Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
tempe
,
New South Wales
Message
TRAFFIC CHAOS - INNER WEST
The New M5 would cause costly traffic chaos throughout the inner west and south-west Sydney. The roads around the St Peters interchange are already at an unacceptable Level of Service and are getting worse because of in-fill developments not allowed for by the EIS. This EIS also clearly demonstrates that the traffic on roads around the St Peters Interchange will deteriorate as a result of WestConnex, as well as already heavily congested roads in Bexley, Rockdale, Kingsgrove and Brighton-Le-Sands. I object to building a road that the proponent admits will produce such volumes of traffic that such roads will be beyond capacity. Where traffic is already bad, plans should be to reduce it, not make it worse.
The government wouldn't dare do this to the suffering western suburbs (even though they are being tooled if they use it) yet they ride rough shod over the inner west. THUGS
More reasons to object to the westconnex
The New M5 would cause costly traffic chaos throughout the inner west and south-west Sydney. The roads around the St Peters interchange are already at an unacceptable Level of Service and are getting worse because of in-fill developments not allowed for by the EIS. This EIS also clearly demonstrates that the traffic on roads around the St Peters Interchange will deteriorate as a result of WestConnex, as well as already heavily congested roads in Bexley, Rockdale, Kingsgrove and Brighton-Le-Sands. I object to building a road that the proponent admits will produce such volumes of traffic that such roads will be beyond capacity. Where traffic is already bad, plans should be to reduce it, not make it worse.
The government wouldn't dare do this to the suffering western suburbs (even though they are being tooled if they use it) yet they ride rough shod over the inner west. THUGS
More reasons to object to the westconnex
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
tempe
,
New South Wales
Message
OVER QUOTING - TRAFFIC MODELLING
The flaws and optimistic assumptions in the traffic modelling mean that toll revenue is likely to be significantly lower than forecast. AECOM has a history of providing over-optimistic traffic forecasts for toll roads, resulting in previous financial failures (e.g. Clem7 in Brisbane). I find it completely unacceptable that AECOM has been paid $13 million of taxpayer money to complete this EIS despite this, and despite it being awarded other WestConnex contracts that depend on the project going ahead. This is an utterly unacceptable conflict of interest. The public cannot trust that this EIS properly and fully investigates the true economic, environmental and social impacts of this project, and indeed the poor quality of this document reflects this. I also object to AECOM doing the EIS when it has contracts in the rest of the project including Stage 2. This conflict of interest needs to be explained and addressed.
Even with these flaws, tolls on these roads are to be in effect for decades. Many Sydneysiders will not see these roads untolled in their lifetimes. Nor will western Sydney or rural and regional NSW see any investment in their communities to create employment opportunities that would circumvent the need to commute long distances by car to jobs in Sydney's CBD, eastern suburbs and inner city.
Another hundred millions reasons to object to the westconnex
The flaws and optimistic assumptions in the traffic modelling mean that toll revenue is likely to be significantly lower than forecast. AECOM has a history of providing over-optimistic traffic forecasts for toll roads, resulting in previous financial failures (e.g. Clem7 in Brisbane). I find it completely unacceptable that AECOM has been paid $13 million of taxpayer money to complete this EIS despite this, and despite it being awarded other WestConnex contracts that depend on the project going ahead. This is an utterly unacceptable conflict of interest. The public cannot trust that this EIS properly and fully investigates the true economic, environmental and social impacts of this project, and indeed the poor quality of this document reflects this. I also object to AECOM doing the EIS when it has contracts in the rest of the project including Stage 2. This conflict of interest needs to be explained and addressed.
Even with these flaws, tolls on these roads are to be in effect for decades. Many Sydneysiders will not see these roads untolled in their lifetimes. Nor will western Sydney or rural and regional NSW see any investment in their communities to create employment opportunities that would circumvent the need to commute long distances by car to jobs in Sydney's CBD, eastern suburbs and inner city.
Another hundred millions reasons to object to the westconnex
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Alexandria
,
New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to the proposed New M5.
The roads around the St Peters interchange are already at an unacceptable Level of Service and are getting worse because of in-fill developments not allowed for by the EIS:
* Green Square: 61,000 residents
* Ashmore: 6,000 residents
* Waterloo Estate: 30,000 residents
* Central 2 Eveleigh: 56,000 residents, 25,000 workers
* Australia Technology Park (Another 10000CBA employees)
With an extra 150,000 people in an area of a few square kilometres, this is going to be the most densely populated area in Australia.
There is no evidence that the traffic models have factored in this huge increase in density that will occur in the area.
The EIS clearly demonstrates that the traffic on roads in the Alexandria area will deteriorate as a result of WestConnex. But it also predicts that Level of Service will improve at many intersections even if nothing is done - in the case of Euston Rd/Sydney Park Rd, from D to A, in the PM peak. This is clearly wrong - so wrong that it suggests that the traffic modelling is broken (the EIS does acknowledge that "modelling is probably optimistic") and it suggests that the level of service on local roads will be several levels worse than predicted, either with or without the project.
According to the business case, Euston Road is supposed to handle 61,000 cars on 3 lanes each way. This is almost 10 times what it can handle on 2 lanes. There is no way it can handle 61,000 cars, however many lanes are added to it. Adding extra lanes to Euston will not help because the roads that Euston Road feeds are also gridlocked. Traffic does not simply dissipate once it leaves the M5. It will only increase the damage done to the area and cause rat-running.
Meanwhile, usage of the M5 is not growing, and has not grown for some years. This project only makes an existing road more expensive for commuters. It will save little time, if any, and at an exorbitant price. As the EIS acknowledges, the tolls are going to force drivers off the M5 and onto local roads, and no wonder. The Updated Strategic Business Case shows that for almost all of its users, the Value of Time saved is less than the cost of using WestConnex.
This project will carve 11,000 square metres from Sydney Park and expose the rest of the park to vehicle fumes and noise. This damage is particularly felt, because this area already has one the lowest amounts of public open space per person in Australia, even without considering the future in-fill projects that are already in progress.
Alexandria residents are already exposed to levels of PM2.5 particles that exceed national guidelines, yet the EIS predicts that these levels will only worsen.
The new M5 is an unfair waste of taxpayers' money that could be better used elsewhere, such as on projects that improve transport infrastructure out west or in the regions, or in our area to help us cope with the massive rise in density that we are facing over the next ten years.
Finally, I strongly object to the quality of the EIS. There is too little information on the traffic volumes that will occur in Alexandria, and there is also conflicting information on possible mitigation strategies. Although the diagrams in the EIS show right-hand turn lanes in all four directions at the Sydney Park Road/Euston Road intersection, the text of "New M5 EIS Vol 2B App G Traffic and Transport" instead indicates that there will be a "banned right turn from Mitchell Road into Sydney Park Road [because of] the banned right turn southbound at the Sydney Park Road / Euston Road intersection". The text also indicates that there will be a "north-bound lane [which] will go as far as Maddox Street, where it becomes a new left-hand turn lane", but the diagrams do not show this. Not having clarity on which of these two scenarios is planned makes informed consultation impossible. If these right-hand turns into Sydney Park Road are not permitted, there will be enormous volumes of traffic on local roads as drivers try to rat run. Likewise, the extra left-hand turn lane, if it is actually planned, seems destined to drive traffic onto local roads.
Roads, especially tunnels, are expensive, and move relatively few people - perhaps 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane. This is a fraction of what can be moved by heavy rail, or light rail, or bicycles. Even pedestrians can move more commuters per lane than can be moved by car.
The EIS business case says that with toll roads, "losses to investors [are typical] due to traffic demand forecast being overly optimistic. This has led to a situation where it is likely the private sector sponsors will be unwilling [and the NSW Government is likely to have] to take on all or part of the development and start up traffic risk". Why does the NSW government think that WestConnex can be profitable when the private sector does not?
I call for the M5 EIS not to proceed. As a NSW taxpayer, I want better value for money.
The project will add an unacceptable level of pollution in terms of noise and air for the residents. This is a huge health hazard. The area of Alexandria, Waterloo and Erskineville are already highly congested.
The EIS does not consider the impact of other major developments such as
* Green Square
* Ashmore Estate
* Waterloo Revitalisation (Old Council flats)
* Australia Technology Park Development (another 10000 CBA employees) will use the areas. Where will they all park considering there will be only 386 car parks available?
This is an unacceptable development and is extremely short sighted. The government should invest the people's money into more sustainable investment such as public transport.
It's time to get the policy right. The only option is public transport not massive toll road ways that will add to massive pollution and massive congestion.
I have not made a reportable political donation.
The roads around the St Peters interchange are already at an unacceptable Level of Service and are getting worse because of in-fill developments not allowed for by the EIS:
* Green Square: 61,000 residents
* Ashmore: 6,000 residents
* Waterloo Estate: 30,000 residents
* Central 2 Eveleigh: 56,000 residents, 25,000 workers
* Australia Technology Park (Another 10000CBA employees)
With an extra 150,000 people in an area of a few square kilometres, this is going to be the most densely populated area in Australia.
There is no evidence that the traffic models have factored in this huge increase in density that will occur in the area.
The EIS clearly demonstrates that the traffic on roads in the Alexandria area will deteriorate as a result of WestConnex. But it also predicts that Level of Service will improve at many intersections even if nothing is done - in the case of Euston Rd/Sydney Park Rd, from D to A, in the PM peak. This is clearly wrong - so wrong that it suggests that the traffic modelling is broken (the EIS does acknowledge that "modelling is probably optimistic") and it suggests that the level of service on local roads will be several levels worse than predicted, either with or without the project.
According to the business case, Euston Road is supposed to handle 61,000 cars on 3 lanes each way. This is almost 10 times what it can handle on 2 lanes. There is no way it can handle 61,000 cars, however many lanes are added to it. Adding extra lanes to Euston will not help because the roads that Euston Road feeds are also gridlocked. Traffic does not simply dissipate once it leaves the M5. It will only increase the damage done to the area and cause rat-running.
Meanwhile, usage of the M5 is not growing, and has not grown for some years. This project only makes an existing road more expensive for commuters. It will save little time, if any, and at an exorbitant price. As the EIS acknowledges, the tolls are going to force drivers off the M5 and onto local roads, and no wonder. The Updated Strategic Business Case shows that for almost all of its users, the Value of Time saved is less than the cost of using WestConnex.
This project will carve 11,000 square metres from Sydney Park and expose the rest of the park to vehicle fumes and noise. This damage is particularly felt, because this area already has one the lowest amounts of public open space per person in Australia, even without considering the future in-fill projects that are already in progress.
Alexandria residents are already exposed to levels of PM2.5 particles that exceed national guidelines, yet the EIS predicts that these levels will only worsen.
The new M5 is an unfair waste of taxpayers' money that could be better used elsewhere, such as on projects that improve transport infrastructure out west or in the regions, or in our area to help us cope with the massive rise in density that we are facing over the next ten years.
Finally, I strongly object to the quality of the EIS. There is too little information on the traffic volumes that will occur in Alexandria, and there is also conflicting information on possible mitigation strategies. Although the diagrams in the EIS show right-hand turn lanes in all four directions at the Sydney Park Road/Euston Road intersection, the text of "New M5 EIS Vol 2B App G Traffic and Transport" instead indicates that there will be a "banned right turn from Mitchell Road into Sydney Park Road [because of] the banned right turn southbound at the Sydney Park Road / Euston Road intersection". The text also indicates that there will be a "north-bound lane [which] will go as far as Maddox Street, where it becomes a new left-hand turn lane", but the diagrams do not show this. Not having clarity on which of these two scenarios is planned makes informed consultation impossible. If these right-hand turns into Sydney Park Road are not permitted, there will be enormous volumes of traffic on local roads as drivers try to rat run. Likewise, the extra left-hand turn lane, if it is actually planned, seems destined to drive traffic onto local roads.
Roads, especially tunnels, are expensive, and move relatively few people - perhaps 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane. This is a fraction of what can be moved by heavy rail, or light rail, or bicycles. Even pedestrians can move more commuters per lane than can be moved by car.
The EIS business case says that with toll roads, "losses to investors [are typical] due to traffic demand forecast being overly optimistic. This has led to a situation where it is likely the private sector sponsors will be unwilling [and the NSW Government is likely to have] to take on all or part of the development and start up traffic risk". Why does the NSW government think that WestConnex can be profitable when the private sector does not?
I call for the M5 EIS not to proceed. As a NSW taxpayer, I want better value for money.
The project will add an unacceptable level of pollution in terms of noise and air for the residents. This is a huge health hazard. The area of Alexandria, Waterloo and Erskineville are already highly congested.
The EIS does not consider the impact of other major developments such as
* Green Square
* Ashmore Estate
* Waterloo Revitalisation (Old Council flats)
* Australia Technology Park Development (another 10000 CBA employees) will use the areas. Where will they all park considering there will be only 386 car parks available?
This is an unacceptable development and is extremely short sighted. The government should invest the people's money into more sustainable investment such as public transport.
It's time to get the policy right. The only option is public transport not massive toll road ways that will add to massive pollution and massive congestion.
I have not made a reportable political donation.
vj Elton
Object
vj Elton
Object
tempe
,
New South Wales
Message
Global experience and research has shown conclusively that these kinds of toll road mega-projects are hugely expensive and provide only short-term relief from traffic congestion. I have yet to hear of an independent transport expert who backs the project. WestConnex will increase air pollution and traffic, and expose NSW taxpayers to unacceptably high levels of financial risk. Even the EISs produced for the various stages of WestConnex show it is not a long-term solution to Sydney's congestion problem.
Another reason to object tot he westconnex
Another reason to object tot he westconnex
Justin Barrington-Higgs
Object
Justin Barrington-Higgs
Object
St Peters
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission: WestConnex New M5 Environmental Impact Statement (SSI 14_6788)
To the Director, Major Planning Assessments, Department of Planning
I write to express my strong objection to the WestConnex New M5 motorway proposal.
I feel that this is an ill-considered, wasteful project that will spend nearly $17 billion (at current estimates) on a poorly-though out traffic solution that will not deliver freight traffic where it needs to go, that is Port Botany and Sydney Airport freight terminals, but instead dumps it some distance away into a densely populated area that is ill-equipped to handle extra vehicle movements.
As a daily commuter ffrom St Peters to the city, I can attest that King St Newtown is already at maximum capacity during peak hour, as is the Princes Highway, which is often prone to traffic delays. Locking future State finances into a solution which only duplicates the route of existing roadways underground is a waste of taxpayer funds.
The Marrickville and St Peters areas have been targeted as urban growth areas due to their ready accessibility by public transport and proximity to the city-I strongly believe the extra traffic from WestConnex radiating into King St and Campbell St will destroy the viability of Enmore Road bus services. I have seen this happen in the 422 services which have been extended to and from Kogarah-by routing them through the traffic chokepoint of West Botany Road they have become unreliable and have largely been abandoned by commuters, placing more pressure on train services that are already crowded. This will be heightened exponentially when the extra traffic generated by WestConnex impacts other bus routes.
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 also object to this proposal because:
1) The New M5 will have devastating impacts on our local communities and local amenities.
2) The New M5 will be a massive contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, while destroying important habitat and greenspace.
3) WestConnex and the New M5 is a financial black hole that won't solve Sydney's traffic congestion.
4) The WestConnex project including the New M5 lacks transparency and accountability.
5) The WestConnex project comes with no real evaluation of alternative options such as world class public transport.
To the Director, Major Planning Assessments, Department of Planning
I write to express my strong objection to the WestConnex New M5 motorway proposal.
I feel that this is an ill-considered, wasteful project that will spend nearly $17 billion (at current estimates) on a poorly-though out traffic solution that will not deliver freight traffic where it needs to go, that is Port Botany and Sydney Airport freight terminals, but instead dumps it some distance away into a densely populated area that is ill-equipped to handle extra vehicle movements.
As a daily commuter ffrom St Peters to the city, I can attest that King St Newtown is already at maximum capacity during peak hour, as is the Princes Highway, which is often prone to traffic delays. Locking future State finances into a solution which only duplicates the route of existing roadways underground is a waste of taxpayer funds.
The Marrickville and St Peters areas have been targeted as urban growth areas due to their ready accessibility by public transport and proximity to the city-I strongly believe the extra traffic from WestConnex radiating into King St and Campbell St will destroy the viability of Enmore Road bus services. I have seen this happen in the 422 services which have been extended to and from Kogarah-by routing them through the traffic chokepoint of West Botany Road they have become unreliable and have largely been abandoned by commuters, placing more pressure on train services that are already crowded. This will be heightened exponentially when the extra traffic generated by WestConnex impacts other bus routes.
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 also object to this proposal because:
1) The New M5 will have devastating impacts on our local communities and local amenities.
2) The New M5 will be a massive contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, while destroying important habitat and greenspace.
3) WestConnex and the New M5 is a financial black hole that won't solve Sydney's traffic congestion.
4) The WestConnex project including the New M5 lacks transparency and accountability.
5) The WestConnex project comes with no real evaluation of alternative options such as world class public transport.
WestCONnex Direct Action
Object
WestCONnex Direct Action
Object
ERSKINEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
We strongly object to the WestConnex New M5 on the grounds that urban radial motorways are cost ineffective.
Please paste/attach to this submission the entire contents of the Kyeemagh-Chullora Road Enquiry available here:
http://roadinquiry.blogspot.com.au/
Unless the Dept of Planning has read and responded satisfactorily to this enquiry in its entirety, then this submission cannot be deemed to have been properly addressed.
Please paste/attach to this submission the entire contents of the Kyeemagh-Chullora Road Enquiry available here:
http://roadinquiry.blogspot.com.au/
Unless the Dept of Planning has read and responded satisfactorily to this enquiry in its entirety, then this submission cannot be deemed to have been properly addressed.
Gary Speechley
Object
Gary Speechley
Object
Alexandria
,
New South Wales
Message
Hi Mike. Hi Duncan. I'm objecting to the M5 EIS.
I don't know if you've noticed, but Tony Abbott is out of the country at the moment.
Here's a chance to put bring out the silver shovels again and announce a great new public transport project to replace
westCONnex.
You know it's the right thing to do. And Tony won't notice ;-) Honestly, he won't.
I don't know if you've noticed, but Tony Abbott is out of the country at the moment.
Here's a chance to put bring out the silver shovels again and announce a great new public transport project to replace
westCONnex.
You know it's the right thing to do. And Tony won't notice ;-) Honestly, he won't.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
St Peters
,
New South Wales
Message
it will be a disaster for St Peters and surrounding suburbs. if you had any idea about this area you would know it has maximum traffic capacity already. This area hold special qualities contributing to the wonderful character of this city. You are about to destroy this, permanently.
Mia Layton
Object
Mia Layton
Object
ST PETERS
,
New South Wales
Message
Attn: Secretary,
Re: WestConnex New M5 EIS, project number SSI 14_6788
Submission to WestConnex New M5 EIS, project number SSI 14_6788
I strongly object to this project and the entire WestConnex of which this is part, and ask that you reject this proposal on the basis of this environmental impact statement (EIS).
Global experience and research has shown conclusively that these kinds of toll road mega-projects are hugely expensive and provide only short-term relief from traffic congestion. I have yet to hear of an independent transport expert who backs the project. WestConnex will increase air pollution and traffic, and expose NSW taxpayers to unacceptably high levels of financial risk. Even the EISs produced for the various stages of WestConnex show it is not a long-term solution to Sydney's congestion problem.
The strategic justification for the New M5 is weak and inconsistent with the NSW Government's strategic planning and policy framework, despite its inclusion in the 2012 State Infrastructure Strategy and the Long Term Transport Master Plan. The project as proposed in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) does not deliver the broader objectives of WestConnex as stated in the Updated Strategic Business Case (November 2015).
There has been no compelling case made for why WestConnex should be built, and the project should not receive approval and not proceed. This EIS and the Updated Strategic Business Case for WestConnex are clear that the benefits accruing from Stage 2 do not outweigh the costs. Benefits are shown to come once the whole WestConnex project is built according to the Updated Strategic Business Case, and that no benefits exist until all three Stages are delivered (WestConnex Full Scheme: Economic Appraisal, KPMG, 19 November 2015). I am aware that even this has now expanded to include other tollways such as the Sydney Gateway, making it even more likely that this project will provide disbenefits to society if it proceeds as proposed in this EIS, i.e. as a standalone project. This is particularly concerning given there is a significant risk that Stage 3 will not be built.
Fundamentally flawed projects like WestConnex do not account for changing work practices supported by technologies such as teleworking, or flexible office spaces, or that car journeys are dropping as workers elect to work closer to home or use public transport, bicycles or car sharing. It also does not account for trends that will substantially change how people choose to travel in future and reduce the number of cars on the road, such as peak car or driverless cars.
WestConnex comes at not only a huge cost that is blowing out at the rate of over $2 billion a year. It also comes with a massive opportunity cost. The $16.8 billion and rising that would be spent on WestConnex is money that would be taken away from hospitals, schools, regional roads, and the public transport improvements that are urgently needed - not just in western Sydney, but many parts of regional NSW. If this $16.8 billion was spent on public transport and effective road management, a project like WestConnex would not be necessary.
I also strongly object to a number of specific aspects of this EIS, and I expect you to publish this submission and send me a written response to each of the objections I have outlined below.
The EIS lacks rigour and sound analysis, despite the huge volume of documentation. This lack of rigour and analysis is consistent across all chapters and appendices. The project objectives are biased towards a motorway solution, so that any proposed alternative falls short of the proposed solution. Similarly, the work undertaken in the EIS is highly compliance driven, and fails to take into account opportunities or strategic impacts, and the assessment of cumulative impacts is almost negligent.
WestConnex is presented as a `transformational' infrastructure project, however, the EIS is not clear on what transformation it will achieve. There is no demonstration that WestConnex delivers transformation in terms of social or economic improvement, or better land use outcomes. To the contrary, WestConnex will deliver a piece of infrastructure that increases traffic on local roads, does not enable value capture or urban renewal, and is not consistent with the government's land use priorities or the proposal in the 2012 State Infrastructure Strategy.
Traffic on the existing M5 East exceeded capacity "within months" of opening (New M5 Project Overview, November 2015), including recent road widening. This lack of capacity is, in part, the rationale for the construction of the New M5. Managing demand on the M5 East and providing high quality public transport alternatives for those who can change mode would be a more effective long term solution that simply a `predict and provide' approach, yet this alternative - along with many others - has not been assessed.
A larger question raised by the proposed New M5 project is what happens if capacity on this motorway is reached? The existing M5 East has proven that a new motorway can easily reach or exceed capacity within a 15 year timeframe. If that outcome is realised for the New M5, Sydney will be left with a transport legacy that cannot support the jobs growth in the west consistent with Government policy. Sydney needs to manage demand for existing road assets to maximise economically productive use and deliver sustainable transport as a real alternative to car travel. International cities such as Los Angeles are moving away from their dominant car-based culture to invest in public transport in order to build the sustainability and attractiveness of their city for residents, businesses and visitors alike.
The New M5 project has only been assessed to 2031, which does not take into account the 45 year concession period for the asset as stated in the WestConnex Updated Strategic Business Case. The assessment does not account for future events that may radically change travel demands or behaviours.
Heritage buildings would be destroyed for this project, while others would be isolated in a flood of traffic. e.g. terraces next to construction compounds and motorway in Campbell Street.
Residents in south west Sydney will suffer a huge loss of amenity as a result of the existing M5 being stripped of its green space and vegetation, particularly when residents fought so hard to get these green spaces established and thriving. I also strongly object to their concrete noise walls being replaced with transparent barriers. These will be right next to hundreds of homes, who will now be forced to look at (as well as listen to and breathe the fumes of) lanes of motorway traffic just over their fences. It is utterly unacceptable to prioritise the views of passing motorists over the privacy and amenity of people who live in an area.
This EIS fails to model traffic beyond two intersections after this project. This deliberately obscures the threat to King Street and roads in Alexandria. I object to exposing King Street and Edgeware Rd to the threat of becoming clearways.
Residents affected by compulsory acquisitions are being offered below-market prices for their homes and businesses, which has caused additional and completely unnecessary distress and trauma for the owners. I find it disturbing that the NSW Government was warned three years ago that the compulsory acquisition process was unfair to those whose properties were being forcibly taken, yet has both failed to make the changes recommended and actively suppressed the report that handed down these findings.
I strongly object to the unacceptable impact the project's construction will have on local residents, businesses and schools. Across the route of this project, people face years of having their streets turned into car parks for construction workers; 24/7 construction noise, vibration, and heavy truck movements; exposure to asbestos, construction dust, and toxic materials; and more. Mitigation is recommended in this EIS, but no information is provided about who might receive this and what it might be. Instead, decisions are put off until after approval - and in some cases the beginning of construction. This is completely indefensible.
Billions of dollars of construction contracts have been let for this project before this EIS was lodged. This casts huge doubts on the legitimacy of the community consultation process, and places unreasonable pressure on the Dept of Planning and Environment to approve this project regardless of its flaws.
This project deliberately exposes communities in certain areas to increased pollution. Such an approach values the health and safety of people in certain areas of Sydney over others, and is both unjust and unacceptable. In addition, despite there being no safe level of exposure to fine particulate matter, the proponents want to build this project knowing it will increase these pollutants around much of the project route.
Scientific experts agree there is no safe level of fine particle pollution. Rather than aiming to shift dangerous pollution from area to another, the government should be finding cleaner transport solutions that do not leave residents living beside polluted roads or unfiltered pollution stacks - no matter where they live.
The air quality study shows that dangerous fine particle pollution already exceeds acceptable levels in some areas in the project areas, and will worsen if this project is built. I also object to the way this and other information about air quality and pollution impacts has been provided in this EIS; it is far too dense and opaque for ordinary residents to understand. It should go without saying that where public health is concerned, information about negative impacts should be provided in a way that affected residents can understand.
The EIS demonstrates that air quality, even at existing levels, is close to the allowable limits, and will only get worse with a major interch
Re: WestConnex New M5 EIS, project number SSI 14_6788
Submission to WestConnex New M5 EIS, project number SSI 14_6788
I strongly object to this project and the entire WestConnex of which this is part, and ask that you reject this proposal on the basis of this environmental impact statement (EIS).
Global experience and research has shown conclusively that these kinds of toll road mega-projects are hugely expensive and provide only short-term relief from traffic congestion. I have yet to hear of an independent transport expert who backs the project. WestConnex will increase air pollution and traffic, and expose NSW taxpayers to unacceptably high levels of financial risk. Even the EISs produced for the various stages of WestConnex show it is not a long-term solution to Sydney's congestion problem.
The strategic justification for the New M5 is weak and inconsistent with the NSW Government's strategic planning and policy framework, despite its inclusion in the 2012 State Infrastructure Strategy and the Long Term Transport Master Plan. The project as proposed in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) does not deliver the broader objectives of WestConnex as stated in the Updated Strategic Business Case (November 2015).
There has been no compelling case made for why WestConnex should be built, and the project should not receive approval and not proceed. This EIS and the Updated Strategic Business Case for WestConnex are clear that the benefits accruing from Stage 2 do not outweigh the costs. Benefits are shown to come once the whole WestConnex project is built according to the Updated Strategic Business Case, and that no benefits exist until all three Stages are delivered (WestConnex Full Scheme: Economic Appraisal, KPMG, 19 November 2015). I am aware that even this has now expanded to include other tollways such as the Sydney Gateway, making it even more likely that this project will provide disbenefits to society if it proceeds as proposed in this EIS, i.e. as a standalone project. This is particularly concerning given there is a significant risk that Stage 3 will not be built.
Fundamentally flawed projects like WestConnex do not account for changing work practices supported by technologies such as teleworking, or flexible office spaces, or that car journeys are dropping as workers elect to work closer to home or use public transport, bicycles or car sharing. It also does not account for trends that will substantially change how people choose to travel in future and reduce the number of cars on the road, such as peak car or driverless cars.
WestConnex comes at not only a huge cost that is blowing out at the rate of over $2 billion a year. It also comes with a massive opportunity cost. The $16.8 billion and rising that would be spent on WestConnex is money that would be taken away from hospitals, schools, regional roads, and the public transport improvements that are urgently needed - not just in western Sydney, but many parts of regional NSW. If this $16.8 billion was spent on public transport and effective road management, a project like WestConnex would not be necessary.
I also strongly object to a number of specific aspects of this EIS, and I expect you to publish this submission and send me a written response to each of the objections I have outlined below.
The EIS lacks rigour and sound analysis, despite the huge volume of documentation. This lack of rigour and analysis is consistent across all chapters and appendices. The project objectives are biased towards a motorway solution, so that any proposed alternative falls short of the proposed solution. Similarly, the work undertaken in the EIS is highly compliance driven, and fails to take into account opportunities or strategic impacts, and the assessment of cumulative impacts is almost negligent.
WestConnex is presented as a `transformational' infrastructure project, however, the EIS is not clear on what transformation it will achieve. There is no demonstration that WestConnex delivers transformation in terms of social or economic improvement, or better land use outcomes. To the contrary, WestConnex will deliver a piece of infrastructure that increases traffic on local roads, does not enable value capture or urban renewal, and is not consistent with the government's land use priorities or the proposal in the 2012 State Infrastructure Strategy.
Traffic on the existing M5 East exceeded capacity "within months" of opening (New M5 Project Overview, November 2015), including recent road widening. This lack of capacity is, in part, the rationale for the construction of the New M5. Managing demand on the M5 East and providing high quality public transport alternatives for those who can change mode would be a more effective long term solution that simply a `predict and provide' approach, yet this alternative - along with many others - has not been assessed.
A larger question raised by the proposed New M5 project is what happens if capacity on this motorway is reached? The existing M5 East has proven that a new motorway can easily reach or exceed capacity within a 15 year timeframe. If that outcome is realised for the New M5, Sydney will be left with a transport legacy that cannot support the jobs growth in the west consistent with Government policy. Sydney needs to manage demand for existing road assets to maximise economically productive use and deliver sustainable transport as a real alternative to car travel. International cities such as Los Angeles are moving away from their dominant car-based culture to invest in public transport in order to build the sustainability and attractiveness of their city for residents, businesses and visitors alike.
The New M5 project has only been assessed to 2031, which does not take into account the 45 year concession period for the asset as stated in the WestConnex Updated Strategic Business Case. The assessment does not account for future events that may radically change travel demands or behaviours.
Heritage buildings would be destroyed for this project, while others would be isolated in a flood of traffic. e.g. terraces next to construction compounds and motorway in Campbell Street.
Residents in south west Sydney will suffer a huge loss of amenity as a result of the existing M5 being stripped of its green space and vegetation, particularly when residents fought so hard to get these green spaces established and thriving. I also strongly object to their concrete noise walls being replaced with transparent barriers. These will be right next to hundreds of homes, who will now be forced to look at (as well as listen to and breathe the fumes of) lanes of motorway traffic just over their fences. It is utterly unacceptable to prioritise the views of passing motorists over the privacy and amenity of people who live in an area.
This EIS fails to model traffic beyond two intersections after this project. This deliberately obscures the threat to King Street and roads in Alexandria. I object to exposing King Street and Edgeware Rd to the threat of becoming clearways.
Residents affected by compulsory acquisitions are being offered below-market prices for their homes and businesses, which has caused additional and completely unnecessary distress and trauma for the owners. I find it disturbing that the NSW Government was warned three years ago that the compulsory acquisition process was unfair to those whose properties were being forcibly taken, yet has both failed to make the changes recommended and actively suppressed the report that handed down these findings.
I strongly object to the unacceptable impact the project's construction will have on local residents, businesses and schools. Across the route of this project, people face years of having their streets turned into car parks for construction workers; 24/7 construction noise, vibration, and heavy truck movements; exposure to asbestos, construction dust, and toxic materials; and more. Mitigation is recommended in this EIS, but no information is provided about who might receive this and what it might be. Instead, decisions are put off until after approval - and in some cases the beginning of construction. This is completely indefensible.
Billions of dollars of construction contracts have been let for this project before this EIS was lodged. This casts huge doubts on the legitimacy of the community consultation process, and places unreasonable pressure on the Dept of Planning and Environment to approve this project regardless of its flaws.
This project deliberately exposes communities in certain areas to increased pollution. Such an approach values the health and safety of people in certain areas of Sydney over others, and is both unjust and unacceptable. In addition, despite there being no safe level of exposure to fine particulate matter, the proponents want to build this project knowing it will increase these pollutants around much of the project route.
Scientific experts agree there is no safe level of fine particle pollution. Rather than aiming to shift dangerous pollution from area to another, the government should be finding cleaner transport solutions that do not leave residents living beside polluted roads or unfiltered pollution stacks - no matter where they live.
The air quality study shows that dangerous fine particle pollution already exceeds acceptable levels in some areas in the project areas, and will worsen if this project is built. I also object to the way this and other information about air quality and pollution impacts has been provided in this EIS; it is far too dense and opaque for ordinary residents to understand. It should go without saying that where public health is concerned, information about negative impacts should be provided in a way that affected residents can understand.
The EIS demonstrates that air quality, even at existing levels, is close to the allowable limits, and will only get worse with a major interch
Paula Layton
Object
Paula Layton
Object
FIREFLY
,
New South Wales
Message
Attn: Secretary,
Re: WestConnex New M5 EIS, project number SSI 14_6788
Submission to WestConnex New M5 EIS, project number SSI 14_6788
I strongly object to this project and the entire WestConnex of which this is part, and ask that you reject this proposal on the basis of this environmental impact statement (EIS).
Global experience and research has shown conclusively that these kinds of toll road mega-projects are hugely expensive and provide only short-term relief from traffic congestion. I have yet to hear of an independent transport expert who backs the project. WestConnex will increase air pollution and traffic, and expose NSW taxpayers to unacceptably high levels of financial risk. Even the EISs produced for the various stages of WestConnex show it is not a long-term solution to Sydney's congestion problem.
The strategic justification for the New M5 is weak and inconsistent with the NSW Government's strategic planning and policy framework, despite its inclusion in the 2012 State Infrastructure Strategy and the Long Term Transport Master Plan. The project as proposed in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) does not deliver the broader objectives of WestConnex as stated in the Updated Strategic Business Case (November 2015).
There has been no compelling case made for why WestConnex should be built, and the project should not receive approval and not proceed. This EIS and the Updated Strategic Business Case for WestConnex are clear that the benefits accruing from Stage 2 do not outweigh the costs. Benefits are shown to come once the whole WestConnex project is built according to the Updated Strategic Business Case, and that no benefits exist until all three Stages are delivered (WestConnex Full Scheme: Economic Appraisal, KPMG, 19 November 2015). I am aware that even this has now expanded to include other tollways such as the Sydney Gateway, making it even more likely that this project will provide disbenefits to society if it proceeds as proposed in this EIS, i.e. as a standalone project. This is particularly concerning given there is a significant risk that Stage 3 will not be built.
Fundamentally flawed projects like WestConnex do not account for changing work practices supported by technologies such as teleworking, or flexible office spaces, or that car journeys are dropping as workers elect to work closer to home or use public transport, bicycles or car sharing. It also does not account for trends that will substantially change how people choose to travel in future and reduce the number of cars on the road, such as peak car or driverless cars.
WestConnex comes at not only a huge cost that is blowing out at the rate of over $2 billion a year. It also comes with a massive opportunity cost. The $16.8 billion and rising that would be spent on WestConnex is money that would be taken away from hospitals, schools, regional roads, and the public transport improvements that are urgently needed - not just in western Sydney, but many parts of regional NSW. If this $16.8 billion was spent on public transport and effective road management, a project like WestConnex would not be necessary.
I also strongly object to a number of specific aspects of this EIS, and I expect you to publish this submission and send me a written response to each of the objections I have outlined below.
The EIS lacks rigour and sound analysis, despite the huge volume of documentation. This lack of rigour and analysis is consistent across all chapters and appendices. The project objectives are biased towards a motorway solution, so that any proposed alternative falls short of the proposed solution. Similarly, the work undertaken in the EIS is highly compliance driven, and fails to take into account opportunities or strategic impacts, and the assessment of cumulative impacts is almost negligent.
WestConnex is presented as a `transformational' infrastructure project, however, the EIS is not clear on what transformation it will achieve. There is no demonstration that WestConnex delivers transformation in terms of social or economic improvement, or better land use outcomes. To the contrary, WestConnex will deliver a piece of infrastructure that increases traffic on local roads, does not enable value capture or urban renewal, and is not consistent with the government's land use priorities or the proposal in the 2012 State Infrastructure Strategy.
Traffic on the existing M5 East exceeded capacity "within months" of opening (New M5 Project Overview, November 2015), including recent road widening. This lack of capacity is, in part, the rationale for the construction of the New M5. Managing demand on the M5 East and providing high quality public transport alternatives for those who can change mode would be a more effective long term solution that simply a `predict and provide' approach, yet this alternative - along with many others - has not been assessed.
A larger question raised by the proposed New M5 project is what happens if capacity on this motorway is reached? The existing M5 East has proven that a new motorway can easily reach or exceed capacity within a 15 year timeframe. If that outcome is realised for the New M5, Sydney will be left with a transport legacy that cannot support the jobs growth in the west consistent with Government policy. Sydney needs to manage demand for existing road assets to maximise economically productive use and deliver sustainable transport as a real alternative to car travel. International cities such as Los Angeles are moving away from their dominant car-based culture to invest in public transport in order to build the sustainability and attractiveness of their city for residents, businesses and visitors alike.
The New M5 project has only been assessed to 2031, which does not take into account the 45 year concession period for the asset as stated in the WestConnex Updated Strategic Business Case. The assessment does not account for future events that may radically change travel demands or behaviours.
Heritage buildings would be destroyed for this project, while others would be isolated in a flood of traffic. e.g. terraces next to construction compounds and motorway in Campbell Street.
Residents in south west Sydney will suffer a huge loss of amenity as a result of the existing M5 being stripped of its green space and vegetation, particularly when residents fought so hard to get these green spaces established and thriving. I also strongly object to their concrete noise walls being replaced with transparent barriers. These will be right next to hundreds of homes, who will now be forced to look at (as well as listen to and breathe the fumes of) lanes of motorway traffic just over their fences. It is utterly unacceptable to prioritise the views of passing motorists over the privacy and amenity of people who live in an area.
This EIS fails to model traffic beyond two intersections after this project. This deliberately obscures the threat to King Street and roads in Alexandria. I object to exposing King Street and Edgeware Rd to the threat of becoming clearways.
Residents affected by compulsory acquisitions are being offered below-market prices for their homes and businesses, which has caused additional and completely unnecessary distress and trauma for the owners. I find it disturbing that the NSW Government was warned three years ago that the compulsory acquisition process was unfair to those whose properties were being forcibly taken, yet has both failed to make the changes recommended and actively suppressed the report that handed down these findings.
I strongly object to the unacceptable impact the project's construction will have on local residents, businesses and schools. Across the route of this project, people face years of having their streets turned into car parks for construction workers; 24/7 construction noise, vibration, and heavy truck movements; exposure to asbestos, construction dust, and toxic materials; and more. Mitigation is recommended in this EIS, but no information is provided about who might receive this and what it might be. Instead, decisions are put off until after approval - and in some cases the beginning of construction. This is completely indefensible.
Billions of dollars of construction contracts have been let for this project before this EIS was lodged. This casts huge doubts on the legitimacy of the community consultation process, and places unreasonable pressure on the Dept of Planning and Environment to approve this project regardless of its flaws.
This project deliberately exposes communities in certain areas to increased pollution. Such an approach values the health and safety of people in certain areas of Sydney over others, and is both unjust and unacceptable. In addition, despite there being no safe level of exposure to fine particulate matter, the proponents want to build this project knowing it will increase these pollutants around much of the project route.
Scientific experts agree there is no safe level of fine particle pollution. Rather than aiming to shift dangerous pollution from area to another, the government should be finding cleaner transport solutions that do not leave residents living beside polluted roads or unfiltered pollution stacks - no matter where they live.
The air quality study shows that dangerous fine particle pollution already exceeds acceptable levels in some areas in the project areas, and will worsen if this project is built. I also object to the way this and other information about air quality and pollution impacts has been provided in this EIS; it is far too dense and opaque for ordinary residents to understand. It should go without saying that where public health is concerned, information about negative impacts should be provided in a way that affected residents can understand.
The EIS demonstrates that air quality, even at existing levels, is close to the allowable limits, and will only get worse with a major interch
Re: WestConnex New M5 EIS, project number SSI 14_6788
Submission to WestConnex New M5 EIS, project number SSI 14_6788
I strongly object to this project and the entire WestConnex of which this is part, and ask that you reject this proposal on the basis of this environmental impact statement (EIS).
Global experience and research has shown conclusively that these kinds of toll road mega-projects are hugely expensive and provide only short-term relief from traffic congestion. I have yet to hear of an independent transport expert who backs the project. WestConnex will increase air pollution and traffic, and expose NSW taxpayers to unacceptably high levels of financial risk. Even the EISs produced for the various stages of WestConnex show it is not a long-term solution to Sydney's congestion problem.
The strategic justification for the New M5 is weak and inconsistent with the NSW Government's strategic planning and policy framework, despite its inclusion in the 2012 State Infrastructure Strategy and the Long Term Transport Master Plan. The project as proposed in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) does not deliver the broader objectives of WestConnex as stated in the Updated Strategic Business Case (November 2015).
There has been no compelling case made for why WestConnex should be built, and the project should not receive approval and not proceed. This EIS and the Updated Strategic Business Case for WestConnex are clear that the benefits accruing from Stage 2 do not outweigh the costs. Benefits are shown to come once the whole WestConnex project is built according to the Updated Strategic Business Case, and that no benefits exist until all three Stages are delivered (WestConnex Full Scheme: Economic Appraisal, KPMG, 19 November 2015). I am aware that even this has now expanded to include other tollways such as the Sydney Gateway, making it even more likely that this project will provide disbenefits to society if it proceeds as proposed in this EIS, i.e. as a standalone project. This is particularly concerning given there is a significant risk that Stage 3 will not be built.
Fundamentally flawed projects like WestConnex do not account for changing work practices supported by technologies such as teleworking, or flexible office spaces, or that car journeys are dropping as workers elect to work closer to home or use public transport, bicycles or car sharing. It also does not account for trends that will substantially change how people choose to travel in future and reduce the number of cars on the road, such as peak car or driverless cars.
WestConnex comes at not only a huge cost that is blowing out at the rate of over $2 billion a year. It also comes with a massive opportunity cost. The $16.8 billion and rising that would be spent on WestConnex is money that would be taken away from hospitals, schools, regional roads, and the public transport improvements that are urgently needed - not just in western Sydney, but many parts of regional NSW. If this $16.8 billion was spent on public transport and effective road management, a project like WestConnex would not be necessary.
I also strongly object to a number of specific aspects of this EIS, and I expect you to publish this submission and send me a written response to each of the objections I have outlined below.
The EIS lacks rigour and sound analysis, despite the huge volume of documentation. This lack of rigour and analysis is consistent across all chapters and appendices. The project objectives are biased towards a motorway solution, so that any proposed alternative falls short of the proposed solution. Similarly, the work undertaken in the EIS is highly compliance driven, and fails to take into account opportunities or strategic impacts, and the assessment of cumulative impacts is almost negligent.
WestConnex is presented as a `transformational' infrastructure project, however, the EIS is not clear on what transformation it will achieve. There is no demonstration that WestConnex delivers transformation in terms of social or economic improvement, or better land use outcomes. To the contrary, WestConnex will deliver a piece of infrastructure that increases traffic on local roads, does not enable value capture or urban renewal, and is not consistent with the government's land use priorities or the proposal in the 2012 State Infrastructure Strategy.
Traffic on the existing M5 East exceeded capacity "within months" of opening (New M5 Project Overview, November 2015), including recent road widening. This lack of capacity is, in part, the rationale for the construction of the New M5. Managing demand on the M5 East and providing high quality public transport alternatives for those who can change mode would be a more effective long term solution that simply a `predict and provide' approach, yet this alternative - along with many others - has not been assessed.
A larger question raised by the proposed New M5 project is what happens if capacity on this motorway is reached? The existing M5 East has proven that a new motorway can easily reach or exceed capacity within a 15 year timeframe. If that outcome is realised for the New M5, Sydney will be left with a transport legacy that cannot support the jobs growth in the west consistent with Government policy. Sydney needs to manage demand for existing road assets to maximise economically productive use and deliver sustainable transport as a real alternative to car travel. International cities such as Los Angeles are moving away from their dominant car-based culture to invest in public transport in order to build the sustainability and attractiveness of their city for residents, businesses and visitors alike.
The New M5 project has only been assessed to 2031, which does not take into account the 45 year concession period for the asset as stated in the WestConnex Updated Strategic Business Case. The assessment does not account for future events that may radically change travel demands or behaviours.
Heritage buildings would be destroyed for this project, while others would be isolated in a flood of traffic. e.g. terraces next to construction compounds and motorway in Campbell Street.
Residents in south west Sydney will suffer a huge loss of amenity as a result of the existing M5 being stripped of its green space and vegetation, particularly when residents fought so hard to get these green spaces established and thriving. I also strongly object to their concrete noise walls being replaced with transparent barriers. These will be right next to hundreds of homes, who will now be forced to look at (as well as listen to and breathe the fumes of) lanes of motorway traffic just over their fences. It is utterly unacceptable to prioritise the views of passing motorists over the privacy and amenity of people who live in an area.
This EIS fails to model traffic beyond two intersections after this project. This deliberately obscures the threat to King Street and roads in Alexandria. I object to exposing King Street and Edgeware Rd to the threat of becoming clearways.
Residents affected by compulsory acquisitions are being offered below-market prices for their homes and businesses, which has caused additional and completely unnecessary distress and trauma for the owners. I find it disturbing that the NSW Government was warned three years ago that the compulsory acquisition process was unfair to those whose properties were being forcibly taken, yet has both failed to make the changes recommended and actively suppressed the report that handed down these findings.
I strongly object to the unacceptable impact the project's construction will have on local residents, businesses and schools. Across the route of this project, people face years of having their streets turned into car parks for construction workers; 24/7 construction noise, vibration, and heavy truck movements; exposure to asbestos, construction dust, and toxic materials; and more. Mitigation is recommended in this EIS, but no information is provided about who might receive this and what it might be. Instead, decisions are put off until after approval - and in some cases the beginning of construction. This is completely indefensible.
Billions of dollars of construction contracts have been let for this project before this EIS was lodged. This casts huge doubts on the legitimacy of the community consultation process, and places unreasonable pressure on the Dept of Planning and Environment to approve this project regardless of its flaws.
This project deliberately exposes communities in certain areas to increased pollution. Such an approach values the health and safety of people in certain areas of Sydney over others, and is both unjust and unacceptable. In addition, despite there being no safe level of exposure to fine particulate matter, the proponents want to build this project knowing it will increase these pollutants around much of the project route.
Scientific experts agree there is no safe level of fine particle pollution. Rather than aiming to shift dangerous pollution from area to another, the government should be finding cleaner transport solutions that do not leave residents living beside polluted roads or unfiltered pollution stacks - no matter where they live.
The air quality study shows that dangerous fine particle pollution already exceeds acceptable levels in some areas in the project areas, and will worsen if this project is built. I also object to the way this and other information about air quality and pollution impacts has been provided in this EIS; it is far too dense and opaque for ordinary residents to understand. It should go without saying that where public health is concerned, information about negative impacts should be provided in a way that affected residents can understand.
The EIS demonstrates that air quality, even at existing levels, is close to the allowable limits, and will only get worse with a major interch