I wish to register my strong objection to the Westconnex M4 East motorway proposal.

Among the grounds for my objection are:

1)lack of vision

If built, the Westconnex will generate much additional traffic, funnelling it into already heavily congested middle-ring and inner city roads.

2)lack of transparency

The government has awarded tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released, before the EIS has been published and the public has been able to exercise its 'right of participation'

3) lack of a cogent business case

Government funding for the proposal, as a proportion of funds for the whole proposed project-will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget over the next decade. There is a failure to seriously address the likely severe opportunity costs of the proposals, including for good, sustainable and socially equitable public transport infrastructure both for the inner city and the Western suburbs.

There is lack serious attention as whether there could be better alternatives for a global city such as Sydney in terms of future construction projects and transport budget priorities that actually enhance the amenities, economic vitality and liveability of the city.

eg with better public transport, freight rail, underground metro systems, light-rail etc rather than largely 'back-to-future' motorways and vehicular tunnels


4)lack of adequate foresight/ participatory planning on environmental and social impacts

The current proposal does not adequately consider the long-term impacts of air pollution, the destruction of significant numbers of heritage buildings, the siting of tunnel exhaust stacks, etc

I object to the EIS and the Project.

Project Alternatives
Mass transit options can carry significantly more passengers than private motor vehicles. Heavy rail can carry up to 36,000 passengers per lane' per hour. a light rail track can carry up to 9,000 passengers per lane per hour. This contrasts with a normal vehicle lane which only carries a maximum of approximately 2400 passengers per lane per hour.
One of the objectives of the project is to 'relieve road congestion' (Executive Summary. Volume 1A). However, insufficient justification has been given that the provision of additional road infrastructure will assist in resolving Sydney's complicated and serious mass transit issues. The M4 itself has been widened over time from four to six lanes (generally): however. this has not reduced congestion. Further widening again is now under construction as part of the WestConnex project. Another example is the Cross City Tunnel which was built with one of its key objectives being to relieve congestion in the Sydney CBD. This has not occurred.
New road infrastructure does not generally resolve congestion issues because it usually just attracts additional vehicles. This additional traffic is due to: Traffic reassignment; Traffic redistribution; Mode shifting; and Induced trips.
Induced traffic growth is essentially people making social and economic exchanges that they did not previously make because congestion levels and longer journey times prohibited them from doing so.
The WestConnex project may in the short term result in reduced travel times. New road infrastructure will reduce congestion in the short term, by creating additional road capacity. However, in the medium to long term, it is highly likely that this additional road capacity will just be taken up by additional vehicles. The level of congestion will therefore rise to its existing levels and there will be no real benefit experienced by motorists who utilise this road. These additional vehicles increase localised environmental impacts, including air pollution and noise impacts. This then impacts on the amenity of residents who live on Parramatta Road and nearby.
The EIS figures (Table 8.2, Section 8.3, Appendix G) demonstrate that in 2031 when comparing the 'do minimum' with the 'do something' scenarios, the project will induce an additional 65,100 vehicles per day on the western screenline (21.6%) increase. 81.800 vehicles on the central screenline (30.9%), 90,500 vehicles on the portal screenline (93.8%) and 90,100 vehicles on the eastern screenline (47.7%).
This project by definition will therefore result in increased environmental impacts associated with these additional vehicles. including congestion, parking real estate, increased noise and increased air pollution. As well as the impacts on the main roads, there will be associated increases in vehicle volumes on the supporting regional and local roads, impacting on residential amenity.
Dobroyd Parade currently has two lanes of traffic in each direction. The new tunnel will introduce another two lanes of traffic. This creates a clear pinch point/congestion point for traffic 'downstream' of the portals.
Dobroyd Parade, north of Timbrel, Drive, Haberfield is also already operating at a Level of Service F in the AM and PM peaks, 'downstream' of the proposed project. Adding additional traffic to and from the new WestConnex tunnel is just going to exacerbate this high level of congestion and a traffic jam, even with the billions of dollars spent on this project.
The project will just move the existing congestion/pinch point from Concord to Haberfield and Leichhardt, will increase congestion on the approaches to the Anzac Bridge and produce queuing back into the eastbound tunnels.
The project will lock us into dependence on motor vehicle transportation with consequent fuel security (Australia has only 3 weeks worth of petrol or diesel in the country at any one time - NRMA report, December 2014), travel time uncertainty (road accidents occur every day and lead to some motorists experiencing long delays) and eventual high cost of fuel (Peak Oil has already occurred in Australian fields).
Consideration to alternatives to the Project
Overall, the EIS has given very little consideration to alternative projects. In particular, there has been very little consideration given to public transport options. Given the ever increasing population growth in Sydney, it is essential that consideration is given to mass transit options, which as outlined above, can carry significantly more passengers than private motor vehicles.
Public transport in Sydney is still very radial, concentrating on the Sydney CBD. A more strategic web of public transport options, which assumes that people will make mode changes, would mean that passengers undertaking more dispersed movements would have feasible public transport options.
If more of Sydney's commuting/passenger journeys were made via public transport, then there would be more road space for the other users such as delivery vehicles and tradies. You only have to see what a 15% reduction in vehicles during school holidays does, to appreciate this.
The State Government is about to embark on the largest infrastructure project in NSW, at a cost of over $15 billion. It is appropriate to investigate such alternatives in a more through manner.
Unreliable traffic figures
The Project relies on several assumptions regarding future public transport (e.g. the bus lane down Parramatta Road) and road projects - many of which have not yet been designed, endorsed or commitments made to their funding. The traffic model which underpins the Project is highly reliant on these mooted projects which may not come to fruition or may be delayed well beyond the timeframes discussed in the EIS. The resultant impacts on the community and its environment would be as severe as the impacts of the Project itself.
On the other hand, the EIS does not take into account in its traffic numbers (or air pollution figures) Urban Growth's plans for Parramatta Road high rise development. The Draft Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy released in September 2015 allows for 40.000 new homes for up to 70.000 new people along the corridor. This is a significant change in population. The traffic modellers have used Bureau of Transport Statistics data for population growth. However, AECOM's traffic modellers were unclear as to whether these 40,000 new homes had been included in the modelling.

Strangely, some parts of the 2021 (with the Project) scenario indicate that only relatively minor increases in traffic are estimated on Parramatta Road, between Sloane Street and West Street, Haberfield and on Dobroyd Parade, north of Timbrell Drive, Haberfield (less than 150 vehicles per hour). These two locations are `downstream' of the proposed Project where three additional travel lanes will be introduced or at least two lanes if the unfunded bus lanes are introduced on Parramatta Road. Other parts of the EIS indicate that traffic will increase on the approaches by 900 to 1,600 vehicles - both parts of the EIS cannot be correct.

Doubtful economic viability of stage 3
Stage 3 will likely have less traffic than other two stages which may prevent it being built due to it being unable to get private finance due to poor economic viability. If this happens, our suburbs will be stuck with Stage 1 spewing traffic into our local streets for ever.
Air Pollution in-tunnel and in nearby areas
Even now Dobroyd Parade and the CWL are a traffic jam in the morning peaks (and on Saturdays). When Westconnex opens with 4 lanes trying to fit into the 2 lanes of Dobroyd Parade, this traffic jam will back up into the tunnel, resulting in less air movement and worse air pollution in the tunnel. Motorbike riders will be severely affected. The pollution coming out of the stack will get worse as well.
Add to this the probability that the EIS is based on published manufacturers' false pollution figures (as is the case with VW diesels).
I calculate that if you were to stand in a 3m deep, 30m radius puddle of daily average air from a Westconnex tunnel stack, you would be sharing it with 15 minutes worth of one diesel truck and 13 car exhausts all running at an 80kph power level
This level of pollution may well end up at ground level in winter as the gases cool or those living in Urban Growth's new high rise towers may just get it blowing in through their windows. I note that the EIS only has ground level pollution figures.
Impact on local traffic
Section 3.4 Volume 1A states, 'WestConnex is intended to be delivered as an integrated package of transport improvements across Sydney. with complementary enhancements to the existing road network (including associated surface street changes, bus priority measures, heavy vehicle access improvements). redesign of bus services and facilities, improved access to rail stations and upgrades to cyclist and pedestrian facilities'.
It is therefore of extreme concern that these Improvements on Parramatta Road have not been funded as part of the WestConnex program. This project is being partially justified based on surface improvements. and the associated sustainability and liveability improvements. If these surface improvements do not occur, then the project has limited benefit. The Cross City Tunnel was similarly sold on this basis and the on-surface improvements once the tunnel was open. particularly the public transport improvements, largely did not occur. The transport modelling for this project relies on the Parramatta Road improvements: in particular that one lane will be converted from a regular vehicle lane to a bus lane. Section 4.1.3 Appendix G outlines that in the modelling for the 2021 'do something' scenario that it includes the following assumption. Revised layout along Parramatta Road reflecting the provision of kerbside bus lanes between Burwood Road and Chandos Street (east of Bland Street), and the retention of two through traffic lanes in each direction.' Given these works have not been funded it is disingenuous to rely on this in the traffic modelling. It is of extreme concern that these improvements on Parramatta Road have not been funded as part of the WestConnex program.

The objectives for the project include, to 'Create opportunities for urban revitalisation, improved liveability, and public and active transport (walking and cycling) improvements along and around Parramatta Road' and to 'Enhance movements across the Parramatta Road corridor which are currently restricted'
However both the Parramatta Road/ Wattle Street and Ramsey Street intersections are forecast to be jammed up (category "F").
The shared pedestrian/bike shared path along the northern side of Dobroyd Parade between Waratah and Timbrell Drive is being removed. This is an essential part of an existing traffic corridor for pedestrians and cyclists. As well the pedestrian crossing on CWL at Timbrell/Mortley intersection is being removed so there will be no pedestrian crossing of the CWL available between the canal and Waratah Street. On top of this the widened (to 8 lanes) road surface requires a proportionately lengthened Walk time. There is a need for pedestrian/cyclist bridges over the CWL.
Noise
Tunnel construction work will continue 24 hours a day. Hence noise from underground blasting and truck movements go on day and night. Our nighttime peace is under threat.
As in the case of air pollution, traffic noise from the completed project has not evaluated for receivers in the multistory buildings in Urban Growth's plans.

I strongly object to the WESTCONNEX project. The concept is based on1960's planning principles. Every civilised country has rejected this approach because there is worldwide evidence that these type of projects are total failures.The rest of the world has concluded that improved public transport is the only solution to traffic problems. This project is a complete waste of taxpayer's money because commuting time will not be reduced.

A similar project was put forward by a Swiss State but was defeated by the people's right to call for a referendum. Unfortunately NSW does not have this form of democracy. We only get Governments who lie before elections and then when in power do what they like and undermine our own weak democracy,

Your action of giving out tenders before the completion of community consultation processes is a case in point and utterly disgraceful.

It is also disgraceful that greenhouse gas emissions have not been considered compared to public transport options,

To destroy a significant number of people's homes to save 6 minutes, which will not be achieved anyway is beyond the pale.apart fro that I find your documentation dishonest, biased and failing to address all the issues involved,

Worst of all for a government that prides itself on being open for business, this project is economic madness.Tthe money should be spent on creating jobs in regional centres, not encouraging further congestion in the centre of Sydney.

Selection of the project developer prior to approval of the EIS gives little confidence that any notice will be taken of public submissions.

The continuing refusal to publish the full business case before commitment of significant public monies exposes taxpayers to unknown liabilities.

Consideration of the project in stages, rather than as a whole, means that its ultimate impact cannot be properly evaluated. In particular, currently available details of Stage 3 are extremely vague so that the extremely important issue of adding a significantly greater traffic load to already congested inner western streets cannot be considered. This stepwise strategy may be politically expedient but means that the ultimate success of the Westconnex project will not be known before vast sums of public monies have been committed.

Commuter vehicles currently arrive in the inner west from before 5 a.m. in order to find parking and, in the area in which I live, all available spaces are taken within an hour. How will the additional vehicle load brought by Westconnex be accommodated in the inner suburbs?

Given recent revelations about misrepresentation of vehicle emissions, impacts of the project on air quality should be reconsidered. Too little consideration has been given to the impact of vehicle noise. The increased use of diesel engines which are much noisier than their petrol counterparts has led to a significant increase in traffic noise in our neighbourhood. If this trend continues and there is an increased traffic load, the attractiveness of inner suburban living will be considerably diminished. The inner suburbs have enjoyed an enormous increase in population in recent years and that trend should not be discouraged by inappropriate transport strategies for bringing people from outer areas.

The selection of the route of the current project to maximise the redevelopment potential of the Parramatta Road corridor is not supported by any quantitative data on what that potential might be.

The EIS should not be approved until the issues raised above have been properly addressed.

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 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 object to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.

I particularly want to register my objection to the government proceeding with the project before a full business case has been publicly released for the whole project of which it is just a part. Much remains obscure about both the financing of the WestConnex project and the level of tolls that will be imposed on it and about its overall social and economic effects. These cannot be assessed on the basis of the EIS, which basically assumes that the project will proceed.

The Government has compounded this glaring failure by awarding contracts and allowing work to commence even before the EIS for the M4E had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation. It is in any case totally inadequate to allow public comment only on the environmental aspects of the project after the crucial social and economic decisions have been effectively decided in the absence of a publicly argued and evidenced business case. 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 the whole WestConnex project 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 why it is preferable to other, alternative public and active transport solutions.

The EIS has failed to:
* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that was promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the project.
* Discuss in detail public transport and freight rail alternatives.
* Properly describe the long term impacts and geograpical distribution of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.
* Deal adequately with the greenhouse gas and climate change consequences of the increasing use of road vehicles

Decades-long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are frequently counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity, while soaking up the funds that are needed for under-resourced public transport - the result will be that congestion will return rapidly to previous levels and we'll still have a poor public transport system. That is why, globally, such tollways have fallen out of favour and are no longer to be regarded as a solution to congestion.

I wish to express my strong objections to the westconnex m4 east motorway proposal. 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 widening son the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.
I also wish to object to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released
before the EIS has been published and the public has excercised it's right of participation.
I draw attention to the EUS'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 lowere level of greenhouse gas emissions .
Decades long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are counterproductive . That 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 wish to submit a very strong objection to the WestConnex Mr East project that is currently under consideration by EIS.
This project may help to alleviate the traffic congestion being experienced along the Parramatta road, but it is not going to resolve the problem but rather transfer the bottle neck to another location. Namely the exit of the tunnel that is proposed for the city west link. currently all of the traffic that passes along this road on the way to the city is somewhat filtered by that numerous traffic lights located on the Parramatta road, and yet the traffic is a nightmare here during rush hour. When the tunnel is built all of the filtering will be removed and all of the traffic from the tunnel will come pouring out on the West link, making the situation ten times worse that it already is.!
I also strongly object to the fact that tenders have already been awarded by the government, before the EIS submission process has been completed.
What is needed in the inner west is more public transport, not more roads. Decades long global experience has proven that that is the future, while motorways are a thing of the past.

I wish to submit a very strong objection to the WestConnex Mr East project that is currently under consideration by EIS.
This project may help to alleviate the traffic congestion being experienced along the Parramatta road, but it is not going to resolve the problem but rather transfer the bottle neck to another location. Namely the exit of the tunnel that is proposed for the city west link. currently all of the traffic that passes along this road on the way to the city is somewhat filtered by that numerous traffic lights located on the Parramatta road, and yet the traffic is a nightmare here during rush hour. When the tunnel is built all of the filtering will be removed and all of the traffic from the tunnel will come pouring out on the West link, making the situation ten times worse that it already is.!
I also strongly object to the fact that tenders have already been awarded by the government, before the EIS submission process has been completed.
What is needed in the inner west is more public transport, not more roads. Decades long global experience has proven that that is the future, while motorways are a thing of the past.