Tunnel external aesthetics-

The present tunnel design appears obtrusive and of bad taste. The height and prominence is of particular disturbance to the residents of Walker Avenue.

The outer material looks industrial and harsh- why are there not more options on the aesthetics of this permanent structure/ landmark?.

In light of Australia's fame in winning the International design award of the high rise apartment block in CENTRAL - which uses rainwater to maintain vertical gardens along the sides of the apartment block.

Haberfield is renowned as the Garden Suburb- why not capitalise on this and make the stack an appealing, sustainable feature rather than an eyesore?

I strongly object to the WesConnex M4 East motorway proposal.

The pursuit of major road projects, especially tunnels, is out dated and lacks sufficient benefit considering the very high monetary and environmental cost. Public transport options that are less costly and more beneficial are being ignored.

Forecast traffic volumes have already been shown to be flawed. Failure to consider 40 000 planned apartments along Parramatta Rd being but one failure.

Perhaps more alarming to all residents of NSW is the transparent and deliberate corruption of a democratic means to assess and decide on the most cost effective and effective transport options. The premature awarding of tenders for the project before this EIS process is complete is evidence of this.

Should this project proceed it will only confirm to the people that their political leaders serve the owners of construction companies and toll operators at the expense of the public.

I object to the proposed M4 East for the following reasons:
Lack of business case for the current WestConnex project scope and cost.
Lack of strategic justification and very poor assessment of alternatives as presented in the EIS.
Lack of assessment of impacts of the M4E as a standalone road at 2031 and beyond.
Inclusion of additional stages of WestConnex at 2031 to mitigate impacts in Ashfield and Leichhardt - these additional elements of WestConnex do not have planning approval, are to at least some extent unfunded and the negative consequences on local communities and the broader metropolitan area have not been described and assessed.
The significant loss of heritage items in Haberfield which in turn destroys the contribution of this important area to Australia's planning history and urban development.

In particular I would like to specifically object to the assumption within the EIS that the Western Harbour Tunnel will be necessary. If this is the case the people of Sydney should be made fully aware of the proposal and its implications, particularly for people living in the North Shore. At this stage these communities are largely unaware of the implications for their local neighbourhoods should the Western Harbour Tunnel go ahead. Glossy brochures broadly indicate the tunnel will emerge with portals in the Falcon Street / Military Road area - it can only be assumed elevated interchanges (as seen proposed for the M4E and St Peters Interchange), significant road widening and unfiltered vent stacks will also be part of the proposal.

It is unacceptable to undertake such a narrowly focused consultation when the implications of the project are so much greater than suggested in the M4 East EIS.

I strongly object to this proposal. Public transport investment, demand management and a commitment to a poly centric city will deliver a sustainable future for Sydney which breaks down the east/west divide.

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

Westconnex across its 33 km extent will generate additional traffic, and it will funnel this additional traffic 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. This will destroy communities and it will not in any long term sense address the transport problems nor the solutions that an expanding Sydney poses.

I wish to also express my strong objection to the NSW government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released and before an EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation. This make a mockery of proper planning approval processes and procedures.

I also contend that the EIS produced is deficient. It has many failings.

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

* Properly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives

* 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.

.* 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.

I also view the EIS information on Biodiversity as inadequate. It is in the main, unsubstantiated assertion. The time period for the field work on which subsequent assessment impact statements are made is woefully inadequate, and arguably in breach of the terms of the relevant legislation. Significant areas of existing vegetation were also not assessed nor included in calculations as to habitat area/value or not. No reason for this was given.

Government funding for the whole WestConnex project will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years, indeed arguably decades to come. This being the case, I am outraged that the EIS has failed to honestly and fully discuss and properly justify why it is preferable to other, alternative public and active transport solutions.

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, funneling it into heavily congested middle ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of roads and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.

Government funding for this proposal wil 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 consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions and promote public health.

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex m4 east motorway proposal. If built it will generate additional traffic, funneling it into heavily congested middle ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of roads and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.

Government funding for this proposal wil claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years to come.

It is the stack that is causing the community most concern hence;
* Why will the tunnel not be built without a ventilation stack- such as international designs?
* If the tunnel must have a stack, then how can the government justify to not filter it? When there is SO much fear of the risks?
* Why was an alternate stack site chosen- that meant it was not so close to homes and requiring demolishing of a community- ie. why not Bunnings and industrial site in it's surrounds?

I make this submission in relation to the WestConnex EIS for the M4 East tunnel. I strongly object to the M4 East and the entire WestConnex concept, and request a reply to my concerns as follows:

1. There has been no business case detailed for WestConnex, which is a departure from standard practice and indeed basic due process;
2. The traffic modelling shows an increase in volume for Parramatta Road resulting from the M4 East construction, due to toll avoidance, in contrast to the previous claims of there being an improvement in Parramatta Road's traffic. The overall effect on inner west and CBD traffic will be more and more volume as tunnels are avoided and no public transport capacity upgrades are available to take up the overflow.
3. There is an apparent conflict of interest in the forecasting firm AECOM being also the recipient of other WestConnex commercial contracts, e.g. project concept development and tunnel design;
4. There is scant regard given to freight and public transport alternatives that the projected $15 billion WestConnext budget could be redirected toward, for example on modernising rail signalling, add two stations to the Airport line, the East-West Translink for light rail all the way to Mascot, a light rail link from Parramatta to Macquarie Park, and more, all still for less than 15 billion, and much better for Sydney's overall health than WestConnex;
5. Filtration and other exhaust control features have been excluded without due description of the impacts of their not being used by WestConnex and specifically the M4 East tunnel, especially given well known evidence for higher rates of lung and heart disease and cancer linked to traffic pollution;
6. The compulsory acquisition of properties below true market value will mean these owners must now leave their neighbourhood, in which many of whom have lived for decades;
7. The EIS states openly that there will be disruption to sleep patterns due to the 24-hour construction work and its associated noise and vibrations. I find this completely unacceptable.

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.