I have reviewed some of the documents associated with the New M5 EIS but mainly focused on Appendix G (Traffic and Transport). I would appreciate if you could address my comments.


Executive Summary
The Executive Summary states that if WestConnex was not built that:

* "Traffic would either choose to travel at different times of the day, if possible, seek alternative routes or modes to their destinations or choose not to travel at all". Would it not make more sense to spend the $17 billion on those very alternatives? In particular focusing on alternatives modes such as public transport and bicycle infrastructure? The money would also be better spent on Travel demand management, such as providing essential local services locally within communities, instead of forcing people to travel large distances across Sydney to gain access to services. WestConnex is the opposite of demand management, instead of focusing on how we can provide services to reduce time spent in transport, WestConnex will encourage more car-usage, not just on the motorway but into local streets.
* "In the St Peters road network, forecast growth in traffic would cause further congestion, with the network unable to accommodate the future traffic demands". This statement indicated that demand management is necessary whether WestConnex is built or not. Why not start with the demand management aspect instead of wasting $17 billion on more infrastructure?
* "Two-way daily traffic on the Princes Highway, north of the M5 East interchange, is forecast to decrease from 79,000 vpd without the project to about 25,000 vpd". Therefore, the traffic lanes on this road should be reduced to one lane in each direction. The additional saved space could be used for additional bus lanes, a cycleway, an extension odf the footpath or indeed given back to Sydney Park, particularly considering the loss of parklane on the southern and eastern side.
* "An operational traffic review would be undertaken to confirm the operational traffic impacts of the project on surrounding arterial roads and major intersections 12 months after the commencement of operation of the project". Why should the review only check arterial roads? The review must include local residential streets - the streets where most people live. This review should include all the local streets affected in particularly in the suburbs of St Peters, Alexandria, Erskineville and Newtown. After the review, WestConnex should fund any treatments that the local Councils deem necessary for traffic calming.
* "A network and corridor optimisation approach to manage delate and queuing impacts at critical intersections". Instead of attempting to manage traffic demand after WestConnex is constructed, why not start working on traffic demand management now prior to spending $17 billion?
* "The New M5 would help to complete Sydney's motorway network" - Sydney has run out of space to build motorways on the surface so now we've moved onto tunnels? Where will this road building end? Sydney is still congested and therefore all this road building is not working. Invest in public and active transport instead of more freeways. No city on earth has solved its congestion problems by building more freeways. It's an outdated concept that leads to induced demand, neighbourhoods that are car dependent and poor air quality. Motorways renders a city to be clogged up, sprawling and an uncomfortable place to live with its residents spending hours daily stuck in more traffic.
* One of core transport objectives of WestConnex is to "relieve road congestion to improve the speed, reliability and safety of travel in the M5 Motorway corridor, including parallel arterial roads". However, the EIS states that future traffic volumes on Stoney Creek Road will rise considerably after WestConnex due to people avoiding having to pay the toll.
* "The environment surrounding St Peters interchange would not experience significant traffic impacts as the local roads component has been designed to accommodate traffic projections for both the project and future WestConnex projects". How was that conclusion reached? The traffic model did not include roads north of Sydney Park Road so how can it be stated that these streets will be unaffected? The traffic model has not included any of the local roads in St Peters, Alexandria, Erskineville, Newtown, Marrickville and beyond.

Chapter 4 - Assessment Methodology
* Page 31, Section 4.1.1.2 - development of the WestConnex Road Traffic Model used toll plaza transaction data for many of the toll roads in Sydney for calibration - it is interesting that data from the Cross City Tunnel is excluded from the analysis. The Cross City Tunnel should be included, it has failed miserable financially and therefore if mistakes are not be repeated, analysis from this motorway should be included.

Section 8.3 - Operational Performance - St Peters & Surrounds - Without WestConnex
* Page 212, Section 8.3.2.1 - analysis indicates that the road network does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the forecast traffic demand in the 2021 without WestConnex. In reality, if WestConnex is not built, this future demand would never materialise. People would alter their travel behaviour e.g. either travel earlier or later, switch transport modes or defer travel altogether.
* Page 215, Table 76 - Table 76 indicates that the intersection of Campbell and Euston Roads would operate at a LoS F in the 2031 without WestConnex scenario; given that without WestConnex, both Euston and Campbell Roads would remain single lane roads providing local access only I can't see how this intersection reaches capacity - this has to be an error in the modelling or reporting of results
* Page 217, 218, Tables 77, 78 - Tables 77, 78 indicate that in the 2031 without WestConnex scenario, the average travel time between King Street, Newtown and the Sydney Airport Domestic Terminal, a distance of only 4.8 kilometres, in the AM and PM peak-hours is 44:30 mins and 45:00 mins respectively; these estimates are so large and unrealistic, I struggle to see that they are correct. Besides, would people not be encouraged to use the train instead of sitting in traffic? Mode transfer is the most likely result.
* Page 219, Section 8.3.6 - "longer travel times for rail passengers travelling to and from the St Peters and Mascot train stations by car, due to an increase in traffic volumes, slower travel speeds and increased intersection delays" - this statement is ridiculous! Given on-street parking in the streets surrounding both St Peters and Mascot Rail Stations is restricted and fully occupied, the number of commuters driving to either station to catch the train would be so small to be negligible and definitely not further justification for a building a $17 billion motorway project

Section 10.3 - Operational Performance - St Peters & Surrounds - With WestConnex
* Page 251, Section 10.3.2.1 - the EIS notes that under the 2031 with WestConnex scenario, "there is a significant increase in local trip generation which needs to be accommodated in the network" - it'd be beneficial if this could be quantified further so the data can be compared with traffic estimates the City has for nearby urban renewal precincts (primarily Ashmore)
* Page 252, Section 10.3.2.1 - "Paramics modelling suggests that only about 80 per cent of the traffic demand in the 2031 `with project' scenario could be accommodated in the network" - doesn't this prove that the project will not meet its objectives or worse will this provide RMS with the impetus to add new road projects, like the widening of Euston Road and McEvoy Street to six lanes, to resolve future demand


Euston Road
The WestConnex project proposed that Euston Road be increased to a six-lane road between Campbell Road and Sydney Park Road in 2019 (the year of opening). However, the traffic modelling shows that this expansion is not merited. Therefore, why is Euston Road expanded in 2019. This will simple induce traffic demand on the road and encourage more vehicles to travel unnecessarily from WestConnex through local streets in Alexandria.




Campbell Road Bridge
I do not see the rationale behind the Campbell Road Bridge over the Alexandria Canal. Access to WestConnex from the airport, ports and eastern suburbs is proposed to be provided by Gardeners Road via the proposed Gardeners Road Bridge.

By providing an alternative route to access WestConnex, the Campbell Road Bridge will:

* Become a more attractive surface route for motorists looking to bypass WestConnex (Stage 3), being particularly attractive to motorists who are sensitive to paying the WestConnex road tolls;
* Encourage traffic that may use WestConnex (Stage 3) to instead travel through the inner west suburbs of St. Peters, Newtown and Marrickville; and
* Become an east-west link which will encourage rat-running through St. Peters and Alexandria, instead of using the existing Canal Road connection or the proposed Gardeners Road Bridge.

In attraction, the six traffic lanes ensures that the capacity of the Campbell Road Bridge will enable large volumes of traffic to travel from eastern suburbs, the airport and port to Sydney's west without the need to use St Peter's interchange or WestConnex. This Campbell Street Bridge will encourage motorists to rat run through the local streets instead of using state roads. This additional traffic can feed directly into Bourke Road and affect active transport infrastructure such as the Bourke Road Cycleway.

The Campbell Road Bridge is unnecessary should be removed from the scope of the project. The only bridge that should be built across the Alexandria Canal on Campbell Street should be a Campbell Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge.


Active Transport
Any motorway or tunnel that is constructed must include a shared path wide enough for both cyclists and pedestrians to use the whole length of the motorway and to the airport. This ha

See attachment

SUBMISSION TO M5 EIS

Name GLENN BUTCHER
Full address Unit 15, 300 Mitchell Road, Alexandria, NSW, 2015

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.

ADD YOUR OWN COMMENTS HERE:

I have lived on Mitchell Road since 2006, 10 years. In this time. I have seen a huge increase in traffic using Mitchell Road to avoid the already traffic clogged King Street, Newtown and Euston Road, Alexandria. Personally. I avoid using Euston Road when driving my car as it's already a "car park" ie slow moving traffic with lengthy delays with about 6,000 vehicle current usage. Dumping over 60,000 vehicles onto Euston Road as a result of WestConnex exit point, will only make an existing traffic nightmare, ten-fold worse. The result will be driver frustration causing drivers to move onto other local roads and back streets. Apart from the increase traffic, there is the fact that population from vehicle exhaust will clog the air, resulting in sickness of the 150,000+ residents living in the area. WestConnex is NOT the solution, it's going to be a traffic nightmare.

I have / have not made a reportable political donation. (Circle the option that applies to you. If yes, you need to attach a Political Disclosures Donation Statement, available from the Department of Planning website).