THE EIS IS CLEARLY FLAWED/BIASED
It is completely biased towards getting the road through. The way the EIS has downplayed and brushed over important and relevant issues (which are subjects of submission, ie pollution, destruction of homes, amenities, health) is a blatant attempt to hide real facts. In any ordinary setting hiding (disguising) relevant information is a criminal matter. No doubt on the urges and money from government with no integrity it could come to no other conclusion.
The public have genuine concerns against the Westconnex and because of the biased nature of the EIS I fear their concerns will be ignored. Nothing will change.
Just another reason why this project is so wrong for Sydney and why I object to it.

I do not support the building of WestConnex in particular the new M5 East, as the planners have not been able to develop a good business case and thereby have shown very little evidence to justify any need which would not be far better support by a more extensive and frequent public transport system supported by good active transport facilities. The proposed road expansion will simply create further congestion and block the local road network to which it feeds. This is a prime case of what we should not do: induce further travel demand. I am also extremely concerned at the haphazard way in which the whole WestConnex proposal has developed, with no clear foresight of the eventually final project. All this to the tune of $17 billion dollars, a huge waste of money which is not going to public transport and which will almost certainly stall the state government's planned public transport program.
While there are many negatives associated with this proposal and very little time to enumerate so I would like to touch on one particular area - the impact on bike riders and pedestrians. The increase in traffic can only lead to more cars on all roads, making many local roads even less friendly for active travellers than they are now. This can only further entrench car dependency in Sydney, especially in the inner urban areas which simply are not suited to car use and where we should be prioritising public and active transport.
I recommend you do not approve this project but if you do, it is essential that complementary public transport and active transport strategies are employed to try to mitigate the disaster of WestConnex:
It is absolutely essential that this road project fund and deliver a top quality, continuous active transport link along the corridor of the proposed new road project ie a quality pathways through the Wolli Creek Valley between Bexley Station and the Airport which is away from traffic and avoids the local street steep grades.
Such a link was promised as part of the original M5 East motorway build and any future expansion of the M5 East must follow through to fund and deliver this active transport link. Similar motorway projects have very successfully funded and delivered on active transport links in the past and this project must do likewise. The Lane Cove Tunnel project delivered an active transport link along its full corridor which has proved to be very well used and has made cycling and walking between North Ryde, Lane Cove, Artarmon, Chatswood and Naremburn viable. Completing the link between Bexley Station and the Airport would have similarly well used and have similar benefits to the local communities in the M5 East vicinity.
There are many benefits from funding and delivering this link as part of any WestConnex / M5 East Motorway project including the following:
* Provide a high quality, low stress and largely off-road cycle highway connecting south-western Sydney and the CBD via the airport.
* Enable cycling as a viable transport alternative for Sydney Airport's 29,000 staff, and staff at Sydney Ports, many of whom are shift workers with difficult transport options. Cycling is the perfect option for worker living within 10 kilometres of the airport.
* Such a project would provide an economic return on cycling of $1.43 per km ridden.
* Allow people to ride and walk safely, away from the road system.
* Improve local road capacity as people choose to use a bike rather than their car.
* Improve safety outcomes for all road users and in particular vulnerable road users.
* Further insulate 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 WestConnex
* Link with existing M5 Cycleway
* Provide an active and sustainable alternative for the travel demands coming from the housing and commercial developments at Wolli Creek Station precinct.

I oppose the WestConnex Project. I believe an M5 Green Link (a high quality walking and cycling link connecting Bexley North train station to Sydney Airport would be more beneficial in connecting South Sydney and South Western Sydney to the CBD.

The M5 Green Link will provide a high quality, low stress and largely off road "veloway". This makes cycling a viable option for Sydney Airport's 29,000 staff who are mostly shiftworkers.

There is also an economic benefit to cycling, as it improves cardiovascular and mental health, while also reducing the incidence of many types of cancers. This amounts to approximately ($1.43 per km ridden).

This would make the road more safe for all road users, including cars, cyclists and walkers, allowing the walkers and cyclists to be separated from the road system.

The M5 Green Link would allow the Wolli Creek Valley to be further insulated against the intrusion and noise of traffic by increasing public awareness, use and care of the park. Further, this would offset the traffic, social and pollution impacts of the WestConnex project.

By linking this route with the M5 cycleway, it would cater for demand created by new housing and commercial developments around Wolli Creek station.

I do not support the New M5 in its current form. This submission is focused on the impacts associated with the St Peters interchange, which I believe is an ill conceived design which will result in unacceptable traffic, noise, air quality and social impacts on the local community. In relation to all these impacts almost no mitigation measures are proposed. While noise presents some attempt at mitigation, the solutions are not best practice, and are an insult when compared to those that have been implemented on other major infrastructure projects. The complete lack of mitigation for local traffic impacts and intersection performance and air quality is a disgrace and should render this EIS inadequate and the MInister should not approve this project.

The project has not demonstrated any meaningful engagement with the community. As a resident located less than 100 metres from the works, I have only received project newsletters advising of the current works and have had no project information presented to me on local impacts.

The EIS is poorly written, with the main body of the text having many cross references to appendices, which are large, and at times incorrectly referenced in the main body (as for noise), making reading the EIS nearly impossible even with a very fast internet connection.

The summary document is not representative of the impacts described in the EIS and should be removed from the website as it is misleading.

The project should further consider the significant and currently unmitigated impacts on local traffic and the community. Issues for consideration summarised below.

Traffic on local streets and intersection performance
The new intersection at Princes Highway / Campbell Street includes new right and left hand turn bays for traffic from Princes Highway to enter Campbell St.
Given the impact on the Unwins Bridge Rd/Campbell Street intersection performance (which declines with project with no mitigation proposed, and results in an increase in operational noise for receivers on Campbell Street and on adjacent local streets), suggest the intersection arrangement at Princes Highway / Campbell Street is retained as it - allowing traffic from the new M5 to cross the highway to travel west on Campbell, but limit other movements into Campbell Street to limit (albeit minor) the volume of additional traffic on this street.

Retain the traffic arrangements at May Street (i.e. left/right out and in), as this street is already dominated by light industry.
This will limit and spread the additional noise/traffic impacts on local streets as a result of the New M5.
The proposal to change May Street into left in/out only should not be progressed.

Traffic - ease of access for local streets, including Brown Street
The proposal includes left in/out only at Brown Street/ Campbell St. This is problematic for several reasons.
Given the intersection performance of Unwins Bridge Rd/Campbell Street, a left hand turn movement without any priority will not be easy for local residents.
Under the current proposal, in order to get to the Highway, local traffic will have to cross two lanes of traffic on Campbell St, to get to the right hand turn bay, which is very short, turn right onto May Street, and possibly only be able to turn left at the Princes highway (May St intersection).
I suggest he right hand turn bay on Campbell street is lengthened and the median on campbell street is removed to make room for a longer bay.

As above, the May St / highway intersection should not be left only, as local traffic from Brown, Florence etc (now unable to turn right onto Campbell) will not be able to access the New M5 or the highway. Local traffic will have all the increased traffic on our local streets and not be able to access the New M5, easily access Sydney Park, or easy access to the highway to head south.

It is unclear why the St Peters St/ Campbell St intersection is the intersection chosen to be signalised. St Peters St is a cul-de-sac, with limited vehicle movements. I appreciate it does house a very small public school, however for the successful movement of local traffic, and if the number of traffic lights on Campbell St must be limited to one, suggest this is moved to Florence St, which will at least allow local traffic to turn right onto Campbell Street from Silver/Florence streets, opening up access for local residents on Silver, Florence, Brown St.

Construction / operation traffic on Brown St
Temporary closure of Brown St /Campbell St intersection during construction will require traffic control on Conway Place, which is a very narrow lane way, with limited ability for two cars to pass. Making this the only access/ egress has serious safety issues.
Right hand turn onto Unwins BRidge Rd, which will be necessary in both construction and operation, will require as a minimum construction traffic control.

Consideration of sight lines for the right hand turn from Conway Place to Unwins Bridge Rd during operation will need to be considered as with increased traffic volumes on Unwins Bridge Rd is likely to be unsafe. The right hand turn from Conway Place to Unwins Bridge Rd must be permitted in the operational state, as without this turn access to the local area is further limited for local residents, which is not an acceptable outcome.

Currently the left hand turn from Campbell Street to Brown Street is not permitted in the peak to reduce opportunity for rat running. This should be retained. Also suggest traffic claiming measures are installed on Brown Street to further discourage rat running.

Loss of parking
How will the permanent loss of parking on Unwins Bridge Rd and May Street be mitigated? Many of these houses do not have on site parking. The loss of parking in these streets will put further stress on parking on local streets. The proposed mitigation of parking nearly 500 metres from affected residents is not acceptable. The New M5 project does not offer a sufficient management response to the loss of on-street car parking and as it is causing the problem, its resolution should not be deferred to after an operational traffic review has been completed as appears to be what is proposed. SMC should commit to working with Marrickville Council to develop a car parking strategy for St Peters (as a whole) prior to commencement of construction and fund any implementation of such strategy.

Changes to traffic conditions on Sydney Park Rd and Euston Rd / Mitchell Rd
Page 9-138 notes a proposal to not allow right hand turn from Sydney Park Rd southbound onto Euston Rd. It is not clear what this means.
The proposal to not allow a right hand turn from Mitchell Street to Sydney Park Rd is very problematic. This turn provides access to King Street, which has very limited access from the east. To change this would require traffic to re-route via Euston, Campbell Rd, Princes Highway and add an unnecessary 10 minutes to the journey. Given there are limited residential receivers along this section, it makes sense to retain traffic movements as they are, to provide better access to King St.

Operational traffic mitigation OpTT02
Completing an operational traffic review is not a mitigation or management measure. This should change to include a commitment to carrying out whatever additional works are required to retain a nominated level of service for intersection performance (which should at the least be retained as is, not worsen). Is it unclear how the only operational traffic mitigation measure can be to carry out a review, when the project decreases intersection performance at a range of intersections around the St Peters Interchange. These impacts are not acceptable as they stand, and must be mitigated.
Clause 7 of Schedule 2 of Environmental Planning and Assessment regulation (d)(vi) requires that the EIS must include a full description of the measures proposed to mitigate any adverse effects of the development, activity or infrastructure on the environment, and
There is no description of any measures to mitigate the adverse effects on intersection performance, or changes to operational traffic movements for local traffic. For example, there is no mitigation for the doubling of traffic on Euston Road, or the quadrupling of traffic on Campbell Street, both which will have significant and irreversible impacts on local traffic, with intersections performance worse than in the case of no project.

Noise
The EIS note that the increase in noise on Campbell Street is 22dBA (page 12-94), and yet the increase in traffic noise on Unwins Bridge Rd is identified at only 1dBA. Given that all the additional traffic on Campbell Street is going to either go straight onto Bedwins/Edgeware Rd, or left onto Unwins Bridge Rd, it is simply not feasible that the traffic increase on Unwins Bridge is 1dBA. In addition there is no mention of the increase in operational traffic noise impacts on Edgeware Rd.
Given this, the operational noise model appears to be inadequate and should be revisited.

The operational noise impacts for residents on Unwins Bridge Rd, and the southern end of Brown St are likely to have Unwins Bridge Rd as their dominant noise source, and are likely to experience an increase in noise of more than 2dBA.

In addition, the background noise for NCA06 was measured at NL02 - located on Campbell St, which has significantly more traffic noise than any of the local streets (BRown Florence, Silver, Edith) located in the NCA. It should not be considered indicative of the NCA, and background noise levels for residences offset from major roads should be corrected prior to consideration of operational noise impacts. For example, at my residence at 65 Brown St, the background noise should not be determined by a noise monitor on Campbell Street, and should be corrected to reflect the real ambient noise levels.

Construction noise
The use of generators to run security lighting for the sites during site establishment

The state government should be introducing policies and developing infrastructure that reduces the use of private motor vehicles in Sydney generally, and the number of large trucks on the roads of the inner west specifically. The proposed project will induce demand and create greater congestion where the motorway spills its peak loads into the inner west.

As a former resident of Newtown I have a great fondness for Newtown and surrounding suburbs. My daughter has just commenced high school to the Newtown School of Performing Arts on King Street. My connections to the area are strong and I believe the impact of this project on the area will detract from its many charms.

The Westconnex New M5 is a reckless and wasteful use of public money and public space and I oppose it without reservation.

I would to take this opportunity to offer my wholehearted support for a proposal from BikeSydney for an M5 East Green Link or high quality 'veloway' connecting the M5 East cycleway to Sydney Airport via the Wolli Creek valley. This is the type of alternative transport infrastructure that Sydney desperately needs to help break the destructive cycle of car dependence that is doing so much to damage the livability of our city.

We have so many bad drivers on the roads and it will get worse with the westconnex

As someone who will be directly affected by increased noise, pollution, less green space, property value decrease I'm am strongly against.

Why make another parramatta road

The fact the the EIS has classified my home as industrial is a joke. I have lived here for 9 years.

Instead on running up Euston road why not use Bourke road this is in the middle of an industrial zone and would service green square. Australia's future highest density population. This work better serve for employment opportunities within the neighbourhood.

The bus stop will be directly at my door stop intruding on my privacy increasing direct risk to break and enter or home invasion due to opportunistic events.

18 billion is a waist of money that could be used on pubic transport.

Does not consider changing disruptive future tech of driverless cars. When uber car pooling algorithms calculate optimal people movements changing behaviours

The westconnex being rushed forward is a slap in the face for those people with genuine concerns and there are many.
Here is just one.
The proposal to operate excavation and construction 24 hours a day so St Peters will have to put up with 5000+ vehicle (2000 heavy vehicle) movements a day for the duration of the project. Exposure of residents including children at St Peters School and the child care centres to diesel fumes day and night when diesel exhaust is classified as a carcinogenic pollutant is an outrage.
Just another reason 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

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.

Please don't let this flawed project proceed.

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.

I also want to protect the quality of life for the residents of Alexandria and surrounding areas, and future generations.

Please don't let this project proceed. Future generations will look back on this and ask how and why did our political leaders allow this to go ahead. You need to reconsider.