won't

I strongly object to the unacceptable impact the project to the people our health and amenity, our future, our heritage, habitats, endangered animals, and a critically endangered forest. It is disgraceful that all this and more will be sacrificed for a project that can't even be justified.
Another huge reason to object to the westconnex

WestCONnex

NOTE: A submission has been accidentally published in my name by a friend, Josie Evans, using my computer via the submission page at http://www.jennyleong.org/m5_eis.

The city needs much more public transport. This will move people around more quickly and conveniently. This should be prioritised over roads.

You build more roads, you get more traffic. Wider roads always lead to narrower roads.

In the next few years, much more quickly than we can imagine, we will go through massive disruption where electric vehicles (EVs) will replace internal combustion engine cars (ICEs) and vehicles will become autonomous. This will mean a change in the transport model which is already happening with rideshare services such as Uber. Young people are buying cars less. We should not be spending vast amounts on monolithic structures when we're about to undergo great disruption.

The new structures can only lead to permanent clearways in Newtown which will be absolutely hideous.

This feels like yet another snow job by the NSW government. Lack of transparency, no vision, the usual.

BIKESydney opposes the Westconnex proposal.

The EIS is deficient on many grounds, and in particular, fails to deliver on the "broader transport needs ...[of] cyclists" (as per SEAR's). The proposal fails to provide the inter-regional cycling links and infrastructure it a project of this scale is obliged to deliver.

The public consultation of the EIS was inadequate in that it was too short a period, the documentation too extensive and in any case, released to the public over the Christmas and summer holiday period when the public has very little time available to consider such proposals.

The EIS does not assess in any objective way the project's impacts on bicycle riders using the local and regional road network. Further, there is no objective assessment of the reduction in the Level of Service for bicycle riders within the new road network resulting from the project.


WestConnex will impact riders and walkers specifically by:

- increasing traffic and leading to fast "rat-running" on local road cycling links, reducing rider safety;

- markedly reducing crossing access ("Level of Service" for riders) at intersections as green time will need to be maximised for motor vehicles;

- increasing precinct "impermeability" (more big waits at big roads);

- increasing pressure on councils to open up local roads, including cul-de-sacs to relieve traffic stress;

- further eroding opportunities for high-quality active transport links as roads and intersections are widened to accommodate more vehicle lanes;

- further embedding car dependency on Sydney.


The WestConnex project fails to make good on its obligation to provide a high-quality, coherent active transport link along the corridor of the project. To this end, BIKESydney proposes the "M5 East Green Link" concept which would provide the requisite high-value strategic cycling link between Bexley Station and the Airport via Wolli Creek - the same corridor tracked by the eastern end of the Westconnex project.

Passing almost exclusively through the Wolli Creek Valley, this M5 East Green Link would be easy to construct, provide a high quality walking and cycling corridor away from traffic, and the steep grades of the local streets. It would also secure the preservation of the valley by bringing many, many more people into enjoy this wonderful green belt.

A similar cycleway concept was approved when the original M5 was first approved, but was never constructed.


The M5 East Green Link would bring the following benefits:

- Provide a high-quality, low stress, and largely off-road veloway" connecting south-western Sydney and the CBD, via the airport;

- Introduce cycling as a viable transport alternative for Sydney Airport's 29,000 staff, a large proportion of whom are shift workers that have no meaningful transport choice when ending shifts;

- Activate the economic return on cycling ($1.43 economic benefit per km ridden);

- Allow people to ride and walk safely, wholly away from the road system;

- Create road capacity and better Level of Service at intersections for vehicles (fewer people crossing intersections);

- Improved safety outcomes for all road, and in particular, vulnerable road users;

- Further protect the Wolli Creek Valley against intrusion by traffic and development by increasing public awareness, use and care of the valley park;

- Offset the traffic, social and pollution impacts of the WestConnex project;

- Link with the existing M5 Cycleway;

- Cater for demand from the housing and commercial developments at Wolli Ck Station precinct.


The Westconnex project should not be permitted to proceed without provide high-level, safe, off-road, connected walking and cycling links along the subject road corridor, consistent with modern transport planning principles.

Westconnex is poorly conceived and justified. An unacceptably poor and significantly over-costed attempt at public infrastructure provisioning.

The westconnex will destroy so much of what we value in a living Sydney. The city was once famous for its liveability, trees, parks, lifestyle and proper planning. It has a mix of historic and new. I have always been drawn to preserving the historic and sadly the government is changing the face of this city for the worse. Its future is not in a car yard but in a healthy environment where common sense prevails over the destruction of our amenity. Everyone in NSW will be affected by the westconnex chiefly because it is a complete waste of money, our taxes, our money, The government has shown irresponsible leadership by fast tracking the westconnex when there is so much wrong with it.
There should be a public inquiry into the westconnex and the project stopped immediately.
I OBJECT to the westconnex.

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
* Australia Technology Park (Another 10000CBA employees)

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.

The project will add an unacceptable level of pollution in terms of noise and air for the residents. This is a huge health hazard. The area of Alexandria, Waterloo and Erskineville are already highly congested.

The EIS does not consider the impact of other major developments such as

* Green Square
* Ashmore Estate
* Waterloo Revitalisation (Old Council flats)
* Australia Technology Park Development (another 10000 CBA employees) will use the areas. Where will they all park considering there will be only 386 car parks available?

This is an unacceptable development and is extremely short sighted. The government should invest the people's money into more sustainable investment such as public transport.

It's time to get the policy right. The only option is public transport not massive toll road ways that will add to massive pollution and massive congestion.

I have not made a reportable political donation.

TRAFFIC CHAOS - INNER WEST
The New M5 would cause costly traffic chaos throughout the inner west and south-west Sydney. 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. This EIS also clearly demonstrates that the traffic on roads around the St Peters Interchange will deteriorate as a result of WestConnex, as well as already heavily congested roads in Bexley, Rockdale, Kingsgrove and Brighton-Le-Sands. I object to building a road that the proponent admits will produce such volumes of traffic that such roads will be beyond capacity. Where traffic is already bad, plans should be to reduce it, not make it worse.

The government wouldn't dare do this to the suffering western suburbs (even though they are being tooled if they use it) yet they ride rough shod over the inner west. THUGS

More reasons to object to the westconnex

OVER QUOTING - TRAFFIC MODELLING
The flaws and optimistic assumptions in the traffic modelling mean that toll revenue is likely to be significantly lower than forecast. AECOM has a history of providing over-optimistic traffic forecasts for toll roads, resulting in previous financial failures (e.g. Clem7 in Brisbane). I find it completely unacceptable that AECOM has been paid $13 million of taxpayer money to complete this EIS despite this, and despite it being awarded other WestConnex contracts that depend on the project going ahead. This is an utterly unacceptable conflict of interest. The public cannot trust that this EIS properly and fully investigates the true economic, environmental and social impacts of this project, and indeed the poor quality of this document reflects this. I also object to AECOM doing the EIS when it has contracts in the rest of the project including Stage 2. This conflict of interest needs to be explained and addressed.

Even with these flaws, tolls on these roads are to be in effect for decades. Many Sydneysiders will not see these roads untolled in their lifetimes. Nor will western Sydney or rural and regional NSW see any investment in their communities to create employment opportunities that would circumvent the need to commute long distances by car to jobs in Sydney's CBD, eastern suburbs and inner city.

Another hundred millions reasons to object to the westconnex

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
* Australia Technology Park (Another 10000CBA employees)

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.

The project will add an unacceptable level of pollution in terms of noise and air for the residents. This is a huge health hazard. The area of Alexandria, Waterloo and Erskineville are already highly congested.

The EIS does not consider the impact of other major developments such as

* Green Square
* Ashmore Estate
* Waterloo Revitalisation (Old Council flats)
* Australia Technology Park Development (another 10000 CBA employees) will use the areas. Where will they all park considering there will be only 386 car parks available?

This is an unacceptable development and is extremely short sighted. The government should invest the people's money into more sustainable investment such as public transport.

It's time to get the policy right. The only option is public transport not massive toll road ways that will add to massive pollution and massive congestion.

I have not made a reportable political donation.