I wish to oppose WestJConnex because of the breaking up of communities, the degrading of the environment, air quality and the amount of traffic on a poorly planned route. This project reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons where they built an escalator to nowhere. This sums up WestConnex and the plan to build it but not to think about where it's going to come out. Sydney Park will be impacted particularly badly. After all the wonderful development the City of Sydney has done within the park to make it truly a peoples' park, you are taking part of it for WestConnex. The money should be spent on public transport. If WestConnex goes ahead it will ruin the inner city for the people who live here.

I OBJECT TO THE WESTCONNEX

SUBMISSION TO M5 EIS

Name: Beth Aitken
Full address: 56 Hart Street, Tempe, NSW

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

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.

ADD YOUR OWN COMMENTS HERE:

It is also a disgrace that the EIS was dropped just prior to Christmas with submissions due only a month later. This does not give the community sufficient time to become fully informed on the complete impact that the Westconnex will have on residents in surrounding suburbs.

Funnelling more traffic from the west into the CBD is a completely ridiculous idea. As they currently stand the M roads are funnelling more traffic into the inner city than it has capacity for. It is true the Westconnex may save drivers 5 minutes to get to the outskirts of the city, but what then? Sydney's small suburban streets are expected to bear the increased traffic flow turning the local villages in the City of Sydney council into major thoroughfares. The great work that these communities have done in the past few years will be spoiled. The quality of life that residents have come to know will be destroyed along with the property values in the area. Increased emissions will have long term effects on community health and parking will become even more of a nightmare than it already is.

The Westconnex is ill conceived. We should be going back to the drawing board on this issue and thoroughly thinking through the issues. We should be using these tax payers funds to build a world class public transport system that reduces the traffic coming into the city rather than pushing bottlenecks further towards the CBD.

I have not made a reportable political donation. (Circle the option that applies to you. If yes, you need to attach a Political Disclosures Donation Statement, available from the Department of Planning website).

I live in Newtown, and as an inner city resident, I deplore infrastructure developments that ignore public transport. As cities worldwide have discovered, building more roads invites more drivers which quickly leads to more congestion. Places like Tokyo and NYC no longer widen/add highways, but instead improve public transport. Its the only way to develop a better future, and it's hard to fathom how a progressive city such as Sydney is choosing the other direction, toward more gridlock, neighborhood disruptions and increased pollution.

I am against the WestConnex St Peters interchange.

Currently, St Peters, and the surrounding areas of Alexandria, Erskineville, Newtown and more, are eclectic, peaceful areas, good for families and young professionals alike.

The introduction of the interchange, and therefore an increase of traffic, will be detrimental to the area.

The number increase of vehicles on already congested roads will be catastrophic. Noise and air pollution will inevitably rise. The great work with the redevelopment of Sydney Park will be all for naught with the introduction of the new roads. Drivers will potentially use back streets to avoid the interchange charge, increasing risk for other road users and pedestrians.

The money intended for the interchange would be better spent on public transport or providing viable alternatives for people to commute to work (more bicycle lanes, car share initiatives).

The proposed interchange would not only be a disaster for the area but the whole city.

I object that this project is trying to continue in the face of serious criticism by the State and Federal Audit offices.

I object that this project is trying to continue when its own business case admits that it doesn't stack up economically or operationally.

I object that this project is trying to continue when the evidence shows it will cause deterioration in the health of citizens.

I object to the 20 metre high unflitered ventilation stacks at St Peters.
I object to the disregard paid by the proponents to the health of the community in inner Sydney where particulants in the air are already beyond recommended levels. The Government is breaching a fundamental obligation to the community if it knowingly allows this health deterioration to occur. It will be liable.

Similarly, I object that noise levels on both sides of Euston and McEvoy streets will be in the highest decibel band contemplated by the EIS both day and night.

Residents and the community are seriously concerned with the validity and environmental affects of thi project. Below are the following reasons:
- Air quality will be compromised in the area as the road will attract more vehicles and pollution;
- Exhaust stacks to be filtered and regularly maintained to preserve air quality and not risk the health of people and surrounding environment;
- Monitoring stations located NEAR the road, NOT 0.5km away in open space with an abundance of mature trees (Current air quality monitoring station located in Beverly Hill Park);
- Remnant forest between Canterbury Golf Course and existing M5 protected and heritage listed due to its significance;
- Open Space to be preserved;
- More cycleways required;
- More stringent noise barriers required;

This multi billion dollar project is short sighted and the EIS is filled with faults.

It deeply concerns me the effects that the St Peters interchange will have on St Peters, Newtown, Erskineville and Alexandria where absolutely no planning for the flow on effect has been planned.

These suburbs in their current state are already choking and with the State government planning to bring another 60-100,000 people into the area through housing developments there is absolutely no place for such poor planning.

I ask your department to seriously look at my submission and to open a full inquiry into WestConnex at St Peters.

Kind regards

Nicholas Luhman

I object to the current plans to "disperse" traffic onto local streets when it tries to clear the Westconnex interchange at St Peters.

By the SMC's own admission, the existing roads infrastructure will not be able to cope.

Many of the roads around the proposed interchange are already at over capacity with long delays for standstill traffic.

The EIS clearly demonstrates that the traffic on roads in the Alexandria area will deteriorate as a result of WestConnex.

According to the business case in the Noise and Vibration section of the EIS, Euston Road is supposed to handle 71,000 cars on 3 lanes each way. This is more than 10 times what it currently handles inadequately on 2 lanes. There is no way it can handle the increase. That means traffic will try in vain to ratrun through local, residential streets. Local residential streets were not designed for that. There are important safety as well as amenity issues in allowing such overburden.

Adding extra lanes to Euston will not help because the roads that Euston Road feeds are also gridlocked. Traffic cannot simply "disperse" once it leaves the M5. It will only increase the evident inadequacy of the current road network in the local area and cause rat-running.

I live in a designated local road which now carries pantechnicons as a result of logjam on the main arterial roads. These giant vehicles fell branches on the nature strip trees as they traverse streets which are too small to safely carry their size. They also travel at an unsafe speed to react to local traffic activity such as residents parking and children alighting from parked cars.

Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment,
NSW Department of Planning and Environment,
GPO Box 39, Sydney NSW 2001

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: WestConnex New M5 EIS, project number SSI 14_6788

I object to the WestConnex New M5 for the following reasons:

DESTRUCTION OF BIODIVERSITY
I object to removal of most of the Critically Endangered Cooks River Ironbark forest at Kingsgrove, to the destruction of the habitat of the Vulnerable Green and Golden Bell Frog population at Arncliffe, and to the removal of the trees that provide food for the Vulnerable Grey-headed Flying-fox, which has a camp of substantial size in the Wolli Creek Valley. The construction of a massive new road must not come at the expense of our bushland; our flora and our fauna.

DEGRADATION OF RECREATIONAL GREEN SPACES
I object to the loss of green recreational spaces at Kingsgrove, Bexley North, Kogarah Golf Course at Arncliffe, and at St Peters. As the density of Sydney increases and the associated urban heat island effect intensifies, our green spaces must be increased and enhanced, not decreased and degraded.

TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON LOCAL ROADS
I object to the increased traffic the NewM5 will bring to local roads. When complete, King Georges, Stoney Creek, Canterbury, Forest and Moorefields Rds. will carry increased traffic as motorists avoid the new tolls. These roads, already carrying numerous diesel-fuelled dangerous goods vehicles, will not cope with additional traffic, posing dangers for all using such local roads, in particular school children.

TRAFFIC MODELLING
I object to the failure of the Sydney Motorway Corporation to publicly reveal the peer review of the traffic model and their failure to reveal the assumptions on which it is based so that independent traffic planners can test its results.

URBAN DESIGN
I object to the building of new roads without considering the effects these roads will have on our urban environment. Where will all the new vehicles be parked when they get from the suburbs to the centres? By 2031, the New M5 is predicted to accommodate 81,500 vehicles per day, which will require lots of new carparks to be built on land in our city centres.

AIR QUALITY
I object to the three new unfiltered, emissions stacks proposed for Kingsgrove, Arncliffe and St Peters. These will negatively affect air quality in all surrounding suburbs. This is compounded for the densely populated suburbs of Wolli Creek and Arncliffe, which are already affected by the unfiltered M5 stack at Turrella; they will now also be affected by the new stack on the Kogarah Golf Course at Arncliffe. The planners of the road admit that any new developments proposed after the stacks are built will need to carefully assess where the exhaust pollutants are going because they do not know. More and more of these pollutants are diesel particles which in 2012, were upgraded by the World Health Organisation to the highest cancer warning level because they are particularly dangerous for the lungs of growing children.

POOR ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
I object to the bias of the project objectives towards road infrastructure, and the exclusion of other potential solutions such as demand management or public transport infrastructure. The EIS confirms that the project will have significant societal, environmental and economic impacts and these could be avoided by pursuing other approaches. Sydney's population is forecast to increase but increasing private vehicle usage is not a sustainable solution to support this population growth.

Yours sincerely,

Emma Lane

NOTE: I have not donated more than $1,000 to a political party in the current financial year. I confirm that my name and suburb but not my full address nor email address can be published on the Major Project website where all submissions will publish