Catherine Welch, 39 Suttor St, Alexandria 2015, [email protected]
I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the New M5 proposal. The EIS shows how flawed and distastrous a project this will be for my local community, for Sydney and for NSW, which will be paying for it for many years to come. I object to the proposal as a resident of an affected community, as a taxpayer of the state, and as a citizen of a democracy who is entitled to a greater opportunity to meaningful consultation and to transparency in decision-making.
I object to a project which does not provide sufficient benefits, and which exacts immense costs, even according to the numbers manufactured for the EIS. These costs are:
- Increased congestion in an area already affected by gridlock, leading to rat runs in local streets - as well as cancelling any of the time savings claimed for the project. According to the number in the EIS, Euston Rd will have to carry more traffic per day than the new M5 itself.
- Sydney Park will no longer be the green `lung' and haven for thousands of people in a high-density area (and that will only become higher density over time), with few public spaces. Instead, it will be trimmed, and hemmed in by polluting roads on all sides. The location of the new public space - right next to a massive flyover - means it is no compensation for this loss.
- The scope of the traffic study does not consider full impact on my suburb - the only answer that SMC has been able to give us (via the City of Sydney) is that beyond Maddox St, the traffic will `disperse'. This is clearly inadequate - in fact, it is laughable.
- Alexandria businesses are not included in economic impact statement - King St and Enmore Rd are not the only affected retail businesses
- The pollution levels to which Alexandria residents are currently exposed are already above national guidelines, and the EIS shows this will worsen.
- There are serious omissions/contradictions in the EIS relating to Alexandria traffic - diagrams don't match the text in relation to crucial intersections. Ashmore, Green Square, C2Eveleigh, Waterloo and ATP need to be explicitly addressed but are not. To take Mitchell Rd as an example: it will have the expanded ATP at one end (the north) and the large-scale Ashmore development at the other (south) end - and this is before factoring in the additional traffic coming off the new M5 and streaming on to Sydney Park Rd. There is no evidence in the EIS that these additional developments have been modelled and their impact assessed.
- There is insufficient consideration of alternatives to this project that would not have such a deleterious impact on the local area - and that would alleviate current congestion rather than adding to it.
- The social impact study shows that this project violates the vision that City of Sydney residents have for their city. There is no consideration of this, yet it is clear from the EIS itself that the project does not meet community standards and aspirations
The standard of the EIS is so poor that we cannot effectively judge the full impact of the project on our local area.
However, what we can judge is that the EIS makes it clear that the current project will create traffic levels that are unmanageable. I enclose an email we received from SMC explaining why 2031 figures for the project have been omitted from the EIS (a very serious omission) (email from Louise Bonny, dated 13 January 2016):

[start of quote] '> As described in section 10.3.2.1 of Appendix G, for the "2031 'with project' scenario" there is a significant increase in local trip generation and in the traffic demand to and from the WestConnex portal at St Peters. This increase would need to be accommodated by the surrounding road network without any increase in road space (i.e. without the future proposed WestConnex M4-M5 Link, Sydney Gateway and Southern extension projects).

> As noted in Section 10.3.2.1 (page 252), Paramics modelling suggests that only about 80 per cent of the traffic demand in the 2031 'with project' scenario could be accommodated by the existing road network. Modelling a scenario that can only accommodate 80 per cent of the demand results in outputs that are confusing as the model does not function properly and presents results that can be misleading.

> As noted in Section 10.3.2.1, in the absence of the development of the full WestConnex program of works, Sydney Gateway and the Southern extension, additional network upgrades would be required to accommodate the 2031 'with project' traffic demand in the St Peters interchange area.

> It is further noted that by 2031 without the project, the intersection Level of Service in the pm peak is expected to be very poor (table 100).
>
> Although there is a significant increase in traffic demand in the 2031 'full WestConnex and Southern extension' scenario, the construction of the additional road network components proposed as part of the WestConnex M4-M5 Link, Sydney Gateway and Southern extension projects provide the additional road space and increases the ability to distribute and accommodate the predicted increase in traffic.' [end quote]

In other words, the effect of the project on local roads is so bad that it actually means the project will fail to meet its objectives due to the increased congestion that it will cause.

I also strongly object to the breach of process that has occurred as part of the EIS `consultation' period. In particular:
- Lack of independence: given that previous Sydney tollways have failed to reach the targeted benefits, and given that the consultant (AECOM) has been found to have used flawed methodologies in the past) there is particular onus on this one for the projected benefits to be subjected to independent scrutiny. This has not occurred and it means that there has been no opportunity for independent experts to assess AECOM's methodology.
- Timing: the release of the EIS over the summer holidays is a move that is cynical in the extreme. It means that only now is my local community of Alexandria starting to become aware of the issues surrounding the project. Some affected parts of the community - particularly Alexandria Park Community School, which is explicitly mentioned in the EIS as one of affected the affected schools - have not been able to comment, given that the consultation period coincided with school holidays. It also meant that we did not receive answers from SMC in a timely manner, making it more difficult to prepare a submission. (We still have numerously unanswered queries awaiting a response.)
- Short time period for comment: I was part of a small group who went through the EIS to try to understand what the effects would be on Alexandria. We have been unable to properly read and absorb the information in all the volumes in the time we have been given. Given the complexity of the project and the size of the EIS, there has been no way that local communities can have been meaningfully consulted.

I demand a response to this submission and a point-by-point reply to the concerns raised. I am still awaiting any acknowledgement of my submission regarding the M4 EIS: another breach of process.

Yours sincerely
Catherine Welch

From my review, the research and evidence do not provide a case for this work to go ahead. There is insufficient evidence of any potential benefit to the congestion levels and current difficulty of entering and leaving metro sydney areas. However, the harmful impacts are abundantly clear. This will negatively affect the natural environment (in particular Sydney park which is an invaluable asset to the city), economy of the area, and quality of life for local residents, without providing benefits to commuters. The congestion will simply be moved, not improved. Further thought needs to be given to public transport which is accessible (location and quantity of depots) and affordable and as easy as possible to use (provision of parking, speed of service etc). This would be the only positive way forward for Sydney.

I do support the WestConnex IF it includes the M5 East Green Link:

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 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 the WestConnex project;
Link with the existing M5 Cycleway;
Cater for demand from the housing and commercial developments at Wolli Ck Station precinct.

Personally I think we should be looking at increasing cycling and walking infrastructure to directly combat congestion, obesity, fossil fuel usage and in general the happiness of those willing to make a difference.

From my review, the research and evidence do not provide a case for this work to go ahead. There is insufficient evidence of any potential benefit to the congestion levels and current difficulty of entering and leaving metro sydney areas. However, the harmful impacts are abundantly clear. This will negatively affect the natural environment (in particular Sydney park which is an invaluable asset to the city), economy of the area, and quality of life for local residents, without providing benefits to commuters. The congestion will simply be moved, not improved. Further thought needs to be given to public transport which is accessible (location and quantity of depots) and affordable and as easy as possible to use (provision of parking, speed of service etc). This would be the only positive way forward for Sydney. If this development goes ahead, I would consider moving away from the area.

To whom it may concern,

Instead of spending billions of dollars on an insane project that no one wants or needs and which will simultaneously increase congestion and pollution whilst destroying parkland and devaluing properties, maybe just... don't? And hey, if you're insistent on spending all of our taxes on things, our public transport system isn't exactly perfect. Maybe have a look at that instead? I for one do like it when my tax dollars go towards things that are actually useful. Imagine that.

Go on, do something good for the community. Who knows, you may even find you actually enjoy not being awful. It's at least worth trying, just once, don't you think?

cheers

Tully Mansfield

I think this is a fantastic way to help people commute safely.
I'd love to see a high-quality cycling and walking link connecting Bexley North Train station to Sydney Airport to be funded and delivered as part of the Westconnex project aswell.

I oppose the WestConnex project and call for the M5 East Green Link high-quality cycling and walking link connecting Bexley North Train station to Sydney Airport instead.

The M5 East green link will provide a high-quality, low stress, and largely off-road cycleway connecting south-western Sydney and the CBD, via the airport. Not everybody wants to drive everywhere and good cycling and walking infrastructure should be delivered.

The $16 Billion investment required to build the WestConnex Motorway project is an investment in the physical infrastructure of Sydney unlikely to be replicated for at least a decade. Considering the scale of the investment and the lifespan of project it would be reasonable to expect that this project would create a piece of infrastructure that would provide significant benefits to Sydney for at least the next thirty to fifty years. Equally it would be reasonable to expect that an investment of this scale would be based on a solid basis of evidence and planning presented to the public as openly as transparently as possible. Unfortunately this does not appear to be the case with WestConnex.

To make such a huge investment in road building (described by Roads Minister Duncan Gay as the equivalent of two Snowy River power schemes) is to dramatically over-invest in an out-dated model for the provision of urban accessibility. Already car usage is declining on a per capita basis and technological and cultural changes are likely to see this trend increase. Increasingly, the intertwining of car ownership, status, and identity is becoming irrelevant to younger generations. Ride-sharing is rapidly becoming a crucial part of the transport mix and in the coming decades (well within the lifetime of WestConnex) driverless cars will also play an important role. These technologies will provide better integration with public transport, further erode car ownership, and provide more efficient use of existing road stock.

Real estate prices highlight the desirability of urban lifestyles characterised by compact, walkable neighbourhoods provided with good public transport and cycling infrastructure. The liveability and sustainability benefits of this urban structure are well understood by urban planning professionals, and planning documents (including those of the NSW Government) aim to develop compact activity centres reliant on public transport. Investing in WestConnex is not simply out of step with the objective of creating a more compact, sustainable, and liveable Sydney it will, in fact, be detrimental to the viability of existing attempts at urban renewal such as Green Square and Ashmore.

These trends suggest that WestConnex will be an investment in a mode of transport that has entered a long-term decline, however investment in road infrastructure has repeatedly been shown to create induced traffic growth. Effectively Sydney will be investing significant funds to provide an incentive for car use and entrench Sydney's auto-centric urban structure. It will simply make the necessary, and inevitable, transition to a more sustainable transport system more costly and difficult.

WestConnext will also result in increased greenhouse gas emissions, increased air particulate pollution, and increased deaths and injuries from road accidents. It will heavily impact on the liveability of the densely populated inner west suburbs. In return for these impacts and the $16 billion price tag a study by SGS Planning and Economics found that the impacts of WestConnex would make only a `minor difference' to Sydney's traffic conditions.

Alternatively, the $16 billion investment could be used to provide a step-change in Sydney's transport system, enabling Sydney to move away from its dependence on cars for the bulk of its transport needs. The potential list of projects that this funding could be used for is long, it could play a huge role in overcoming key bottlenecks such as Town Hall Station and the Harbour Crossing that constrain the capacity of the whole rail system. It could replicate Perth's success in rolling out rail lines to currently car-dependent outer suburbs. It could build on the work of the City of Sydney and create a metropolitan wide network of segregated cycle lanes. It could massively increase the coverage and frequency of bus and light rail routes. The reality is that there would be a a suite of cost-effective projects that could be delivered for $16 billion. If these projects were combined with well planned land use projects they could potentially play a huge role in transitioning Sydney to a sustainable, integrated transport system suitable for the conditions of the 21st Century. WestConnex represents 16 billion dollars of lost opportunity for Sydney.

An investment of the scale of WestConnex should be made on a sound and rigorous evidence base and using a transparent and accountable process with which the public can have complete confidence. This has clearly not been the case with WestConnex.

The traffic forecasts the project is based on need to be treated with scepticism. Traffic modelling has been shown to be susceptible to optimism bias and Australian traffic modelling does not have a recent history of success in forecasting patronage numbers for major road projects. In Brisbane the Clem 7 tunnel and Airport Link have recently proved to be major failures due to vastly exaggerated traffic forecasts. In Sydney both the Cross City and Lane Cove tunnels were built on the basis of traffic forecasts that were significantly higher than actually recorded results.

The decision to use AECOM to undertake traffic modelling despite recently having settled a case claiming its traffic forecasts represented `false, misleading, and deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act' (in relation to Clem7) is questionable. The fact that AECOM also stands to benefit from contracts relating to the construction of the project is even more worrying.

WestConnex locks Sydney into future greenhouse gas emissions and public health impacts without improving the ability of Sydney citizens to access opportunities and services. At a cost of $16 billion that represents a very poor investment for Sydney.

Tim Brennan,
Private Citizen.

IRRESPONSIBLE GOVERNANCE

The whole WestCONnex system will increase greenhouse gas emissions in Sydney at a time when we should be doing all we can to reduce them. We are not convinced by a method of analysis which does not look at alternatives but instead compares the New M5 project against a `do nothing' scenario to claim a reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Just another hundred or many more reasons to object to the westconnex

CONTINUOUS SNUBBING OF COMMUNITY
The RMS was given approval to build the old M5 on condition that it protected endangered flora and fauna. Now it wants approval to destroy those communities for a new tollway because its old project has failed to solve congestion. This makes the system of conditions meaningless. This proposal should be rejected.

Just another reason for the loos of habitat and a beautiful forest to strongly object to the westconnex