I wish to express my strong objection to the Westconnex M4
motorway proposal.In no way will it ease the traffic congestion
on inner city roads- in fact, it will generate additional traffic.
To know the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses
will be necessary to achieve this mess, is beyond belief. It is
also wrong for the Government to award tenders before a
business case has been released, and the public have been
allowed to participate.More discussion is essential, before yet
another disastrous error of judgement is made that will
affect thousands of people.

I OBJECT TO IT.

We live in Ashfield and have two young children. I am concerned about the following things in regard to Westconnex construction:
Air Quality:
The unfiltered ventilation stack is located within 400m of our house. Filter the ventilation stack. If you can spend $15.4 billion on a road to reduce travel times by just six minutes, you can afford to spend the additional money required to ensure the vast majority of pollution is not released into this densely-populated neighbourhood.

- Pedestrian and Cycleways:
Install additional pedestrian/cyclist crossings between Haberfield and Ashfield as a permanent positive legacy of the Project.

- Public Transport:
Why is public transport, like light rail, not incorporated into the overall plan? Surely this is extremely short sighted? We can't simply look to post WW2 car centric solutions with the projected increase in Sydney's population. Other cities around the world are investing in public transport and reducing the amount of road links.

- Traffic:
We drive along Bland street every day to cross into Parramatta Rd to take out children to school and go to work. There is very limited access to Parramatta Road from this pocket of Ashfield and any closures or detours will block up the traffic even further. An alternative is to:

Ã,Â* Install traffic lights at the corner of Alt St and Parramatta Road for at least the construction phase, to provide a crossing away from Bland St where there will be heavy truck
movements.

Traffic would need to be able to turn right from Alt street into Parramatta Rd, this would recquire the temporary removal of the island in the middle of the road - currently you can only turn left from Alt St into Parramatta Rd.

This may also require the installation of traffic lights at Church St/Alt St, as that intersection is already busy and difficult to negotiate because of poor sightlines.

As a long term resident, our community would appreciate you address the concerns we have. We are not above understanding that the tunnel will bring benefits to our suburb and help alleviate congestion, this is not a bad thing, but please try to understand our concerns, as I'm sure you would if this tunnel was being built in your own back yard.

1. It is going to cost over $15 billion dollars just for the first stage of construction. Given that at the same time our premier is advocating an increase in the GST so that NSW can still afford to pay for health care and education, it makes you wonder why, with a potential travel time saving of only 6 minutes along the stretch of the M4, the government is making this project such a priority.
2.No business case has been put forward by the state government
3. Extra pollution as the road will encourage more people to drive instead of using public transport.
4. The tunnel will include no filtered air columns.
5. Extra traffic - roads create traffic.

We are writing this submission on behalf of our father, Salvatore Mannino, of 24 Walker Ave Haberfield, as his English is very limited.

A request for the acquisition of his property is submitted as follows:-
Dad is an elderly man who suffers from ongoing health issues that are not likely to get any better. Apart from pneumonia he has various eye and vascular conditions. He feels that living in close proximity to an unfiltered exhaust stack, could increase his susceptibility to not only respiratory related illnesses, but infections in his legs due to the dust which will be created during the construction phase. He has been prescribed gentle walking to manage these issues and is concerned that with increased pollution and traffic in his immediate area, a stroll around the block will no longer be safe, possible, or enjoyable. His GP has a full history of his ongoing issues and these can be provided upon request.
Dad has been retired for quite some time and enjoys growing fruits and vegetables in his backyard. This activity is his main source of enjoyment and stress relief. The unfiltered exhaust stack, and widening of Wattle Street, and the increase in pollution in his immediate area is of great concern. He is very hesitant about how safe it will be for he and his family to continue consuming the produce from his garden. Without this activity to enjoy, we fear his purpose and quality of life will decrease significantly.

Dad migrated from Italy as a teen. He has worked hard his entire life to pay off the only home he has ever lived in. He is concerned about the possible loss of property value which is likely to ensue once the development begins. Given that he is already an elderly man and the construction period is likely to take anything between 3-8 years, he fears that buyers would think twice about purchasing a property directly next to an unfiltered exhaust stack, a tunnel running below it, and a six-lane highway beyond the back fence. He is saddened that the construction of WestConnex will more than likely diminish this nest egg at a time in his life that he will need it most - nursing homes and/or retirement villages are not cheap.
Dad is concerned about the noise levels both during and after construction, particularly if tunnelling equipment along Wattle Street is expected to run 24/7. If walls are to be built around his property to block this noise, both along Wattle St and Walker Ave, will these walls shade his property? He is concerned the decreased sunlight will produce dampness throughout the home which could further reek havoc on his health.
What about access to Walker Ave during and after construction. What will be done to ensure safe entry/exit for residents? Allum Street will be closed for good. Will the Parramatta Rd/Walker Avenue entry be closed during and/or after construction? What will be done to ensure commuters don't use Walker Ave as a rat-run through Haberfield to avoid the tunnel and its toll?

The concern is that there will be trucks and tunnel work around the clock. We have been advised that there will be 120 construction workers at peak shift each day at the site next to dad. Do you consider 120 heavy vehicles and 70 light construction vehicles per day at this site reasonable and acceptable for anyone living in the area. Oh the noise!! The dust!!

If the project is approved, and he must stay, we request the works be restricted to business hours of 8am-5pm - Monday to Friday only.

What will happen with the land beside his home after construction is complete. Will you be giving any guarantee that it will not be used for high rise unit blocks? Anything other than creating parkland/public space will mean more traffic and congestion in a supposedly 'quiet' street.

We note that the location for the exhaust stack was chosen to service both Stage 1 and Stage 3 tunnels. Has stage 3 been approved? Is there any funding for stage 3?
The concerns are that the exhaust stack will not only be unfiltered, but an eyesore to surrounding properties. Our understanding is that other longer tunnels exist without exhaust stacks at all - why can this technology not be used for WestConnex? If the stack must remain, filter it!!. A filtered stack which visually blends into the environment would be preferable.
Thank you for considering the acquisition of 24 Walker Ave, Haberfield.

Regards
Sebastian & Teresa Mannino

M4EIS Submission: Traffic numbers

I oppose the construction of the WestConnex tollway system.
I have lived in the Municipality of Leichhardt my entire adult life. I specifically choose to live in areas with efficient and regular public transport. Like many other transport users, I now make good use of smart phone apps to maximise travel efficiency. I use time spent on public transport to work.

On two occasions I have lived in cities with much better provision of public transport than we have in Sydney. I have visited many other similar cities.

I have also experienced the obverse - cities where dependence on cars and minimal public transport provision, produces a considerably lower standard of daily life for the average person, with excruciatingly long travel times and appalling pollution.

My overriding concern with this EIS and with the WestConnex routes is that the whole proposal is so out-dated. This is not the solution for the 21st century. It feels like a stale idea from the 1950s. Nothing in the EIS has convinced me that these tollways and tunnels will do anything to reduce traffic congestion. On the contrary, it is so ill-conceived, that the traffic is being shoved into new places; intersections along the way will become even slower to navigate than is currently the case, and more traffic will bank up in new places. In the process whole communities and heritage areas will be destroyed for a project that has little to no chance of solving Sydney's transport problems, while enormous sums of public money will be diverted from much more important projects for the future of this country: health, education and public transport.

The project has not considered a raft of other possibilities to reduce traffic and congestion - and the ensuing pollution. Travellers and commuters are known to choose the mode that is the most convenient; faced with the option of driving or using public transport, the most efficient and affordable mode will be chosen.
The lack of business case makes the whole project dubious. Transport planners from Peter Newman to Michelle Zeibots and many others argue, virtually unanimously, that investment in efficient, timely and affordable public transport is the cheaper and proven way to free our roads for those people who need to use them.

According to http://www.smh.com.au/comment/westconnexs-climate-claims-dont-ring-true-20151027-gkkava.html, the EIS also says that traffic will be up by > 41%

By 2031, on their figures, there will be 41 per cent more light vehicle traffic (cars, vans and motorbikes), from 266 million to 375 million VKT (Vehicle Kilometers Travelled), if WestConnex is built compared with if it was not built.
For heavy vehicles (trucks and buses) it is forecast to double annual VKT from 27 million to almost 57 million by 2031 with WestConnex compared with if it wasn't built.
These increases are explained as being because of the "attractiveness" of WestConnex for trips to the city, airport and Port Botany. That is, new roads induce more traffic.

So, in Appendix G, induced travel demand is up between 2% and 7%.
Elsewhere, > 41%.

And this matters, because if induced demand is < 7%, then the project is demonstrably not viable.

But if induced demand is >> 7% then the WDA hasn't done it's induced demand assessment properly.

And this matters, because according to the SEARs (http://m4eis.org/2015/09/22/the-secretarys-environmental-assessment-requirements/),
"The EIS must [address] induced traffic and operational implications for public transport
[particularly with respect to strategic bus corridors and bus routes]
and consideration of opportunities to improve public transport patronage"

And it doesn't. They claim to, but when you check the sections they say address this, there are only the briefest of discussion of induced traffic, and no discussion of the implications of induced traffic on public transport.

I believe that the contradictions in the EIS exist because each component was produced by a different consultant. These conflicting traffic predictions are a critical point. Given what happened with the M5 induced traffic, 4-7% is a very under-estimated figure, especially since population growth in the inner city and further west is expected to grow by more than 4-7%, with 100s of thousands new people predicted along the route of the M4 in an estimated 40,000 new units, with no increase in provision of public transport. Indeed, public transport provision runs counter to the aim of maximising income for the private tollway companies, another serious concern about the validity of this entire proposal.

Apart from the economic costs, the costs to our communities of increased air pollution, noise, loss of homes, heritage areas, park lands, degradation of the environment, negative contribution to climate change, and another twenty years to wait before meaningful investment is made into well-planned public transport infrastructure, make this project completely untenable.

Some of the most alarming figures in the EIS is the proof that, contrary to assurances that WestConnex tollways will reduce traffic on local roads, your figures for Parramatta Rd show that traffic volumes will be higher with the tollway in place in some sections, than if WestConnex isn't built, as traffic diverts to using non-tolled roads.
WestConnex proposal is anathema to the idea of liveable cities.

I object to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.

I strongly object to the government awarding tenders for the project BEFORE a full business case has been made public and before the EIS has been published and the public has made submissions.

How is this suppose to allow for GENUINE public input? This is a mockery of our rights!

I strongly object to billions of dollars of taxpayers' funds claiming a huge portion of the state transport budget for many years to come on this proposal.

What about looking at public transport and freight rail alternatives? These options would be a better solution to congestion on our roads and have lower greenhouse gas emissions into the future.

I wish to object to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.
I believe this to be a damaging project to the people of Sydney, wasteful of taxpayers money, and completely out of date with modern thinking on life in cities.
Social, environmental and economic impacts will be terrible for Sydney.
Lets have some honesty and clarity here about the fiasco that has been proposed.
Where is the business case for this mistake?
Why has it not been released?
I propose we close it down, and have a 21st Century look at Sydney and what makes it good to live in.

I am gravely concerned by the actions of engaging a contractor prior to completion of community consultation. I'm sure this will lead to important decisions being driven by the almighty dollar factor. Opportunities for improvements in design quality will probably be discarded because of the expense. Please abandon the project immediately and start putting that sort of money towards public transport projects instead.

I strongly support WestConnex M4.

I support the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal 100%.

WestConnex M4 is a fantastic solution to Sydney's current transport choas.

I have lived in the Concord, Burwood and Strathfield areas my whole life and witnessed Parramatta Road and surrounding areas deteriorate to a third world standard.

Once the underground motorway, bridges and associated infrastructure are built, dedicated bus lanes, light rail and bike lanes can be provided for along Parramatta Road.

Simple logic would tell you that the underground motorway must be built first before providing for public transport options.

You must put the horse before the cart, not the cart before the horse!

As far as I am concerned M4 East ticks all the boxes as a major part of Sydney's long term transport solution.

The project should have been built 30 years ago!

Never the less, as they say, better late than never!

Kind regards

Anthony McKinley


PS I do not own a private vehicle.