I oppose the project for the following reasons:

There has not been enough community consultation or preparation. It is all being done in secret.

The EIS period is too short.

The Government has not given sufficient time and plenty of notice to allow the community tine to comment. The Government has not fulfilled the intent of the law requiring full and proper consultation.

The project requires more time to prepare submissions that cover all aspects of the project.

I am particularly opposed to The M4 widening. As it is predicated on benefits that won't emerge. The Westconnex M4 widening EIS makes it clear that the widening will have no real wider benefits without the full Westconnex. The widening is designed to reduce uncertainty in travel times, which the RMS has determined is threatening its market share.

I Oppose the project outright, totally and unconditionally.

In several sections of the EIS, traffic intersection performance is reported. This is provided in the form of Level of Service (LoS) and vehicle delay. LoS is reported as a letter A to F and vehicle delay is reported in seconds. However, for any LoS of F, the delay is reported as ">140". The actual delay value is not reported, which is inconsistent with the reporting of other LoS (A to E). When comparing scenarios, if their performances are reported as LoS F, it is not possible to compare because their delay values are not reported. Why are the actual delay values not reported?

I live in Albert Street Granville approximately 20 metres from the M4 freeway. I've lived here for 17 years. In that time there have been increases and noise levels and dust from the motorway. I feel vibrations through the floor when heavy loaded trucks drive pass on the elevated motorway. In summer it is difficult to open windows due to noise from motorway traffic engines, truck breaks, and traffic driving over a near by expansion joint. I have to turn the TV volume up louder than I'd like to hear over the noise.

I'm very worried that the new motorway will be way too close to my house as the newly proposed construction brings it a further 12 metres closer to my home. The new viaduct will block the light from my home and backyard during winter. I cannot believe that the new motorway is coming so close that they have spoken to me about using part of my land for construction but have not offered to buy my property.

It's unreasonable for anyone to have to live with something towering right over their house. Bottles and rubbish smash onto my house roof and in A'Becketts Creek next to my property from the viaduct. I'm worried this danger of falling objects, bottles, etc. will come closer. My home will have more noise, dust and pollution getting into my house and a big towering structure right next to it.

The value of my property will be ruined and rendered un-sellable.

It's unreasonable for anyone to live in these circumstances. I don't want to move out of my house. I like where I live and the location is very convenient but if this project is to go ahead, I'll have to move because of the conditions becoming unlivable.

I understand the project is going ahead no matter what, so I believe I need suitable compensation to find an alternative home within my current area.

I believe this is the right thing to do because it's unreasonable to impose such inconvenience without suitable compensation. I don't want to feel like a troll living in the dark under a bridge. Without compensation for all the inconvenience and loss of lcoation and livability, I will be forced to fight this project tooth and nail.

This is a short term solution for a long term problem and the band-aid proposed just won't work for the future of Sydney commuters. It will cause heartache for local businesses, home owners and commuters who will have their business or home taken or their current transit and parking options taken away.
Short-term additional space created on the M4 will attract more users - which will quickly use up the new capacity and mean large increases in traffic volumes on the City West Link, Parramatta Road and other main arterial roads.
This will see more traffic congestion at key intersections and more rat running in small residential streets which becomes dangerous for local communities and added expenses to the local governments for maintaining roads in their areas due to increased traffic.
Better solutions would be, to look at cities around the world that have "got it right" copy and improve their transit models. Create faster, cleaner and more efficient public transportation.
Regards

The M4 needs to be widened to an absolute MINIMUM of 4 lanes in each direction, more like 5-6. Sydney needs to stop playing catch up with transport and build in future capacity. No matter what time of day you travel now it is a car park. The M4 is already 3-4 lanes wide in some places AND STILL CAN'T COPE. Please have some foresight and build in future capacity NOW. We build a Harbour Bridge in the 30's with 8 lanes and build freeways in the 2000's with only 2 lanes each way, STUPIDITY.

The same goes for the proposed tunnels, THEY NEED TO BE A MINIMUM OF 4 LANES IN EACH DIRECTION. Preferably don't build tunnels and put the freeway in the air like most sensible cities around the world do. Put the freeways in the air and eliminate the need for toxic exhaust stacks. Tunnels are great for trains, not for cars and trucks. You have an incident (and they occur almost every day) and the whole road is shut for half the day extracting the vehicle. The M5 tunnel is a case in point, it is an absolute disaster of a road, toxic as hell to drive through (you can see the smog haze it is that bad) and downright dangerous having big semi trailers bearing down on you - tailgating you, through that tunnel. Add to that the fact that capacity was not built into it and you have a toxic car park, 2 lanes only - utter stupidity.

Put the freeways in the air with loops and flyovers for entries and exits that merge with the road way, NO TRAFFIC LIGHTS. You have traffic lights at the entrances and exits and of course traffic will bank up.

The City West Link also needs to be widened to a minimum of 4 lanes in each direction. If this is not done then again, of course traffic will bank up in the tunnel, just like the toxic M5. There is no point simply shifting a traffic jam further down the road.

Please build in future capacity NOW, we want solutions to Sydney's traffic nightmares, not hotch potch catch up jobs. Put the freeways in the air with a MINIMUM of 4 lanes each way. Take a trip Thailand (a 3rd world country) and see how freeways should be built. Sydney's roads are an embarrassment in comparison.

It is of major concern to me that the public hasn't seen any detailed information of costings or the proposed efficiency of the West Connex. The widening will cause significant loss of homes (some that have been lived in for generations and hold much history), destruction of heritage and environmental zones, and the little information provided has residents across affected suburbs deeply troubled and finding it difficult to forward plan.

Without a detailed case provided to the community, this is a project that will cause people to drastically rethink the way they vote and support their government.

Issues that will directly affect my family will be traffic congestion, parking difficulty, increase in pollution, rat running and distressingly so - possible compulsory acquisition.

This doesn't include reduced spending on public transport, and that with population growth traffic congestion will increase. Travelling internationally shows that investing in mass public transport is the cleaner, greener, most efficient option.

Until I can see the statistics that spending this much money on a toll road will benefit the community, I cannot support it.

My family opposes the westconnex M4 widening. Investments should be made on improving public transport infrastructure.
Westconnex project is too expensive, our economy cannot support the costs, and it will NOT solve our traffic and congestion problems, it will create more issues to resolve.

I consider that the money budgeted for this project should go into public transport, in particular light rail. Light rail would reduce the number of vehicles on the road and create a situation where this extra tollway would not be necessary. Besides which, research indicates that the amount of traffic on the M4 tollway, peaked 6 years ago. A feasible plan for passengers from heavy rail and buses to alight at a junction point on Paramatta Rd (submitted by EcoTransit) and join frequently running light rail services, seems a far better solution from an economic, community and environmental perspective. I am also concerned at the compulsory acquisition of buildings and residencies which would ultimately lead to high density housing which monetarily benefits developers and decimates communities that have been in existence for decades.

The WestConnex proposal is animportant inititiative to get right
i am deeply concerned about the following
1 imposing a toll will only push no paying traffic onto local roads -this needs to be resolved -it is not acceptable to have a gold pass to paying users only to allow local streets to again become clogged -that is a step backwards
2 a new scheme the size of this one needs also to allow for future public transport lanes for buses rail /light rail -put this space in now for future use
3 I request a wider planning strategy which fullyaddresses the needs of aSydney 2nd circle road /bus/rail facility -this west connext then needs to feed into this broader plan -planners are employed to think but the past 50 yearshas just seen total chaos on our commuter roads the system is clogged and is not working -the job of traffic planners is to resolve this -this is tied into density & approval of developments which local 7 state govts allow to happen without any forward planning which is why we are in the traffic mess today -fix it properly this time -we are sick 7 tired of bandaid solutions

The promise was to widen the M4 to 4 lanes each way from the end of the Tunnel at Strathfield/ Concord thru to the West of Sydney.

1. The plans show a 3 lane widening as vehicles leave the tunnel heading West, not 4 lanes. Trucks and other vehicles will still continue in large nos to enter the M4 at Strathfield/ Concord heading West merging into only 3 lanes. It is obvious that this will create congestion and increased pollution. Many vehicles because of the Toll will not use the Tunnel and will join the M4 at Strathfield/ Concord. The M4 widens at Homebush Bay Drive to 4 lanes.
The work being carried out by 'Urban Growth' in trying to Revitalise Parramatta Rd with the possible long term plans to have light rail running down Parramatta Rd and massive residential growth, will add to the traffic entering the M4 at Strathfield/ Concord. Especially once the Badgerys Creek Airport kicks in.

2. The 4 lanes proposed from Homebush Bay Drive to the intersection with Silverwater Rd, then narrows from 4 lanes to 3 lanes, creating a bottleneck, congestion and increased pollution. Obviously, then vehicles backing up to Strathfield/ Concord and Parramatta Rd. Beyond the intersection with Silverwater Rd, the M4 then widens back to 4 lanes. This is ridiculous. Not rocket science to see what is going to happen over the next 5-15 years as Badgerys Creek Airport and the West of Sydney grows and comes on line. No long term planning is evident in the design.

3. As Parramatta grows, the intersection at Church St and near Woodville Rd needs to be enhanced with improved access to the M4. Again, no long term planning is evident in the design.

4. Of an evening and on the weekends vehicles will continue to use Parramatta Rd to avoid the M4 Toll. This flies in the face of the work being carried out by the Urban Growth in trying to Revitalise Parramatta Rd. Possible long term plans to have light rail running down Parramatta Rd and massive residential growth which will be in conflict with the Off-Toll Traffic. Parramatta Rd will be a nightmare

Please consider a 4 lane each way M4 from the Tunnel to West of Sydney.