I am outraged and offended at the NSW Liberals ignoring local communities and pushing ahead for a $15B tunnel that no-one wants - WITHOUT an environment impact statement - and letting contracts before the project is approved - and believe this is a sign of corruption in that somebody must be stealing public funds in order to get this approved.

Please check the decision makers - and their secret overseas tax haven bank accounts or hidden trust funds - as I believe this process stinks of corruption and should be stopped before it starts.

On behalf of all 31 owners in the block locating at 167-173 Parramatta Rd, North Stratafield (30 residential units and 1 commercial Suite) we are strongly against the current planning in regards to the M4 extension. The proposed new extended M4 bridge will have the following impacts to all the owners and residents in the building:

Impacts
- Visual impact of the new bridge ramp block of concrete, adjacent to the apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd. There should be another option (eg: an underground ramp?)
Light overshadowing during the day with the additional bridge ramp
- Possible increase of lighting during the night with the additional bridge ramp lighting requirements
- Pollutants (such as coarse and fine particles) will be of higher quantity, as all vehicles pollutants will much more easily travel downwards from the bridge, while currently pollutants must travel upwards, resulting in a reduced quantity and severity
- Apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd devaluation impact, due to the huge visual impact, additional pollution etc.
- What is the government going to do? How is it going to compensate the devaluation?
- Noise impacts and distress during the > 2 years of work both during day, nights and Saturdays. Most days some owners required to work from home and going to be constantly affected by the noise produced by the workers. What is the government going to do? How is it going to compensate?
- Currently there are no tolls when accessing the M4. Westconnex work will bring additional tolls that currently we do not have to pay for

Additional Development Proposals
- Proposing that the current entrance of M4, to be re-purposed as second exclusive entrance/exit. It should be reserved for the apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd from
- Concord Road to the Young St side adjacent to our building
- Proposing an additional footpath attached/parallel to the wider M4 to help crossing the railway line and head towards George St from Queen St.

Questions
- Currently there are two ways to access the M4 from our apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd, one is the entrance in Concord Rd, next to our apartment block, the second one is in Parramatta Rd just after the Fraser motorbike shop. At a glance it does not seem there will be an easy way to access the new M4. When exiting from our complex from Young St, we cannot turn into Parramatta Rd west bound, where the new entrance is supposed to be. If we have to turn right into Leicester Ave, we will have to cross 3 lanes immediately out of Young St, adjacent to the traffic light (that is not really practical nor it is safe). What are the viable options?

Conclusions
- There seems to be no positive aspects regarding the Westconnex project in regards to our apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd and our point of view
- Huge visual impact with the additional bridge ramp
- Huge reduction of light during the day with the additional bridge ramp
- Possible significant increase of lighting during the night with the additional bridge ramp
- Significant increase of noise
- Significant devaluation of the apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd
- Increase in airborne pollution, floating downwards from the new bridge ramp, much taller than the current street level ramp
Vehicles around the complex will most likely increase due to the massive road entrance/exit
- Additional difficulties getting in and out our building, and onto the M4. There seems to be no viable option for our complex
Distress introduced with > 2 years of constant day and possible night noise while the work is in progress, then ongoing heightened noise pollution from traffic following

Thank you so much for your time and we look forwarding hearing from you.

On behalf of all 31 owners in the block locating at 167-173 Parramatta Rd, North Stratafield (30 residential units and 1 commercial Suite) we are strongly against the current planning in regards to the M4 extension. The proposed new extended M4 bridge will have the following impacts to all the owners and residents in the building:

Impacts
- Visual impact of the new bridge ramp block of concrete, adjacent to the apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd. There should be another option (eg: an underground ramp?)
Light overshadowing during the day with the additional bridge ramp
- Possible increase of lighting during the night with the additional bridge ramp lighting requirements
- Pollutants (such as coarse and fine particles) will be of higher quantity, as all vehicles pollutants will much more easily travel downwards from the bridge, while currently pollutants must travel upwards, resulting in a reduced quantity and severity
- Apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd devaluation impact, due to the huge visual impact, additional pollution etc.
- What is the government going to do? How is it going to compensate the devaluation?
- Noise impacts and distress during the > 2 years of work both during day, nights and Saturdays. Most days some owners required to work from home and going to be constantly affected by the noise produced by the workers. What is the government going to do? How is it going to compensate?
- Currently there are no tolls when accessing the M4. Westconnex work will bring additional tolls that currently we do not have to pay for

Additional Development Proposals
- Proposing that the current entrance of M4, to be re-purposed as second exclusive entrance/exit. It should be reserved for the apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd from
- Concord Road to the Young St side adjacent to our building
- Proposing an additional footpath attached/parallel to the wider M4 to help crossing the railway line and head towards George St from Queen St.

Questions
- Currently there are two ways to access the M4 from our apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd, one is the entrance in Concord Rd, next to our apartment block, the second one is in Parramatta Rd just after the Fraser motorbike shop. At a glance it does not seem there will be an easy way to access the new M4. When exiting from our complex from Young St, we cannot turn into Parramatta Rd west bound, where the new entrance is supposed to be. If we have to turn right into Leicester Ave, we will have to cross 3 lanes immediately out of Young St, adjacent to the traffic light (that is not really practical nor it is safe). What are the viable options?

Conclusions
- There seems to be no positive aspects regarding the Westconnex project in regards to our apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd and our point of view
- Huge visual impact with the additional bridge ramp
- Huge reduction of light during the day with the additional bridge ramp
- Possible significant increase of lighting during the night with the additional bridge ramp
- Significant increase of noise
- Significant devaluation of the apartment block complex of 167-173 Parramatta Rd
- Increase in airborne pollution, floating downwards from the new bridge ramp, much taller than the current street level ramp
Vehicles around the complex will most likely increase due to the massive road entrance/exit
- Additional difficulties getting in and out our building, and onto the M4. There seems to be no viable option for our complex
Distress introduced with > 2 years of constant day and possible night noise while the work is in progress, then ongoing heightened noise pollution from traffic following

Thank you so much for your time and we look forwarding hearing from you.

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. If built it will generate additional traffic, funnelling it into heavily congested middle-ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.

I also wish to register my objection to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released and before the EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation.

The EIS process is supposed to allow for genuine public input and to result, potentially, in approval, non-approval, or approval with modifications, of the project. The present procedure makes a mockery of that right.

Government funding for this proposal - as part of the whole WestConnex proposal - will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years to come. This being the case, I am outraged that the EIS has failed to honestly and fully discuss its social, environmental, and economic impacts or to explain why it is preferable to other, alternative public- and active transport solutions.

In particular I draw attention to the EIS's failure to:

* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that has been promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal.

* Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.

* Publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' funds.

* Properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.

* Consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions.

Decades-long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity. That is why, globally, they have fallen out of favour and are no longer seen as a solution to congestion.

Director, Major Project Assessments
Department of Planning
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

Submission: WestConnex M4 East EIS (SSI 6307)
I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. If build it will generate additional traffic, funnelling it into heavily congested middle-ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.

I also wish to register my objection to the government awarding tenders for the project before the full business case has been publically released and before the EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation.

The IES process is supposed to allow for genuine public input and to result, potential, in approval, non-approval, or approval with modifications, of the project. The present procedure makes a mockery of that right.

Government funding for this proposal - as part of the whole WestConnex proposal - will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years to come. This being the case, I am outraged that the IES has failed to honestly and fully discuss its social, environmental, and economic impacts or to explain why it is preferable to other, alternative public and alternative transport solutions.

In particular, I draw attention to the IES's failure to:
* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that has been promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal.
* Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.
* Publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' funds.
* Properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.
* Consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions.
Decades-long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity. That is why, globally, they have fallen out of favour and are no longer seen as a solution to congestion.

Bill Buckle.

30/10/2015

I am deeply troubled that the State Government has ignored the community by signing contracts to build this road before releasing this EIS, the full business case, or obtaining planning approval - this is a reprehensible lack of transparency and proper procedure. Without seeing the business case the community has no way of knowing what other alternatives were considered and what their associated costs were. I am also troubled that the 'consultation' with the community has primarily been done in a way that disempowers the community from feeling like they can influence the outcome.
The Project will have a devastating impact on the Inner West and particularly on our communities of Ashfield and Haberfield. Ashfield is one of the most densely populated communities in Sydney and Haberfield has great historical significance, therefore the decision to proceed is all the more bewildering. As one parent said at a recent WestConnex information night held at our school, we feel Haberfield Public School is at the centre of a "toxic triangle" of pollution stack and portals under
the current WestConnex plans. On top of that, we will have four construction zones within several hundred metres of the school operating for at least three years. Our school draws more than 60 per cent of its students from the Ashfield side of Parramatta Road and the Five Dock side of Wattle St - turning both roads into 10-lane motorways will literally carve two giant holes through the middle of our community.
Below I have outlined our concerns for our children's health and safety and the impact on our community, plus made suggestions to address them.
AIR QUALITY
At the information night at our school attended by WestConnex representatives, we were told the proposed location for the eastern ventilation stack is "optimum". It feels far from optimum to our community. I am not satisfied by the EIS's suggestion that the increase in emissions will be negligible, and I am concerned that our children's health will suffer from vehicle emissions from tens of thousands of cars being dispersed near our school from the pollution stack opposite the Bunnings site. We request the following action:
* Install an air quality monitoring station at the school or very close by well before the M4 East tunnel begins operation to take baseline measurements of pollution, including PM2.5 and all emissions for which there are air quality standards.
* Leave the monitoring station operating after the M4 East tunnel opens to monitor emissions at the school. We request this data be provided frequently to the school and the P&C and that action is taken immediately if there is a measurable impact on pollution levels.
* 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.
* Consider relocating the stack to a topographically higher point further west along Parramatta Road where emissions will be released higher into the atmosphere. The stack should be away from schools, childcare centres and retirement homes so the most vulnerable members of the community are not exposed to increased levels of pollution.
* Increase the height of the ventilation stack to reduce the impact of emissions on the local area and increase the likelihood that emissions will be dispersed more widely.
NOISE AND DUST:
I am concerned that our children's learning and play at school will be disrupted by noise generated during construction by heavy machinery and vehicles operating close to the school. We note that the school site (NCA19 in the Noise and Vibration report) is expected to have "high worst-case NML exceedances during the daytime" from construction and demolition work. We request the following action:
* Conduct a noise assessment at Haberfield Public School before construction begins and execute noise mitigation measures. This may take the form of double glazing of windows (and consequent installation of air conditioning) in classrooms. These mitigation measures must take place before construction begins. We also request compensation for the additional electricity costs associated with running the air conditioning because windows cannot be opened.
2
* Set up a noise monitoring station at Haberfield Public School so levels are monitored during construction. This data must be made available frequently to the school and the P&C.
* Amend work schedules as required so that students' learning and play is not affected by noise. This may include regular consultation with the school to ensure noise is reduced during, for instance, exams, music rehearsals, school assemblies and lunch/recess when students are outside.
* Immediately reduce noise at the construction sites if the school principal or senior staff contact authorities to complain of disruption to students and teachers.
* Ensure dust generated by construction activities and vehicle movements is limited and respond immediately by ceasing construction if notified that children playing outside at school are affected by dust in the air.
TRAFFIC - DURING CONSTRUCTION AND WHEN TUNNELS ARE OPERATING
I am greatly concerned that our children's safety will be put at risk by changed traffic behaviours as a result of WestConnex during construction and when the tunnels open. For instance, I understand the pedestrian overpass at the corner of Bland St and Parramatta Rd will close for a period during construction - this is used by many students and parents to get safely to and from our school. I note also that the Brescia property at that intersection will be a major construction site, with heavy vehicles departing the site on to Bland St - a narrow and congested road at the best of times. Hundreds of heavy vehicles will use this and other intersections used by our students: for instance, the EIS reports that 80 trucks will use the Wattle St/Parramatta Rd intersection between 7.30am and 8.30am alone. Rat-running in local streets is likely to increase as drivers avoid using the tollways - motorists already use the streets of Haberfield and Leichhardt to avoid using the City West Link. On top of all this, many of the local intersections are expected to remain at Level F following construction, which is another outcome that leads us to question the efficiency of the whole WestConnex project.
We request the following action: Before construction begins
* Take base-level data on traffic volumes on the following Haberfield streets:
Dalhousie(betweenParramattaRdandRamsaySt),Rogers,Chandos,Bland,Alt, Walker, and Ramsay (before and after the Haberfield shopping area, and also between Marion and Sloane Streets).
On Denman Ave outside Haberfield PublicSchool.
* Take base-level data on traffic volumes on the following Ashfieldstreets:Church,Frederick,Elizabeth,Alt,JuliaandBlandStreets
* Monitor the above streets in Haberfield and Ashfield during construction and for a period of at least 12 months after construction.
* If any streets exceed acceptable increases, take steps to return the streets to
acceptable levels (eg blocking access, speed bumps) and consider pedestrian safety measures (eg crossing, bridges).
During construction
*
For the whole period of the closure of the southern footpath on Parramatta Rd between
Chandos and Bland Sts, have lollipop people in attendance at the Dalhousie St/Ashfield Park
traffic lights to ensure those children who walk to school alone are guided across Parramatta
3
PEDESTRIAN/CYCLIST INITIATIVES
One of the stated priorities of this project is to "Create opportunities for urban revitalisation, improved liveability, and public and active transport (walking and cycling) improvements along and around Parramatta Road". After reading the EIS and hearing the WestConnex representatives at our school's information night, I see no evidence of such improvements in our community. It is a massive missed opportunity not to leave us with better connections for active transport between Haberfield, Ashfield and Five Dock after dividing us even further with massive roads and tunnels.
I request the following action:
* Install additional pedestrian/cyclist crossings between Haberfield and Ashfield as a permanent positive legacy of the Project. We would love to see these be innovative in design - an overpass nearer to Ashfield Park/Orpington St, for instance, that is exciting to look at as well as useful for our community. The Alt St crossing suggested above could also remain. For reference, we look at Parramatta Road in Camperdown where there are many crossings at intersections that are phased well and do not impede traffic, while allowing locals to cross easily and safely.
* Similarly, additional crossings should be installed over Wattle St/City West Link, ie at Waratah St linking to Timbrell Park and/or at Ramsay St.
* The existing Bland St overpass could be improved in design. While we appreciate the lifts, they regularly break down forcing cyclists, parents with prams and children with scooters to navigate the steps. Consider building ramps to access the overpass.
SOCIAL IMPACT
This Project is already having a significant and direct social impact on our school community. Many families have been forced to leave their homes, and some of them will be unable to remain at the school because the compensation they receive does not allow them to rent or buy in the neighbourhood in future. This is devastating for them, and the children and adults who have become their friends through school. Many heritage homes and buildings will be demolished, to be replaced
Rd safely. The lollipop people must be present at these lights for both the morning &
afternoon 'school zone' times.
For the whole period that the Bland St overpass is unable to be used, have lollipop people be
present at the Parramatta Rd/Bland St traffic lights (both to cross Bland from the east and to
cross Parramatta Rd) for the morning & afternoon 'school zone' times.
* 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. 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.
That any truck movements made during morning & afternoon school zone times are made
under the supervision of a 'spotter' (i.e. a person on the ground whose job it is to be the
driver's 'eyes & ears' as visibility from a high cab is often poor), who ensures the safe
passage of the children on the footpaths of and when crossing Bland St, Wattle St and
Parramatta Rd.
Declare a quarantine zone at an agreed distance around the school to ensure construction
staff's parked vehicles do not restrict parking for parents in the streets near the school
during pick-up and drop-off times.
4
by an ugly and enormous ventilation stack and widened roads. These will be a constant reminder of the loss of community wrought by this Project. I do not feel the EIS adequately acknowledges or compensates us for this impact.
We request the following action:
* Provide a fund for the Ashfield and Haberfield community (perhaps through Ashfield Council) to fund positive community initiatives for the next 10 years.
* Provide a fund for Haberfield Public School to address the unexpected consequences of the construction and the subsequent road.
* Set a specific quota for new trees and other planting in the community, particularly in the most affected areas (Parramatta Road at and beyond the tunnel exit, Walker Ave around the stack and other tunnel buildings, City West link at and beyond the tunnel exit).
MISCELLANEOUS
* I request and expect that the Haberfield P&C and/or Haberfield Public School Principal will hold a seat on the community consultative committee that will be established as part of this Project.
* I note the lack of materials produced in languages other than English as part of the `community consultation' - we have a large Mandarin-speaking community who were unable to read the EIS because it was not provided in other languages. In a multicultural city such as Sydney, this is extremely poor and discriminatory practice.
* I protest that the EIS submission period was too short to allow all affected parties to read and consider the 5000-page EIS and consult adequately. Further, I believe the EIS was structured in a way that made it extremely difficult to navigate and understand.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this submission.
Yours sincerely
Leanne Eastway

I oppose the WestConnex development. The process lacks transparency and undermines democracy. There is no evidence that more roads reduces traffic in the long term and funnelling vehicles into an already choked CBD is nonsense public policy. Public/Private partnerships have a strong track record... of privatising profits and socialising losses. The Cross City Tunnel and Lane Cove Tunnel are recent, sorry examples. Increased air pollution, damage to water catchments, and destruction of protected habit and parklands will have a negative impact on public health. Forced acquisition of private and commercial properties will cause disruption to individuals and communities. The $15.8 billion price tag, which is bound to blow out, could alternatively be spent on 30 years worth of school infrastructure and maintenance in NSW, or the cost of running every single hospital in Australia for 6 years. The public doesn't need this road and the future will not judge this development kindly

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. If built it will generate additional traffic, funnelling it into heavily congested middle-ring and inner city roads, requiring the demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses to make way for road widenings on the surface road network to distribute the traffic from the motorway.

I also wish to register my objection to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released and before the EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation.

The EIS process is supposed to allow for genuine public input and to result, potentially, in approval, non-approval, or approval with modifications, of the project. The present procedure makes a mockery of that right.

Government funding for this proposal - as part of the whole WestConnex proposal - will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years to come. This being the case, I am outraged that the EIS has failed to honestly and fully discuss its social, environmental, and economic impacts or to explain why it is preferable to other, alternative public- and active transport solutions.

In particular I draw attention to the EIS's failure to:

* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that has been promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal.

* Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.

* Publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' funds.

* Properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.

* Consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions.

Decades-long global experience of urban motorway construction has demonstrated conclusively that big new urban roads are counterproductive. They generate a flood of new road traffic and rapidly reach capacity. That is why, globally, they have fallen out of favour and are no longer seen as a solution to congestion.

I wish to strongly object to the building of the Westconnex.
It will just move traffic jams from one place to another whilst encouraging more people to use their cars. In a very short time, the space will be filled again and the jams bigger than before.
What Sydney needs is more public transport. We live close to Summer Hill station and use trains for 90% of our travel requirements. They are frequent, fast and cheap.
People who live further from the city need to have the same convenience. They would very quickly realise the advantages of leaving the car at home.
I understand that it would not have been possible to get Federal Government assistance from the previous Liberal Government as Tony Abbott stated that they had no responsibility for rail transport, only roads. However, with the recent change of leader, i think the ideology has changed and their support could be used for any sensible scheme.
It is rumoured that there will be no change to your plans as some contracts have already been awarded but I do not think it is permissible to enter into contracts before the public have had a chance to comment so i presume the rumour is untrue and that further studies are possible and appropriate.
I note that Mike Baird has asked motorists to leave their cars at home and use public transport to the city while the current work is under way. Why not make it easy for everyone to do that on a permanent basis?
Please do not build the Westconnex.
Also note that I am not a member of, and do not donate to any political party.
Sincerely
Janet Clarke

I wish to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal because is will only further encourage more vehicle movements in already conjested areas.
With urban consolidation and the building of more and more apartment blocks along the Parramatta Road corridor, what is needed is a much more efficient public transport system. As population in the inner city areas increases, the public transport is becoming more and more crowded. If the government wishes to pursue 'urban consolidation', please save the money allocated to the WestConnex and allocate it to a more efficient, more frequent and cost efficient system of public transport, rather than encouraging people to use their private cars to access the city, because of ongoing frustrations with the current public transport system.

Reducing the number of vehicle movements, which the West Connex will encourage, will also assist in reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

We lived through the planning and construction of the current City West Link and wish to remind the government, that very soon, that roadway became a 'carpark' during peak hours - any alleviation to traffic conjestion was very very short lived, and no doubt, the same will be the case with the proposed WestConnex M4 East. We have not seen any proof that this roadway will eliminate future road conjestion.