I am a concerned resident of Newtown with a young family. This development will affect the heath of our neighborhood with increased traffic congestion, worsening air quality plus it will affect local business. Please look at public transport options, or providing parking stations on the outer limits of the city so people can park their vehicles then connect to trains or tramway systems. Please explore other options even if just considering the health of our children and future generations.

To the Director, Major Planning Assessments, Department of Planning
I write to express my strong objection to the WestConnex New M5 motorway proposal.
As a resident of EDGEWARE ROAD ENMORE, I object to this proposal because:
1) the New M5 EIS does not adequately address the Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirement Section 115Y of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in relation to application SSI 6788 that the EIS make:
- an assessment and modelling of operational traffic and transport impacts on the local and regional road network (in consultation with affected councils), ... and the impacts of potential shifts of traffic movements to alternative routes outside the proposal area (including as a result of tolls);
- or adequately addresses the impacts on property and business access and on street parking provision, including permanent and temporary (construction) changes to access and parking, and traffic management measures such as clearways on EDGEWARE Road and surrounding roads

2) In my efforts to find out what the impact of the St Peter's interchange will have on Edgeware Road, I attended the various information sessions held in St Peters, as well as the information evening at the Enmore Theatre. I have read the Marrickville Council notes regarding meetings with the then WestConnex Authority. I have contacted the WestConnex information line. Through out that process I was assured that the RMS traffic modeling indicated that there would be no change to the current level of traffic and because of this Edgeware Road will be unaffected. Reading through the New M5 EIS_Vol 2B_App G_Traffic and Transport it is clear that everyone I spoke to knew and understood that the impact on Edgeware Road and the surrounding local roads would be severe.

3) The impact on EDGEWARE Road is only briefly referred to in the AECOM traffic modeling which indicates that the and PM peak traffic volume percentages will INCREASE by significant percentages up to 26% with the completion of Stages 2 and 3 of WestConnex.
Any comprehensive traffic modelling and assessment of the impact on the local road network must properly and seriously address the traffic volumes on Edgeware Road and surrounding local roads in both directions at all times (particularly in the AM and PM peak periods) which are already at saturation levels. Rather than indicating that the traffic volumes will rise, any comprehensive assessment would conclude that this road particularly and other local roads in the environs cannot accommodate any increase in traffic volumes at all.

4) The proposed traffic changes to Campbell Street, and to Bedwin, May and Unwins Bridge Road Intersections with the construction of the St. Peters Interchange are designed to direct the flow of traffic from the Interchange to Edgeware Road and environs. This will mean that this whole area will be gridlocked right up to the Enmore Road intersection. This situation will not improve even with the unfunded M4-M5 link and the EIS makes that point clearly that the traffic volumes will increase on Edgeware Road and surrounding streets right up to 2032 and to the proposed finalization of the M4 m5 tunnel. This is completely unacceptable.

5) It seems inevitable that EDGEWARE road will be to be turned into a clearway to attempt to mitigate the impact of funneling this amount of increased traffic volume into the existing 2 lanes of traffic.
This is completely unacceptable. This is a residential street which cannot be turned into a clearway without significant loss of amenity for all residents. The EIS has a requirement to adequately address the severe economic, social, health and environment impacts of the proposal on all the residents of Edgeware road and surrounding local roads including the scenario of implementing clearway restrictions on this road.

6) Clearway restrictions on Edgeware Road will not solve the increased congestion issues as there are traffic lights at Alice St and Enmore Road and the traffic would back up right down to the Princes Highway and then onto the proposed St. Peters Interchange regularly. This is a completely unacceptable scenario.

7) The EIS also states that the expansion of the Marrickville Metro Shopping Centre will likely increase traffic volumes in the area, but claims that the major approach routes to the centre are not ones that will not be part of the WestConnex construction routes and that traffic volumes will be satisfactory if the Metro makes significant changes to key intersections in the area. This is unacceptable and an incorrect assessment of the severe impact that any additional traffic volumes will have on the whole area.
The EIS does not include Edgeware Road as one of the listed major approach routes to the Metro which it is. Any comprehensive traffic modelling would indicate that Edgeware Road is a continuous major approach route to the Marrickville Metro.

In addition I object to the New M5 EIS and WestConnex because:

8) The New M5 will have similar devastating impacts on local traffic and residential suburbs throughout all affected local communities and destroy local amenity along the route.

9) The New M5 will be a massive contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, while destroying important habitat and greenspace.
10) WestConnex and the New M5 is financially unviable and will take funds away from major public transport infrastructure and will not solve Sydney's traffic congestion.
11) The WestConnex project including the New M5 lacks transparency and accountability and the new Sydney Motorway Corporation will not be accountable to NSW taxpayers.
12) The WestConnex project comes with no proper and extensive evaluation of alternative options such as world class public transport which was also required by the SEARs.
13) The WestConnex project and the SMC do not have any social license to continue with this project without an NSW Upper House enquiry and a federal Auditor General's review due to the numerous irregularities in the planning and EIS processes.

As a local resident and taxpayer who will be severely impacted by the proposed New M5 and St. Peters Interchange, I ask that my objections are properly considered and that the Department of Planning publish my submission clearly on its website and reply directly to my submission. I agree to having my name published on your website. I have not given more than $1000 in donations to any political party.

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.

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 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.



I agree that I have not donated more than $1000 to any political party, elected member, group or candidate within this financial year.

I agree to the NSW Planning Department publishing my submission on their website, including any personal details it contains.

I do not agree with too many tunnel under our houses. it can cause the problem with the house structure in the future. Relocate the tunnel and the interchange would be better than demolishing the houses. with that much money you can build affordable housing around Tempe,St Peters,Sydenham area or marrickville.

I am opposed to the West Connex for the following reasons;

Increased traffic flow into the centre which already plagued by traffic jams.
Destruction of green space and trees
A waste of resources which could be far better directed towards public transport.

I am originally from UK and have witnessed what has happened with the construction of the M25 around London which greatly increased traffic so much so that it quickly ran out of capacity. Major expansion of the ring road has been undertaken which has only increased the problem. It is now popularly known as the world's largest car park.

At least in the case of the M25 there was an attempt to divert traffic around the centre, the West Connex actually is designed to facilitate traffic access to the centre.

There seems to be little understanding by people who promote this type of infrastructure that traffic will fill what ever space is made available to it. The object should be to create disincentives for car journeys to the centre and at the same time providing viable alternatives.

Name Mr Geoff Hegarty
Full address 60 Edward Street, Darlington, NSW, 2008

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.

I have not made a reportable political donation.

I object to the damage that will be done to Sydney Park by the WestConnex interchange, the unfiltered smokestacks, the air and noise pollution, and the removal of mature trees. Sydney Park is a crucial amenity for the increasing number of residents in this area. It is our source of peace, quiet, contact with nature and serenity. It cannot but be seriously compromised by the WestConnex interchange.

I object to the vastly increased amounts of traffic that will be funnelled along Euston Road, McEvoy Street and King Street Newtown. These roads are already clogged - they simply CANNOT carry the amount of traffic that will be required of them, nor can the surrounding suburban streets.

This project will create huge noise, pollution and traffic issue to an already struggling area, with the massive increase to the traffic, increased lights and less footpaths clearly shows the lack of foresight and given that Bourke road (which was the initial recommendation) is more commercial and would dramatically reduce the effects of noise, pollution, difficulty in navigating to building entrances along with the additional danger to pedestrians, bicyclist and public with the increase of vehicles.

This environmental vandalism must not proceed. It is a complete waste of the historical homes and trees being destroyed for no benefit to the community. The only benefit is to the government officials who either received money or the toll companies who will continue to charge for this concrete car park. It is a complete waste of public funds when every civilised country is moving away from public roads to public transport. Put the $17b towards fixing and supplying necessary public transport.

The Cooks River Valley Association (CRVA) has as its objectives - restoring Cooks River to health
- connecting and enhancing the community of the Cooks River Valley

The CRVA opposes the Westconnex project including the M5 extension as we feel that the community and the environment is best served by increasing public transport options and not by more motorways.

The CRVA objects to the destruction of endangered flora and fauna involved in the M5 extension which will involve the removal of most of the critically endangered Cooks River Iron Bark forest at Kingsgrove and the removal of seven hectares of habitat of the endangered Green and Golden Bell frogs.