Toll road projects such as WestConnex are not a viable solution to Sydney's traffic congestion. The project will devastate the surrounding communities and comes at a time when the effect of vehicle emissions on human health is under intense scrutiny. Once parklands disappear they are gone forever - it would be a travesty to lose any green space from the award winning Sydney Park. Especially in light of the federal governments announcement to create urban canopies to offset rising temperatures in cities. If the massive project budget was spent on public transport and effective road management, a project like WestConnex would not be necessary. Enough with the short-sighted policy making - it's ruining what we love about Sydney.

I am a resident of Edgeware Road Enmore and my home is going to be directly affected by the proposed St Peters Interchange and the "upgrade" of the intersection at Bedwon/Campbel/May/Unwins Bridge Rds.

Though out the community consultation process I have attended forums, public information sessions, read all the documentation on the Westconnex website, collected brochures, spoken to the WestConnex information phone line and made email requests for information.

My constant question has been "what will be the impact on Edgeware Road of the St Peter's interchange". Every time I have asked the question I have been told that there will be no impact, traffic will remain the same and there is no intention by the RMS to impose parking restrictions or other measures to promote or alleviate any traffic flowon from the new interchange.

Yet the appendix New M5 EIS_Vol 2B_App G_Traffic and Transport clearly states that traffic in my street will INCREASE when the St Peter's interchange opens. And not only will traffic on Edgeware Road increase, but traffic on all surrounding streets will increase.

The EIS states:
"10.3.3.2 Routes adjacent to the study area
Table 107 indicates the changes in peak hour traffic volumes on routes adjacent to the study area with and without the project in 2021.
Increased peak hour volumes are forecast along Railway Road, Euston Road (north of Sydney Park Road), Edgeware Road and Gardeners Road in both peak hours. Similar or slight reduced peak hour volumes are generally forecast along King Street and Princes Highway (south of Railway Road) in the both peak hours.
Table 108 indicates the changes in peak hour traffic volumes on routes adjacent to the study area with and without the project in 2031.
A similar pattern to 2021 is indicated. Increased peak hour volumes are generally forecast along Railway Road, Euston Road (north of Sydney Park Road), Edgeware Road and Gardeners Road in both peak hours. Reduced peak hour volumes are forecast along Princes Highway (south of Railway Road), while similar or reduced flows along King Street northbound and increased flows along King Street southbound are forecast, in both peak hours."

While traffic through the interchange is expected to reduce travel time by 1-3 minutes, all local traffic routes around the interchange are expected to experience an INCREASE in traffic and congestion. Table 107 indicates a traffic increase of 24% by 2021 and Table 108 indicates an increase of 42% by 2031.

By what measure is this a good outcome? Build multiple toll roads that will cut through communities, destroy local amenity, increase pollution, costs and degrade quality of life in large areas of Sydney for a potential saving of 1 minute in a journey that the report doesn't even identify where that journey is from or too? And then acknowledge that the cost of that 1 minute will be a 42% increase in traffic around the toll roads?

As far as I can tell from reading the EIS the "vision" for Sydney and Enmore and the rest of the inner west is nothing but roads. Public space is being sold off to accommodate a road, people's homes are being sold off to accommodate a road, private businesses are being funded by the sale of public assets to build and run the roads. And if the private businesses decide that the road is not profitable (and we know from past experience that running a road isn't where the money is - Cross City Tunnel adn Lane Cove Tunnels a case in point) then the government will be forced to buy back what should never have been handed over in the first place. We as a city will be left without the parks, communities, homes and pleasant places to live and work and play that were destroyed by this project. But we will have a massive buyback bill for failed roads that ordinary people will be forced to pay for through tolls and degradation of amenity.

I despair of the short sighted and completely mercenary and utilitarian view of the world that this government, and governments before them, have taken. This project isn't for the city - it is for business to line their pockets and for government to treat the citizens of Sydney, and in particularly the inner west, with complete and utter contempt.

I am opposed to this development in its entirety. The money should be funneled into improving public transport. The extension through St Peters will dislocate the neighbourhood and a 24 hour clearway on King Street will kill business. King St will be another Parramatta Road at Leichhardt, dead and desolate.

Dear Department of Planning and Environment,

I would hereby like to urge you to ensure that Westconnex new M5 guarantees safe transport options for cyclists and pedestrians. Westconnex is likely to only generate more car traffic into Sydney, and the only sustainable solution for Sydney transport in the future is to shift transport modes: away from cars, and where possible to cycling, walking and public transport. This will not only have enormous health benefits, but also allow Sydney to lower its pollution levels. Everywhere in the world, cities are shifting to cycling, walking and public transport. Even in the United States, cities are now shifting to sustainable transport. Sydney is far behind the rest of the world in this regard.

For all these reasons I oppose the Westconnex project, and I urge you to guarantee the construction of the M5 East Green Link as part of the Westconnex project. The M5 East Green link would bring the following benefits:
1. First of all, it would ensure cycling is a viable transport alternative for Sydney Airport's 29,000 staff, many of whom live close to the Airport, at rideable distances, and having the option to cycle to work would give them a cheap and effective way of getting to work (especially for shift-workers that need to get to and from the airport at hours when public transport is not available).
2. Allow people to ride and walk safely, wholly away from the road system, and allow people that drive cars to not be bothered by cyclists on the road: a better solution for all us.
3. Offset the traffic, social and pollution impacts of the WestConnex project;
4. Create a link with the existing M5 Cycleway;
5. Finally, cater for demand from the housing and commercial developments at Wolli Ck Station precinct.

I hope Sydney will soon be back among the cities that are global leaders in sustainable transport, instead of being an embarrassingly old-fashioned car-based city that lags behind almost every other city in the world. I also strongly believe the M5 East Green Link will allow cyclists to get off the road, and hence it is a great solution for both cyclists and motorists.

Cars are not a sustainable way for a city to get around

The new M5 St Peters Interchange will be a massive Los Angeles-style spaghetti junction of flyovers right next to Sydney Park that will pour traffic into already congested suburbs, worsen air quality and threaten King Street. There is no valid reason for this project to go ahead without a full inquiry into the Cost Benefit and more community consultation

I am against the Westconnex New M5 as I believe it will make traffic in the areas around Newtown, St Peters, etc much worse. The areas are already congested yet the M5 will bring more traffic in. The money would be better spent on improving public transport as part of a larger investment in public transport and away from cars. Pollution in the area would also significantly increase if the New M5 goes ahead. Please reconsider the plan and invest in public transport instead, it is the long term solution.

I strongly object to the proposed WestConnext New M5 and to the entire WestConnext. As a taxpayer I stongly believe this project will not deliver better transport outcomes for Sydney and will have an adverse effect on individual and community health in the areas local to the project and areas of south western Sydney, which will be impacted by increased pollution.
The financial cost of this project could be better spent elsewhere such as projects that improve public transport links across Sydney, in particular in western Sydney and to the industrial and employment areas of botany and Randwick. Funding alternate project would ease congestion on roads, whereas this project will increase congestion on both major and minor roads.
The EIS fails to include multiple schools and community spaces in the cons ideation of the impact, or underestimates the impact the removal of forest at cooks river and space at Sydney park will have on the health of the community.
A key concern is the lack of transparency from the government and the piecemeal approach to assessment of phases of the project rather than the project as a whole.
At his project should not go ahead, all assessment and funding proposals should be available to the public and clear proposals for pubic transport projects that improve transport outcomes anc consider the health of communities should be put forward in it's place.

I support Wesconnex.
There should be a bike track as well.

Wesconnex will join major population centers with major job centers, meaning it is ideal for cycle commuting.

I use M5 frequently and would like to cycle on it but it's too dangerous. Many of my friends in Macarthur Collegians Cyclung Club say the same thing.

Bring on the Green Link!

My major concern of this project has been the lack of information given to the general public about the proposed future development of the M5 East.
To date a couple of letterbox drops limited to an A4 sheet of brief details outlining mainly timeline overviews of the projects forward planning. Following came a public exhibition at Kingsgrove RSL which was supported by the construction company. Government personnel didn't see the need to be in attendance. At that exhibition I learnt how little information we had received by way of government consultation. There were many examples of the information we should have received.
Information learnt from this visit and accessing various web site addresses which were supplied at the Kingsgrove venue have raised a major concern I have with the fallout from the exhaust stacks which will be located near our home address. I believe our residence lies within the 2 kilometre radius of the stack construction. Not being told of this does raise an element of suspicion that elements of this project are being rushed and not fully developed to give the best possible advantage to the residents of Beverly Hills.