The new M5 St Peters Interchange will be a massive Los Angeles-style spaghetti junction of flyovers right next to Sydney Park that will pour traffic into already congested suburbs, worsen air quality and threaten King Street. There is no valid reason for this project to go ahead without a full inquiry into the Cost Benefit and more community consultation

I am against the Westconnex New M5 as I believe it will make traffic in the areas around Newtown, St Peters, etc much worse. The areas are already congested yet the M5 will bring more traffic in. The money would be better spent on improving public transport as part of a larger investment in public transport and away from cars. Pollution in the area would also significantly increase if the New M5 goes ahead. Please reconsider the plan and invest in public transport instead, it is the long term solution.

I strongly object to the proposed WestConnext New M5 and to the entire WestConnext. As a taxpayer I stongly believe this project will not deliver better transport outcomes for Sydney and will have an adverse effect on individual and community health in the areas local to the project and areas of south western Sydney, which will be impacted by increased pollution.
The financial cost of this project could be better spent elsewhere such as projects that improve public transport links across Sydney, in particular in western Sydney and to the industrial and employment areas of botany and Randwick. Funding alternate project would ease congestion on roads, whereas this project will increase congestion on both major and minor roads.
The EIS fails to include multiple schools and community spaces in the cons ideation of the impact, or underestimates the impact the removal of forest at cooks river and space at Sydney park will have on the health of the community.
A key concern is the lack of transparency from the government and the piecemeal approach to assessment of phases of the project rather than the project as a whole.
At his project should not go ahead, all assessment and funding proposals should be available to the public and clear proposals for pubic transport projects that improve transport outcomes anc consider the health of communities should be put forward in it's place.

I support Wesconnex.
There should be a bike track as well.

Wesconnex will join major population centers with major job centers, meaning it is ideal for cycle commuting.

I use M5 frequently and would like to cycle on it but it's too dangerous. Many of my friends in Macarthur Collegians Cyclung Club say the same thing.

Bring on the Green Link!

My major concern of this project has been the lack of information given to the general public about the proposed future development of the M5 East.
To date a couple of letterbox drops limited to an A4 sheet of brief details outlining mainly timeline overviews of the projects forward planning. Following came a public exhibition at Kingsgrove RSL which was supported by the construction company. Government personnel didn't see the need to be in attendance. At that exhibition I learnt how little information we had received by way of government consultation. There were many examples of the information we should have received.
Information learnt from this visit and accessing various web site addresses which were supplied at the Kingsgrove venue have raised a major concern I have with the fallout from the exhaust stacks which will be located near our home address. I believe our residence lies within the 2 kilometre radius of the stack construction. Not being told of this does raise an element of suspicion that elements of this project are being rushed and not fully developed to give the best possible advantage to the residents of Beverly Hills.

While it is commendable that the motorway aims to reduce congestion, remove freight traffic from roads, and promote urban renewal, it cannot do so forever. As has been suggested many times, the wonder of a quick drive will only serve to entice more cars on the road - exacerbating the cause of the situation. The government has done much in the way of improving public transport, but the time and expense involved in road and rail projects ensures they will always be slower than the demand. There is an opportunity here to balance this road project with accompanying cycling 'greenways' and bike highways, to encourage the growing movement and enable people to cycle to work. These are relatively cheap and uncontroversial, however have the potential to contribute immensely to the projects overall aims of traffic efficiency and urban renewal. In particular, the M5 East Green link should be a priority.

I strongly object to the proposed WestConnex motorway and the New M5. The EIS is flawed and the analysis lacking and inconsistent. Data is not presented consistently or logically. The EIS does not consider all the impacts of the Project - the various selected study areas are far too limited. This EIS should not and cannot form the basis of a planning approval.

There is no sound justification for WestConnex. Sydney's orbital motorway was completed in 2005 when the M7 opened. The orbital motorway comprising the M2, M7, M5, M1 provides connections to the port and airport, it connects Sydney's west, south-west, north-west and east. Moreover it does this without an absolute reliance on tolls - the M5 remains untold but will be tolled with the completion of the New M5.

The imposition of a toll on the M5 will unfairly place an additional travel cost on people who have made decisions about where to live and work based on current costs - tolls on the M5 corridor will add considerably to travel costs.

Tolls will also force traffic off the motorway corridor and on to local roads. This toll avoidance effect was clearly demonstrated when the toll was removed from the M4 in 2010; traffic on the motorway increased and flows on Parramatta Road reduced. The imposition of tolls will push traffic onto local surface roads - this streets that are most important to local residents and businesses.

The building of WestConnex and the New M5 will increase traffic in Sydney - through induced demand. Sydney is already struggling to cope with large volumes of traffic and congestion yet by building new motorways in the most congested parts of the city, the government is accelerating traffic growth - this is clearly nonsensical. There is a need to manage demand for road space.

Taking an outdated 'predict and provide' approach to traffic planning is to build in problems for the future. When will road building end - when the city is obliterated by roads? Quite simply it is not possible to continue in this was forever - Sydney will continue to grow - will we need a new WestConnex every 20 years to cope with increased demand for roads? Where will the cars park?

There is plenty of road space for economically important freight and business vehicles. The New M5 demonstrates this in the toll avoidance effect. Managing demand through pricing (tolls) has the effect of reducing demand for the road - following the imposition of tolls on the M5 East traffic flows reduce and there is no need for the New M5. This is clearly demonstrated in the EIS documents.

While it may seem cyclical it seems the New M5 is being planned to simply connect to roads that are not already there - the M4-M5 Link, the Western Harbour Tunnel. It has no benefit as a standalone project.

The impacts on the area around the St Peters Interchange are devastating. The loss of parkland, the loss of mature trees, the reduction in air quality and an increase in fast moving traffic with implications for safety, air quality and noise. I had understood we were encouraging density and inner city living, that air quality should be improved and open space is important and must be preserved. In the last week the Australian Government has committed to increasing the urban canopy. The New M5 does the opposite.

The Minister for Roads has said that the construction of WestConnex is catching up with road building that should have occurred decades ago. This is flawed logic. Just because you didn't do something when it was fashionable doesn't mean you do it now - with the benefit of improved knowledge and experience. Many other cities around the world have realised that the road building programs they have pursued in the past have not served them well.

Los Angeles is a good example. LA has more road lane kilometres than any other major city in the US but suffers significantly more congestion than any other major city in the US - at a considerable cost to the economy. Sydney must learn from these examples and skip the unfortunate road building phase. In Sydney, we have the basis of a wonderful and sustainable city but WestConnex will destroy so much of our potential.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to strongly object to the EIS for Westconnex currently being considered. I have a number of concerns, including:

- The significant loss of potential parkland in Alexandria, the site of the proposed interchange
- The lack of modelling of traffic flows from Euston Rd, Bourke St and King St into the city or other areas (the area that is considered outside the scope of the EIS, for apparently political and entirely illogical reasons)
- The loss of extant parkland at Sydney Park
- The lack of any modelling to compare the Westconnex scenario with alternate scenarios in which the incredible amount of money spent on Westconnex was instead spent on public transport
- The lack of consultation with Sydney residents regarding their desire for a new toll road, and their plans to utilise a new road built in their area
- The timing surrounding the release and submission dates of the EIS, which appears designed to limit community participation and reduce the ability of community groups to develop well-informed submissions.

I strongly urge that the proposal be rejected and referred to an independent enquiry to consider the motives behind the project being approved and progressing to the stage of an EIS without a business case being developed or adequate modelling conducted, and into the complete lack of consideration of more sustainable and equitable modes of transport by decision makers in the NSW government.

Yours sincerely,

Eddy Blaxell
2/90 Newman St
Newtown NSW 2042

I am writing to register the strongest objection I possibly can to WestConnex.

* It is a huge waste of taxpayer money that would be better spent on public transport. As a taxpayer, it is truly galling to think of my money being wasted in this way.

* The business case shows that it will save commuters little time, if any, and at an outrageous cost.

* Residents of Alexandria are already exposed to levels of PM2.5 particles that exceed national guidelines, yet the EIS predicts that these levels will only worsen.

* The devastating impact on Sydney Park is unacceptable.

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?

This is an unacceptable use of taxpayer money. I cannot say it any clearer - please consider this the strongest objection possible to a terrible idea. We should build public transport instead.

I object to the findings regarding specific criteria set in the Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements:

1. Absence of independent and objective assessment. SMC or NSW Roads and Maintenance Services have not been required to release their Westconnex Roads and Traffic model to allow testing by independent organisations and content experts.
2. the apparent limited consideration of alternatives and the lack of evidence-based policy behind this proposal. Proposals must include comprehensive analysis of alternatives, particularly those which are likely to benefit the MAXIMUM number of NSW citizens and therefore must include combinations of public transport and traffic management that could reduce road freight and car use.
3. Traffic modellers agree there is a considerable degree of uncertainty about traffic projections particularly those that rely on unplanned tollway project that may or may not be completed by 2031. We are concerned about statements by transport experts that the model does not sufficiently account for induced traffic known to be caused by tollways.
4. I object to the approach to traffic modelling that stops two intersections past the project area. The EIS advises 71,000 daily vehicle movements on Euston Road alone with no advice on impacts. Instead Erskineville, Alexandria, Waterloo, Zetland and Mascot communities will be contending with traffic and air pollution, specifically particulate pollution from heavy vehicles. According to this limited modelling, in the morning peak, 11 major intersections in St Peters and Alexandria would be the same or worse with the Westconnex after the New M5 is built in both 2021 and 2031, even assuming the entire Westconnex tollway system is built. In the afternoon peak, 7 intersections would be the same or worse off.
5. There is also no information provided on whether or not current or future users of the existing M5 East will choose to use a new motorway. South Sydney is slated for more residential development replacing employment lands.
6. Air pollution, noise and other predictions all rely on this traffic modelling so are also very uncertain. Of concerned is the NSW EPA acknowledgement that it lacked skills needed to review the air pollution data for the M4 East because the model used by the Westconnex air quality data has not been used in Australia before.
7. Along the M4 East and New M5, there will be unfiltered exhaust stacks in highly populated suburbs despite the fact that the CIMIC Leightons, the Westconnex contractor, has constructed filtered stack in overseas projects.
8. The EIS acknowledges that there will be increased fine particulate pollution along Campbell and Euston Roads. However, there will also be increased pollution along other local roads including Mitchell Road, Erskineville Road, Enmore Road, King Street and Edgeware Rd. There is strong evidence that this pollution increases risk of impaired lung development, respiratory and other illnesses such as lung cancer, and heart disease. There are no safe levels of fine particular pollution.
9. The proposed reclaim of Sydney Park has increased by 6000 square metres over the original proposal, a sizeable amount of land that will impact on active and passive exercise use, native plant habitat regeneration, water recycling, bird life and enjoyment of far more of this crucial regional park that is used by thousands of residents each day. Thousands of trees, including 350 paperbarks, will be destroyed.
10. The EIS indicates risk of health impacts, including on users of Sydney Park, from heavy machinery and transport. Information about mitigation has been deferred until after planning approvals. 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.
11.Plannin has failed to consider the long-term impact of Westconnex on carbon emissions and the failed to consider public transport and traffic management alternatives.
12. The social and economic impact study is inadequate, failing to list all relevant social facilities that could be affected by the project. Notably Erskineville School was omitted while Newtown Public School that is not closer to the project was included. Westconnex failed to consult directly with local businesses about their concerns about the project.
13. The RMS was given approval to build the old M5 on condition that it protected endangered flora and fauna. We strongly object to removal of most of critically endangered Cooks River Iron Bark Forest at Kingsgrove.
14. I object to the removal of 7 hectares of habitat of one of only two surviving colonies of endangered Green and Golden Bell Frogs for a tunnelling site, and the superficial and substandard way this threat has been assessed in this EIS.
I ask the Secretary of the Department of Planning and the Minister for Planning Rob Stokes to reject this project and call for an inquiry into the planning of Westconnex.