Dear Sir,

Re : DP & E Project Number: SSI 14_6788 WestConnex New M5

I make this submission in response to the Westconnex M5 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). I strongly object to the project and the whole WestConnex for all the reasons listed below.

My major concern has always been that any increase in traffic movements on King St as a result of Westconnex will mean 24 hour clearways. This leads to a decrease in available parking spaces, decreased safety for pedestrians and health issues due to pollution at a bare minimum.

I understand that in the EIS, and Minister Gay himself state the commitment to `No changes to clearways or parking on King St'. This specific statement is quoted in Appendix 1A section 15_48 as well as many similar comments in other locations of the EIS;

'King Street and Enmore Road business precinct contains numerous businesses, including retail, services, restaurants and cafes. The project does not propose to modify King Street, including speed limits or on-street parking arrangements along King Street.

In future years, traffic modelling indicates that King Street is expected in most cases to experience reduced peak hour volumes under the 2021 `with project' scenario and 2031 cumulative scenario when compared to the without project scenario (refer to Technical Working Paper: Traffic and transport (Appendix G).

The exception to this would occur in the 2031 cumulative case, where AM peak hour volumes southbound would increase by around 35 per cent when compared to the `without project' scenario. However, this is in the opposing direction to the dominant AM peak hour and is within the design carrying capacity of the road. As there would not be any significant changes to traffic volumes or no modifications to King Street are proposed as part of this project, the project would not have a significant impact on businesses or amenity along King Street.'

The highlighted statement above, and the guarantees contained in multiple sections of the EIS, provide a condition that there will be no changes to clearway or parking restrictions on King St based on the traffic modeling contained in the EIS. This modelling indicates that there will be no significant changes to traffic volumes.

Further to this, while changes may not be proposed as part of the Westconnex project, King St is managed by RMS, who have the ability to change traffic conditions independent to other projects. Oxford St and Parramatta road are recent examples of this.

My major point of concern with this project is here. This EIS states that there will be no changes to King St clearways because the traffic modelling indicates there will be no reason to change them. It is our belief, supported by further documentation, that the traffic modelling is incorrect and incomplete, which will force RMS to change the clearway restrictions on King St and kill our business community.

There are over 30+ intersections that will be affected as a result of the forecast high level of delay and poor level of service as stated on page 181, Section 7.5.8.2 of appendix G. The analysis that is missing from this EIS is the impact on surrounding roads and intersections as a result of these anticipated high levels of delay and poor levels of service.

In other words, these intersections will experience high levels of delay particularly in AM and PM peak hour traffic which will force vehicles on these roads to find alternate routes. These alternate routes being the 30+ intersections in and around our precinct. The major roads this will impact are King St, Edgeware Road and Enmore Road.

This point specifically relates to my major concern that there will be increased traffic movements on King St and subsequent clearway restrictions being lifted to potentially 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Further to this is the subsequent increase in vehicle movements in other major precinct roads such as Edgeware, Enmore, Sydney, Mitchell and Euston Roads.

AECOM have a history of incorrect, flawed and misleading traffic modelling. The effects of which are not fully comprehensible until many years later. Considering that AECOM are providing the traffic modelling for this EIS, I do not accept the modelling found in this EIS to be accurate or an accurate representation of the traffic movements in and around my business in the next 30 years of this project.

AECOM has just settled one of the largest court cases related to misleading and deceptive conduct in Australian corporate history, this supports our belief that traffic modelling in the EIS is incorrect and with independent traffic modelling reports showing increases in traffic movements, where AECOM show decreases, I do not accept that AECOM can provide accurate information from which the state government can make an accurate judgement. Nor can NSW Planning and Development make an accurate, informed and objective assessment of this EIS.

This also further supports my belief that traffic in and around my business will increase, providing the necessity to change current clearway restrictions and instigate new clearways on roads such as Edgeware and Enmore Roads and King St.

Given the far reaching impact of this project, the immense expense for the Westconnex Project and the subsequent RMS road projects such as the King St Gateway,I cannot in my right mind allow the plan for the new M5 to be approved based on an EIS and traffic modelling performed by a company that by its own admission will not develop any further traffic modelling studies because of its own incompetence, a $280million compensation payout and providing the information by which a state government toll road went broke.

The project as proposed in this EIS does not deliver the broader objectives of Westconnex as stated in the updated strategic business case (November 2015)
o Primarily - `Relieve road congestion to improve the speed, reliability and safety of travel on the M4, M5 and CBD/airport/port corridors, including parallel arterial roads' & `Support Sydney's long-term economic growth through improved motorway access and connections linking Sydney's international gateways, western Sydney and key places of business across the city' - page 114, Updated Strategic Business Case
o This project fails to connect western Sydney, the CBD, the airports or the ports

This EIS refers continually to implementation of the entire Westconnex project, but contains no detailed information about Stage 3 and therefore the costs, health, traffic modeling, and social and economic impacts if (1) it is indeed financed and built and (2) if it is not built.

The Minister has continually indicated that the entire Westconnex project simply does not make sense unless Stage 3 is built. But this EIS operates on the assumption this as yet unfinanced stage will be built.

The EIS refers to benefits `if a future Sydney Gateway project proceeds'. No details have been provided in the EIS as to what this is, let alone what the costs, health, traffic modeling, and social and economic impacts on local communities may be

The EIS provides no hard evidence about why alternatives won't work; there should be modelling of impact of traffic management along with increased public transport

Cost analysis provided by Sydney Motorway Authority does not include the subsequent cost of RMS road projects such as the King St Gateway which will add further cost to project and significantly influence the financial viability of the entire project

I Object to the the use of an air quality model in this EIS that hasn't been used in Australia before, and which cannot be verified by the NSW EPA. There will be an increase in dangerous pollution in some areas close to the tollway portals, including near schools. I remind the Minister and Planning NSW:
THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF EXPOSURE TO POLLUTANTS.

It is not clear whether proposed increases in population in the Inner Sydney have been taken into account in traffic congestion predictions eg; Green Square

I ask that you publish my name and my company on whose behalf I make this submission in accordance with the undertaking on your website, and provide a written response to each of the objections I have raised.

"New M5 Environmental Impact Statement Technical Working Paper: Noise and Vibration Nov 2015 Appendix J Section 3.4 paragraph 5 Ambient noise monitoring page number 34 Sentence: The LAeq is the energy averaged noise level over a defined period. my comment The energy averaged noise level (LAeq) is effected by random loud noise events which increase the average value.

Question: Were random loud noise level values, which can be unrepresentative of 'daily life', not removed from the LAeq value during its evaluation? If so what would the new LAeq value be should these unrepresentative events be removed from the data set? What % change in the LAeq value would result from the removal of random loud noise values?"

I strongly object to the Westconnex project in its entirety and the duplication of the M5 East roadway. I do this because I have travelled sufficiently overseas to see how a well considered, integrated transport system, including, road and rail, adds value to a city, makes it more liveable. Sydney's congestion is crippling our city and I am not convinced that providing more capacity for vehicles will do anything but induce more traffic. Once we have more traffic travelling underground, combined with an increase in traffic on our surface roads, we double the pollutant load in our local airsheds. It beggars belief that multi billions of dollars can be transferred from the public coffers to the road-building companies for projects that have so few benefits to Sydney. I strongly object to this entire project proceeding without better oversight.

I'm worried that other components of WestConnex will either make the New M5 redundant or at least not represent good value for money. I'm also concerned that the EIS has not addressed this matter.

There are two main components of WestConnex will reduce demand for the M5 East corridor.

i) Stage 1 + 3 tunnels
Stages 1 + 3 provide an alternative east-west route through inner Sydney, reducing demand for the M5 East corridor. For example a truck travelling from Auburn to Port Botany will choose to use the Stage 1 + 3 tunnels instead of using King Georges Road and the M5 East. As a result the Stage 1 + 3 tunnels can be seen to be competing with the M5 East corridor for traffic. The extent to which this improves traffic in the M5 East has not been discussed in the EIS.

ii) M5 East toll
There is plenty of evidence from other projects in Sydney that introducing the toll on the M5 East will substantially reduce demand for the M5 East tunnel. The extent to which this improves traffic in the M5 East has also not been discussed in the EIS.

Any benefits of the New M5 stated in the EIS need to factor in both of these issues.

To demonstrate the benefits of building the New M5 tunnel the EIS needs to show what the outcomes would be if WestConnex is built without the New M5 tunnel. My concern is that the benefits to building the New M5 tunnel have been inflated by failing to demonstrate these alternate outcomes.

Dear Sir,

Re : DP & E Project Number: SSI 14_6788 WestConnex New M5

I make this submission in response to the Westconnex M5 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). I strongly object to the project and the whole WestConnex for all the reasons listed below.

* Local road upgrades just outside the project footprint included in this EIS are excluded totally from this EIS as regards costs, health, traffic modeling, and social and economic impacts. The 7 lane Euston Road between Sydney Park Road and Maddox Street narrowing to 4 lanes can mean only further forced property acquisitions along Euston / McEvoy to increase the road capacity and/or imposition of 24 hour clearways. The same situation arises for local roads coming off the St Peters Interchange such as Campbell Street 7 lanes into Unwins Bridge 4 lanes into Edgeware Road 2 lanes with current parking.
* This EIS refers continually to implementation of the entire Westconnex project, but contains no detailed information about Stage 3 and therefore the costs, health, traffic modeling, and social and economic impacts if (1) it is indeed financed and built and (2) if it is not built.
* The Minister has continually indicated that the entire Westconnex project simply does not make sense unless Stage 3 is built. But this EIS operates on the assumption this as yet unfinanced stage will be built. Why are these `non-construction of Stage 3' impacts not explored in full in this decision making process for Stage 2 ?
* The EIS refers to benefits `if a future Sydney Gateway project proceeds'. No details have been provided in the EIS as to what this even is, let alone what the costs, health, traffic modeling, and social and economic impacts on local communities may be?
* Westconnex has stated in community meetings that detailed traffic modeling has been done for various intersections (Sydney Park Road / Euston ; Sydney Park Road / Huntley; Euston / Maddox; Sydney Park Road / Mitchell Road) but these have not been published in the EIS. This means the impacts on Erskinville, Alexandria and Newtown cannot be analysed in this EIS.
* No details have been released on the route of the M4/M5 and how it will affect suburbs - e.g there is no information about where mid point tunnelling would take place.
* The EIS relies for its justification of Westconnex M5 on endlessly building tollways, leaving much of Sydney with a grim future of car dependency
* Alexandria, Enmore, Newtown and other suburbs will suffer deteriorating air quality due to traffic congestion exposing residents to lung cancer and children to impaired lung development
* The EIS ignores the social and pychological impact of devastating the suburb of St Peters
* Westconnex M4 and M5 will remove 40 hectares of vegetation which cools suburbs and reduce our carbon footprint
* Residents affected by compulsory acquisitions being offered below-market prices for their homes and businesses, and the distress and trauma this has caused.
* The impact of hundreds of diesel trucks, dust and noise on communities including during years of construction. The cumulative impact of these should be added to the same problem with the M4 East.
* Westconnex M5 will pour traffic onto the Inner West local road network, adding to already costly and unhealthy traffic congestion.
* The inadequate analysis of the threat posed to the endangered Green and Golden Bell Frogs at Arncliffe, which even Westconnex admits may not survive the M5's construction and operation.
* The EIS provides no hard evidence about why alternatives won't work; there should be modelling of impact of traffic management along with increased pubic transport
* The EIS ignores publicly available scientific evidence of breeding events of Green and Golden Bell Frogs on Kogarah Golf Course in order justify risking one of two surviving colonies of these frogs in Sydney.
* No noise modelling has been done for how residents living above two stories will be affected
* Billions of dollars of construction contracts have been let before this EIS was lodged.
* I object to the use of an air quality model that hasn't been used in Australia before and which cannot be verified by the NSW EPA. There will be an increase in dangerous pollution in some areas close to the tollway portals, including near schools. It `s not acceptable for a government to deliberately place the health of citizens in jeopardy. I note that fine particle pollution can cause lung cancer and is particularly dangerous for the lungs of growing children.
* The EIS relies for its justification of its tollway on an Airport connection and Souhern tollways for which there is no details or design available.
* Westconnex will unfairly load Western suburbs residents up with tolls without enhancing public transport possibilities.
* The suggestion that tunneling activities would need to be conducted 24 hours per day, seven days a week, including associated activities such as spoil handling and haulage is not justified, This will place great pressure on significant numbers of nearby residents throughout day and night-time periods.
* Tunnelling would cause vibration and damage to homes. The EIS says it will only be for a short period but does not say what a short period is.
* The EIS repeatedly says that threats to the liveable environment of residents during construction and operation would be subject to plans developed later. These plans should be available in the EIS.
* AECOM's analysis of 'alternatives' provides no solid evidence. A combination of demand management of traffic and new public transport projects, especially for the western Sydney should have been explored.
* Unfiltered ventilation stacks should not be used when safer filtered stacks are being used in other parts of the world. I am particularly concerned about residents on hills and in high buildings in Kingsgrove. St Peters, Arncliffe and Alexandria.
* 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).
* Tollways are not a solution. The average daily travel time in Sydney has been stable at about 80 minutes per person for decades, while the average trip distance has increased substantially. In this time, billions have been spent on tollways. Travellers are spending more than ever on tolls, yet are not spending any less time travelling.
* The project will cause immense social harm. It will destroy long-established communities. It will cause an increase in air pollution-related deaths and illnesses. The increase in air pollution will further inhibit lung and nervous system development in children.
* Tunnelling would expose residents to property damage and in some cases would occur only 20 metres below the house. This is not acceptable.
* There are numerous ways of spending $17 billion that would deliver a much greater social and economic benefit, and would not cause so much destruction.
* 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.
* There is no independent assessment of traffic modelling. The Sydney Motorway Corporation claims its model has been peer reviewed but refuses to publish the review or the assumptions on which it is based; independent traffic planners cannot test its results.
* Westconnex will not release its full assumptions on which it is based so that Councils and independent experts can test its predictions.
* There has been no genuine consultation with the community.
* The New M5 will dump over 100,000 cars and trucks,many of which will end up on local streets into Newtown, Erskineville, Alexandria and Enmore. This is not by accident - it is intentional.
* 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.
* Westconnex has failed to consult with businesses in King St Newtown and other parts of the Inner West. These businesses are part of a thriving economy and street life that would be destroyed by increased traffic and imposition of inevitable clearways.
* Westconnex has consistently underestimated the traffic that will be induced but its tollway projects; when these projects failed Sydney will be left with traffic pollution
* Thousands of diesel trucks will carry spoil at all times, including peak times, leading to great disruption of local and regional road networks.
* It is not clear whether massive proposed i

I oppose the WestConnex project. It does not support the sustainable, accessible, healthy, liveable city we want Sydney to be.

It should be turned into the M5 East Green Link (a high-quality cycling and walking link connecting Bexley North Train station to Sydney Airport)

The NSW Government's long term goals in health and transport are to increase healthy mobility options such as public transport, light rail and cycling. This is a terrible project, poorly executed and will cause all sorts of issues. Traffic will be dumped into the city, bottlenecking with nowhere to go.

Sydney does not want this infrastructure project.

I am so distressed about this happening. I planted the trees in Simpson Park, at the end of Florence St, St Peters, with my class at St Peters' Public School when I was 7 years old. I'm now almost eighty. Losing these trees, which have taken a lifetime to grow, and which I have grown up with, would be destroying a piece of St Peters' heritage. No road is worth future generations losing these beautiful trees.

THE EIS IS EXTREMELY BIASED FAVOURING ALL ASPECTS OF THE WESTCONNEX WHILST IT DOWNPLAYS BRUSHES OVER THE IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED
Given even a fleeting inspection of the social and economic impacts listed in the EIS report (under "Appendix M: Technical working paper: Social and economic"), it is clear that the significant economic and social impacts that will arise from the New M5 project are only superficially covered.

The report exaggerates the potential positive aspects of the project, while the negative aspects are either downplayed, insufficiently detailed or omitted altogether. Where negative economic or social impacts are identified in the report, they are inadequately addressed in terms of management or mitigation actions to be taken. Whereas the previous M4 - East EIS report included separate (yet still insufficiently detailed and inaccurate) Social Impact Assessments and Economic Impact Assessments, this report claims to deal with all social and economic impacts of the project in a single, 76 page report. The following is a brief critique of some of the major social and economic assessment flaws of the New M5 EIS.
I strongly object to the westconnex

I strongly oppose the WestConnex at St Peters. The streets around here are already congested with cars as it is mixed residential (at high density) and industrial and it is just as busy on weekends if not worse.
We also have to contend with aircraft noise.
There is good public transport in Sydney and the money is better spent on improving public transport or other projects entirely such as housing and mental health services urgently required.
Sydney Park has just been finished after works taking over 2 years so it would be very disappointing to see it become part of a construction site again or loss of green area for public use (that rate payers pay for). Sydney Park is a beautiful area and it would be devastating to see a motorway built alongside it.
We do not need more toll roads - just better public transport which encourages more use. Better public transport means more jobs, more buses and trains, making it safer and more accessible also for disadvantaged commuters.

Dear Sir / Madam


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.