NSW government for WestConnex - $2.55 in benefits for every dollar spent - is likely to be an overestimate". (NSW Auditor-General, quoted in Sydney Morning Herald editorial, 12.1.15)

"Bliemer is one who thinks the time has come to more aggressively support this growth in public transport, and get off the never-ending cycle of motorway building". (Michael Bliemer, Professor in Transport, University of Sydney, quoted in Sydney Morning Herald, 12.1.15).

"What I found on the (Infrastructure Australia) Board was that all the rail projects were actually far better in terms of benefit-cost ratios than the road projects....That's why WestConnex....they wouldn't even give to us to look at because they knew the benefit-cost ratios were pathetic." (Professor Peter Newman, Curtin University, W.A., quoted in Sydney Morning Herald, 12.1.15)

"We need to provide better alternatives to the car so that people have a legitimate choice". (Kyle Loades, President, NRMA, in Sydney Morning Herald, 2.7.15)

"Public discussion on infrastructure projects in Australia was too often dominated by debates on single projects instead of focussing on strategy or long term policy" (Mark Birrell, Chairman, Infrastructure Australia, quoted in Sydney Morning Herald, 12.6.15)

"We need to transition people from their cars to more sustainable transport modes" (WSROC President Tony Hadchiti, Sydney Morning Herald, 24.3.15)

"Both major parties' commitment to WestConnex is unfortunate". (Associate Professor Garry Glazebrook, UTS, quoted in Sydney Morning Herald, 20.3.15.)

WestConnex is unlikely to reduce traffic on local roads, (and) exposes the taxpayer to huge financial risk.....shares characteristics with other motorways that have financially failed.....A metro rail line along Parramatta Road....would be a better fit for the city....(Terry Rawnsley, Principal of SGS Economics and Planning, in a report commissioned by City of Sydney, Sydney Morning Herald, 24.2.15)

"The recent return of the delusion that building more expressways will reduce traffic congestion is unlikely to make things better". (Ross Gittins, Economics Writer, Sydney Morning Herald, 26.11.14.)

"According to AMP,.....one of the ways Mr. (Tony) Shepherd's consortium avoided 'another loss' was by inflating the number of motorists they said would drive through the (Lane Cove) tunnel". (Lane Cove Tunnel court case report, Sydney Morning Herald, 13.8.14)

"The knowledge economy needs spatial efficiency, and spatially efficient transport modes. Public transport, cycling and walking are very spatially efficient.....WestConnex...should be stopped." (Professor Peter Newman, Curtin University, quoted in EcoTransit News, October 2015).

I have not made any donations exceeding $1000 in the requisite period.

Kevin Eadie
21 St Georges Cres
Drummoyne, NSW, 2047.
WesConM4EastEIS1.doc
30 October 2015.

WestConnex is not a good solution to city congestion. If you put all the money into reducing public transport costs then most cars will get off the road. Public transport should be ultra cheap - It should cost max $20 a week maybe less and people will jump out of their cars quicker than you can build that big road which will just make our city more polluted, more concreted and more noisey. Think new. Think Big.

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.

I strongly object to the WestConnex M4 East motorway and wish to register this objection.

I object to the new right hand turn onto Waratah Street in Haberfield. i live in this street and it is already a very busy street where cars constantly speed. There are many small children on this street and this new turn will only bring more cars looking to rat run through Haberfield. The city west link is already a carpark with traffic often blocked all the way from Parramatta Road to Leichhardt. It defies reason to have an exit from the new tunnel here. Drivers will become understandably frustrated with the traffic and turn off into Waratah St. This is really dangerous for all the young kids walking this street on their way to and from school and will bring too much traffic onto these local roads. I am actually appalled by this decision and think it is very dangerous and is a threat to local children.

But then this whole project does little to consider the local communities of the inner west. It seems to be much more interested in the well being of developers and toll companies than it does people and their communities. I object to this.

I also object to the compulsory acquisition of homes to build this road that I am convinced will not work. People have been kicked out of their homes with reimbursements much less than they would have got at market value (pre WestConnex). These families can not buy back into the same market and for many this means a huge change to their lifestyles. Many will have to take their children out of the schools they are happy in. Others will have to rebuild friendships and communities as they are cast out of those they have belonged to for decades. This is simply appalling. Shame on WestConnex.

I object that for the people who have been left without a compulsory acquisition, they now find themselves living beside years of loud construction followed by a permanent future next to ugly, noisy, polluting roads. If they choose to sell they may literally lose hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions. Some people I have spoken to fear that their mental health will be severely impacted by these changes in lifestyle.

I object that Westconnex has been given free rein to destroy a heritage suburb. As a resident of Haberfield we have to get permission to make the slightest changes to our homes (and are often denied such permission). We have to have our paint colours approved and the materials we use for our fences scrutinised (among many other things), yet Westconnex can destroy heritage homes - flatten them - and then erect ugly, polluting smokestacks in the midst of our otherwise controlled community. The hypocrisy is mind boggling.

I object to the inevitable destruction of the Newtown and surrounding communities.

I object to the fact that Westconnex will inevitably generate more traffic

I object to the fact that instead of turning to innovative public transport solutions to Sydney traffic problems, the government has once again turned to archaic solutions that have already proven NOT to work. Isn't the definition of insanity to do again that which doesn't work?

I object that the government awarded tenders before a business case was released and before the EIS was published. This shows blatant disregard for public input and opinion.

I am outraged that the EIS has failed to fully discuss the social, environmental and economic impacts of the WestConnex or why it is preferable to public transport options.

I am outraged that toxic exhaust stacks have been placed beside schools, childcare centres and old aged homes.

I am also outraged that plans for the WestConnex seem to be providing for more development of apartments along Parramatta road and we simply do NOT have the infrastructure to handle this. Our schools are overflowing, our roads choked (but not helped by the WestConnex as it is) and we do not have enough good public transport to support this development.

Decades long global experience of urban motorway construction has shown that big new urban roads are counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity. Why are we still doing them?

Please find attached our objection letter to the WestConnex M4 East project.

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.
-

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. -

29.10.15

Attention: Director Infrastructure Projects,

Planning Services

Department of Planning and Environment

Application Number SSI 6307

This monster that is the WestConnex motorway is an unjustifiable project with underestimated social and economic impacts on local residents and business. As local North Strathfield residents, we are very concerned regarding its long lasting impact on our local community.

The location of the stacks is of most concern, as the placement is right next to many townhouse developments along Underwood Rd, Homebush and many,many established homes in the surrounding area of which we are one. Also these stacks are located next to a number of high rise developments along Parramatta Rd, with many more developments to come along this stretch of Parramatta Rd in the future.

We cannot understand the location of the stacks and the proximity to where many people live and work.These stacks are apparently to be unfiltered, with so many primary and high schools within the local area such as Our Lady of the Assumption, North Strathfield, Macdonald College, North Strathfield, Strathfield North Public School, Homebush Boys HS, Homebush Public School, Strathfield Girls HS to mention just a few!

Concerning us also is the ugly, overdeveloped,concrete spaghetti maze of road flyovers/entry/exit points ?????? that are planned near the intersections of Concord Rd and Parramatta Rd all to get to a congestion point down the road faster! Does the WestConnex have to be so ugly and overdeveloped, dumped in what are the beautiful, liveable suburbs of Concord, Homebush, Haberfield and Ashfield, which you all seen intent on destroying. We don't want a concrete traffic jungle. Surely there are alternatives to this version of WestConnex with less impact health wise, socially, economically and visually than the one being offered.

All this, along with people losing their homes in Concord, Homebush and Haberfield, heritage buildings disappearing, all at an unbelieveable cost to save us 6 minutes! Really, expain the logic in that! Unbelievable!

We are absolutely dismayed and disgusted with this entire project and with the fact that it delivers very little and will cost our community greatly. It is only of benefit to big
business and foreign investors.

Margaret and Mark Benn
14 Lorraine Street
North Strathfield
NSW 2137

[email protected]


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
- See more at: http://westconnex.info/?p=348660#sthash.Q3o0AZbJ.dpuf