I fully oppose the plans for the West Connex development at St Peters because it would destroy the environment and the quality of life of local residents in a high density area. local residents would be forced to endure more noise (in addition to aircraft noise), toxic air pollution, traffic.

In addition to this it destroys the ambience of a much loved Sydney heritage area. Sydney residents are proud and fond of their heritage areas such as Newtown, and people visit the area from all over Sydney. A big road development like West Connex would dwarf the surrounding buildings, makeSydney park undesirable and turn what is a nice area into a car park. Sydney should be nurturing more areas to have a village atmosphere like the inner west as it is better for the environment and culture. No one wants Sydney to become a city of highways and grossly oversized shopping centres that alienate footpath pedestrians....like Ls Angeles!

The government needs to upgrade the Princess Highway but not at this scale. the exit should be in the industrial zones near the airport not next to residential areas.

The government needs to improve public transport so there is less pressure on roads. Light rail, trains and more regular buses are desperately needed.

Finally, the residents of inner western suburbs where their use of cars in minimal should not be punished with more traffic, noise and pollution. Public transport is the answer not highways.

Kind Regards

The release of the M5 EIS is yet another long-winded set of reports that offers no solutions, and does not answer the myriad of concerns that have been posed by the public. While questions ranging from environmental concerns, to traffic concerns, to amenity, to health effects continue to rage, again we are left with no real answers. The festooning of banners across the website and in community consultation forums is given more attention than genuine answers to people's questions. The repeated information of what the Westconnex `will do' has all been heard. The challenges of what it won't do, or the undesirable aspects of the `will do', are, yet again, shrouded in mystery and left for guesswork. Meanwhile, independent investigations that speak of the horrors of the true effects are denied, yet with no evidence to provide a believable alternative. The new M5 submission indeed has many points of concern. I outline them below.


Failure to fulfil its own goal:

Westconnex authorities have consistently stated that the goal of the project is to provide a route from the West to Port Botany and the airport. However the integral route for this to occur is Stage 3 of the project. This remain to date, unplanned and unfunded. It is forecasted that by Westconnex Authorities themselves that Phase 3 must be completed in order to see the benefits of the project.

We are currently standing at an obscene amount of public money for the funding of Westconnex Stages 1 and 2. It is estimated that every kilometre is costing $500 million. With Stage 3 as the key link between Stages 1 and 2, there is serious and valid concern that the Westconnex project will not only fail to meet public demand for transport needs, but fail to meet its own stated objective. As one of the largest infrastructure projects in the country, it is staggering to think that the key part of it remains so dubious, both financially and ideologically. State Government cannot expect that the public will simply `trust' that the Government will be able to complete this direful project, when we have no evidence that the Government itself can even assess its financial viability.


Traffic issues and lack of public transport:

Westconnex remains, in its current form, a project with deeply adverse and far-reaching effects. The claims to benefit people from Western Sydney remain unfounded and based on inaccurate information that claims that such transit is desired in a car, as opposed to increasing and improving the public transport system. The City of Sydney funded and independent SGS Economics and Planning report (2015) has given evidence to demonstrate that around 90% of people from the West and South-West travel to the CBD on public transport. This very clearly shows where demand lies; in public transport. Not roads.

If the State invested its current estimated 16.8 billion dollars into public transport instead of an old-fashioned and unnecessary motorway, Sydney and its wider connections could experience a world class integrated transport system and more. Instead, we are left to debate the merits of a highly expensive, 33 km concrete slab that will fill our city with cars and pollution, and that will funnel traffic into already congested suburbs around the inner city. Increasing Euston Road and Campbell Road to major six-lane highways will funnel an extra 45,000 cars across the inner west roads. It will clog up Sydney Park with car congestion, and strangle surrounding areas of Alexandria, Erskineville, Green Square and Redfern with fumes.

The city will not cope with the increased traffic. It is already in dire need of relief. The only thing that will relieve this situation is a fully integrated public transport system that is easy to use and dependable. This will increase the use of public transport and will take drivers off the road, leaving current roads sufficient for those who need to drive, and for trucks that must go by road. Not only this, but in keeping with the notion of Sydney as an international city, and as the EIS states, the "vision for Sydney as a strong global city and the nation's economic and financial powerhouse...the need to improve access to major employment hubs and global getaways"
(https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/0a1b66c3f633f114865653bc3bbfa48f/New%20M5%20EIS_Vol%201A.pdf p ii), we have no choice but to invest heavily into public transport. Currently, we are investing heavily in Westconnex. Global cities, including New York, London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo and Singapore, have demonstrated that integrated public transport networks are what is needed, through their own investments into public transport. Public transport enables mobility for most, including residents and visitors alike, and enables cities to operate efficiently, and in an environmentally sustainable way. Westconnex is expensive not only to the government, but will be costly to the public who use it. It stands to benefit private vested interests, while our communities and environment choke on the ineffable fumes that this project will create. The new report states of the St Peters public transport, that "six PM peak services are forecast to experience a travel time improvement of approximately 20 percent or better... when compared to a future scenario with no project" (ix).

Leaving aside the independent research which states that traffic will increase, and thus affect public transport adversely as well, the public response has not been to `do nothing', rather, to re-circulate this exorbitant amount of money into public transport. For even half of $16.8 billion dollars injected into public transport directly, we could do a lot better than 20 per cent. Considering the amount of money, these statistics for public transport improvements are trifling. Indeed, considering the amount of money that the project calls for, it would be an embarrassing financial blunder for the Government to persist with this project at all.


St Peters

The government is well aware of the transformation that has taken place from industrial to residential, in and around the St Peters area, including areas such as Alexandria and down to Green Square. Selecting the site of St Peters on the basis that it is "an industrialised area" is inaccurate to its current use, and ignores the current reality of it situation. It offers no real understanding of the transformation of the area, and likewise, of residents' concerns.


Green Square

Whilst Westconnex Delivery Authority advisors insist that the motorway will not act as a route into the heart of the city, the analysis of exits leave no other explanation except for this. We have been given no modelling to show the effects that Westconnex will have on Green Square; a $13 billion project for urban transformation, expected to have a population of 61,000 by 2030. This is one of the largest transformation projects happening in Australia, and yet with the Westconnex looming up the side of it, there is no information about the impacts it will have.

This area of significant investment that will be entombed by the motorway is in dire need of public transport. The system is already overburdened and the streets beating with daily traffic. With the huge injection of people into the area, the motorway will compromise the liveability around Green Square. This lack of foresight is appalling and shows a completely incompetent style of governance.


Sydney Park

In recognising the increasingly dense living area around the city south, the City of Sydney Council committed to the remediation of over 40 hectares of grassland, known as Sydney Park. The community's response has been highly praising, earning 4.5 out of 5 stars on TripAdvisor (https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Attraction_Review-g1165139-d2226311-Reviews-Sydney_Park-St_Peters_New_South_Wales.html#REVIEWS). This space is a welcome addition to the highly urbanised space that surrounds it, and so has been revered by the community. The concrete slabs of Westconnex encroaching onto the Park will be repugnant, and now the Westconnex project is demanding more land. The loss of 350 trees to facilitate the spaghetti junction of St Peters demonstrates how out of touch the government is with communities.

The recent removal of the Alison Road fig trees, opposed by the local council, has sparked great levels of community outrage. These aesthetically rich, strong, old and canopy-providing trees were forfeited for the interests of the Australian Turf Club. Now, again, the government is prioritising private and vested interests at the expense of communities and the environment. This affirms that community consultation is not in State Government's interest, and merely a tokenistic attempt to push forward with their own agenda, no matter the consequences.

Sydney Park has not only preserved historical landmarks and integrated them artistically into the natural landscape, it has also won a Green Flag award; an international award recognising its accomplishment. It is publicly revered, and the interference of it by a publically loathed project such as the Westconnex is bound to only further aggravate an already irked community. It again shows that State Government will willingly trump the efforts of local council in their efforts for sustainability, in the interest of privatised interests, whilst polluting public lands. This is a shameful and reprehensible act. This monstrous motorway must never be favoured over our environment, particularly on this scale. Further, while there are promises for offsets, and to return the land that is ripping through trees and upsetting the newly formed bicycle path, there will be great loss. Once used and spat back out by the Westconnex project, any returned land will be practically unusable, due to downgraded air quality, safety concerns, and noise levels from nearby cars and trucks.


King Street

The impacts of the St Peters interchange and its associated pavements will have an i

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).

I object to the proposed WestConnex new M5 motorway. It is not a solution to Sydney's transport problems. It will induce more cars onto our roads and create local traffic jams and more traffic pollution. This pollution will greatly increase toxic ultrafine particulate matter into the Greater Sydney Metropolitan air shed.

Community consultation during the exhibition period of the M5 EIS has been a sham and insult. Nothing but a PR tick and flick exercise. The employment of contract/casual workers at so called information booths and sessions was a disgrace. The NSW Department of Planning should demand better standards, and actually monitor the quality of information and engagement being delivered and served up as community consultation. All too often, at `information kiosks', these contract workers barely knew local streets or any real detail about this project (other than PR spin), a most frustrating experience for all, - but worse, a perversion of proper community engagement and planning in NSW. I hope that the Planning Department will provide advice to the Minister so that in the future there is substance - not just an appearance of community consultation during future EIS exhibitions. I request that the Department of Planning not now accept the M5 proponents version of what has been delivered to the community. But actually listen to community feed back and challenge the spin of the proponent's communication team. I believe that the EIS process for the M5 was so flawed it should not stand as having been delivered and should be re- started.

I also object to the fact that the NSW government is attempting to avoid scrutiny by transferring responsibility for this project from a government body, the WestConnex Delivery Authority, to a privately run government company - being the Sydney Motorway Corporation. The Sydney Motorway Corporation is not a public body. It is appalling that public money is being used by a private company that does not have to publish contracts or provide full information to the people of NSW, - prior to building such massive road infrastructure. I object that a "public company" has been set up to deliver a road project that will not deliver on it's promise to solve Sydney's transport problems.

The fact that the NSW Government has already signed multi-billion dollar contracts for WestConnex before the M5 EIS was placed on public exhibition totally destroys my confidence that this is a genuine EIS consultation process, or that the planning system in NSW has not been thoroughly corrupted by special interest groups.

I object to the fact that accountability for contracts already signed is avoided, by "commercial in confidence" rhetoric. It is only right that contracts entered into by the NSW government, on behalf of the public be gazetted and terms and conditions disclosed so that the public understand what agreements have been entered into in our name.

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

Catherine Welch, 39 Suttor St, Alexandria 2015, [email protected]
I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the New M5 proposal. The EIS shows how flawed and distastrous a project this will be for my local community, for Sydney and for NSW, which will be paying for it for many years to come. I object to the proposal as a resident of an affected community, as a taxpayer of the state, and as a citizen of a democracy who is entitled to a greater opportunity to meaningful consultation and to transparency in decision-making.
I object to a project which does not provide sufficient benefits, and which exacts immense costs, even according to the numbers manufactured for the EIS. These costs are:
- Increased congestion in an area already affected by gridlock, leading to rat runs in local streets - as well as cancelling any of the time savings claimed for the project. According to the number in the EIS, Euston Rd will have to carry more traffic per day than the new M5 itself.
- Sydney Park will no longer be the green `lung' and haven for thousands of people in a high-density area (and that will only become higher density over time), with few public spaces. Instead, it will be trimmed, and hemmed in by polluting roads on all sides. The location of the new public space - right next to a massive flyover - means it is no compensation for this loss.
- The scope of the traffic study does not consider full impact on my suburb - the only answer that SMC has been able to give us (via the City of Sydney) is that beyond Maddox St, the traffic will `disperse'. This is clearly inadequate - in fact, it is laughable.
- Alexandria businesses are not included in economic impact statement - King St and Enmore Rd are not the only affected retail businesses
- The pollution levels to which Alexandria residents are currently exposed are already above national guidelines, and the EIS shows this will worsen.
- There are serious omissions/contradictions in the EIS relating to Alexandria traffic - diagrams don't match the text in relation to crucial intersections. Ashmore, Green Square, C2Eveleigh, Waterloo and ATP need to be explicitly addressed but are not. To take Mitchell Rd as an example: it will have the expanded ATP at one end (the north) and the large-scale Ashmore development at the other (south) end - and this is before factoring in the additional traffic coming off the new M5 and streaming on to Sydney Park Rd. There is no evidence in the EIS that these additional developments have been modelled and their impact assessed.
- There is insufficient consideration of alternatives to this project that would not have such a deleterious impact on the local area - and that would alleviate current congestion rather than adding to it.
- The social impact study shows that this project violates the vision that City of Sydney residents have for their city. There is no consideration of this, yet it is clear from the EIS itself that the project does not meet community standards and aspirations
The standard of the EIS is so poor that we cannot effectively judge the full impact of the project on our local area.
However, what we can judge is that the EIS makes it clear that the current project will create traffic levels that are unmanageable. I enclose an email we received from SMC explaining why 2031 figures for the project have been omitted from the EIS (a very serious omission) (email from Louise Bonny, dated 13 January 2016):

[start of quote] '> As described in section 10.3.2.1 of Appendix G, for the "2031 'with project' scenario" there is a significant increase in local trip generation and in the traffic demand to and from the WestConnex portal at St Peters. This increase would need to be accommodated by the surrounding road network without any increase in road space (i.e. without the future proposed WestConnex M4-M5 Link, Sydney Gateway and Southern extension projects).

> As noted in Section 10.3.2.1 (page 252), Paramics modelling suggests that only about 80 per cent of the traffic demand in the 2031 'with project' scenario could be accommodated by the existing road network. Modelling a scenario that can only accommodate 80 per cent of the demand results in outputs that are confusing as the model does not function properly and presents results that can be misleading.

> As noted in Section 10.3.2.1, in the absence of the development of the full WestConnex program of works, Sydney Gateway and the Southern extension, additional network upgrades would be required to accommodate the 2031 'with project' traffic demand in the St Peters interchange area.

> It is further noted that by 2031 without the project, the intersection Level of Service in the pm peak is expected to be very poor (table 100).
>
> Although there is a significant increase in traffic demand in the 2031 'full WestConnex and Southern extension' scenario, the construction of the additional road network components proposed as part of the WestConnex M4-M5 Link, Sydney Gateway and Southern extension projects provide the additional road space and increases the ability to distribute and accommodate the predicted increase in traffic.' [end quote]

In other words, the effect of the project on local roads is so bad that it actually means the project will fail to meet its objectives due to the increased congestion that it will cause.

I also strongly object to the breach of process that has occurred as part of the EIS `consultation' period. In particular:
- Lack of independence: given that previous Sydney tollways have failed to reach the targeted benefits, and given that the consultant (AECOM) has been found to have used flawed methodologies in the past) there is particular onus on this one for the projected benefits to be subjected to independent scrutiny. This has not occurred and it means that there has been no opportunity for independent experts to assess AECOM's methodology.
- Timing: the release of the EIS over the summer holidays is a move that is cynical in the extreme. It means that only now is my local community of Alexandria starting to become aware of the issues surrounding the project. Some affected parts of the community - particularly Alexandria Park Community School, which is explicitly mentioned in the EIS as one of affected the affected schools - have not been able to comment, given that the consultation period coincided with school holidays. It also meant that we did not receive answers from SMC in a timely manner, making it more difficult to prepare a submission. (We still have numerously unanswered queries awaiting a response.)
- Short time period for comment: I was part of a small group who went through the EIS to try to understand what the effects would be on Alexandria. We have been unable to properly read and absorb the information in all the volumes in the time we have been given. Given the complexity of the project and the size of the EIS, there has been no way that local communities can have been meaningfully consulted.

I demand a response to this submission and a point-by-point reply to the concerns raised. I am still awaiting any acknowledgement of my submission regarding the M4 EIS: another breach of process.

Yours sincerely
Catherine Welch

From my review, the research and evidence do not provide a case for this work to go ahead. There is insufficient evidence of any potential benefit to the congestion levels and current difficulty of entering and leaving metro sydney areas. However, the harmful impacts are abundantly clear. This will negatively affect the natural environment (in particular Sydney park which is an invaluable asset to the city), economy of the area, and quality of life for local residents, without providing benefits to commuters. The congestion will simply be moved, not improved. Further thought needs to be given to public transport which is accessible (location and quantity of depots) and affordable and as easy as possible to use (provision of parking, speed of service etc). This would be the only positive way forward for Sydney.

I do support the WestConnex IF it includes the M5 East Green Link:

Provide a high-quality, low stress, and largely off-road "veloway" connecting south-western Sydney and the CBD, via the airport;
Introduce cycling as a viable transport alternative for Sydney Airport's 29,000 staff, a large proportion of whom are shift workers that have no meaningful transport choice when ending shifts;
Activate the economic return on cycling ($1.43 economic benefit per km ridden);
Allow people to ride and walk safely, wholly away from the road system;
Create road capacity and better Level of Service at intersections for vehicles (fewer people crossing intersections);
Improved safety outcomes for all road, and in particular, vulnerable road users;
Further insulate the Wolli Creek Valley against intrusion by traffic and development by increasing public awareness, use and care of the valley park;
Offset the traffic, social and pollution impacts of the WestConnex project;
Link with the existing M5 Cycleway;
Cater for demand from the housing and commercial developments at Wolli Ck Station precinct.

Personally I think we should be looking at increasing cycling and walking infrastructure to directly combat congestion, obesity, fossil fuel usage and in general the happiness of those willing to make a difference.

From my review, the research and evidence do not provide a case for this work to go ahead. There is insufficient evidence of any potential benefit to the congestion levels and current difficulty of entering and leaving metro sydney areas. However, the harmful impacts are abundantly clear. This will negatively affect the natural environment (in particular Sydney park which is an invaluable asset to the city), economy of the area, and quality of life for local residents, without providing benefits to commuters. The congestion will simply be moved, not improved. Further thought needs to be given to public transport which is accessible (location and quantity of depots) and affordable and as easy as possible to use (provision of parking, speed of service etc). This would be the only positive way forward for Sydney. If this development goes ahead, I would consider moving away from the area.

To whom it may concern,

Instead of spending billions of dollars on an insane project that no one wants or needs and which will simultaneously increase congestion and pollution whilst destroying parkland and devaluing properties, maybe just... don't? And hey, if you're insistent on spending all of our taxes on things, our public transport system isn't exactly perfect. Maybe have a look at that instead? I for one do like it when my tax dollars go towards things that are actually useful. Imagine that.

Go on, do something good for the community. Who knows, you may even find you actually enjoy not being awful. It's at least worth trying, just once, don't you think?

cheers

Tully Mansfield

I think this is a fantastic way to help people commute safely.
I'd love to see a high-quality cycling and walking link connecting Bexley North Train station to Sydney Airport to be funded and delivered as part of the Westconnex project aswell.

I oppose the WestConnex project and call for the M5 East Green Link high-quality cycling and walking link connecting Bexley North Train station to Sydney Airport instead.

The M5 East green link will provide a high-quality, low stress, and largely off-road cycleway connecting south-western Sydney and the CBD, via the airport. Not everybody wants to drive everywhere and good cycling and walking infrastructure should be delivered.