I strongly object to the proposed new M5.

A motorway interchange St Peters would push a significant number of additional cars into a residential area that has not yet adapted to increased residential development. An exorbitant amount of tax payer's money has already been invested into this project - funds which could have been spent on investment in public transport within the area.

The Government's focus on toll roads as a proposed solution to traffic problems within the city is outdated and lacks innovation. Existing toll roads are too expensive, and an additional toll will lead to deliberate avoidance of these roads by many who need to use them (myself included), placing additional burden on existing residential roads.

Part of the appeal of living in a city such as Sydney is the access to open spaces and parkland - Sydney Park is an excellent example of this. The proposed M5 interchange will not only remove a section of the park to accommodate the interchange, but will also have significant environmental impacts on those using the park including noise and air pollution.

I think it is irresponsible and unwise to spend billions of dollars on Westconnex when there is insufficient evidence that it is the optimal way to ease congestion in Sydney.

I wish the plan to be shelved immediately.

As a resident of Lord Street, Newtown; I am extremely concerned about the impact of the Westconnex on the local community, the environment and its amenity. Specifically, I am concerned about:

1) Entry / exit points for the new spaghetti junction at St Peters
Motorway traffic will be funnelled on/off local streets and roads that are already clogged with traffic at peak times and at weekends. The extra traffic generated by the motorway will make the situation worse, specifically on Edgeware Rd, King St Newtown and Euston Rd. Consideration must be given to the effects of motorway traffic on local streets and roads.

2) Destruction of parts of Sydney Park.
It is disgraceful that parts of Sydney Park will be carved up to make way for the new motorway, especially along Euston Rd and Campbell Rd where there will also be a significant loss of trees. These trees should be protected by redirecting the motorway further east towards the Alexandria Canal or beyond. The park must be protected.

3) Concentration of vehicle emissions
It is well known that motor vehicle emissions are the cause of respiratory health problems. This motorway will intensify emissions in the inner west, especially from exhaust stacks resulting in poor health prospects for residents living in the area. This health aspect must be taken into consideration.

4) Lack of a business case
The business case for the Westconnex has not been established and is shrouded in secrecy. This is not the way to run the state. The way our tax dollars are spent should be open to the highest level of scrutiny. The Westconnex must not proceed unless a clear and positive business case has been presented.

To Whom it may concern,

Sydney Park provides great amenity to 1000s of people in the area and beyond. WestConnex will destroy this amenity.

First, the park provides much needed green space in an area that becomes ever more densely populated. The green space improves physical and mental health and provides a meeting space for the community. This is public park land it should not be reduced to build a motorway.

The placement of the expanded WestConnex exit roads and flyovers next to the park will create noise and particulate pollution. This will make the park and unpleasant place to visit.

The ventilation outlets from the tunnels will pollute the air of thousands of local residents and visitors to the park.

The huge increase in traffic to the surrounding suburbs will reduce the amenity of all residents. It will bring gridlocked traffic, and increase noise and particulate pollution. It will be disastrous for local businesses making it harder for potential customers to stop and shop.

The exit routes out of westconnex for this traffic is badly planned and will result in a huge problem for all the surrounding suburbs.

I strongly object to the construction of the westconnex, tunnels, flyovers, and exit roads around Sydney Park, St Peters , Euston Road and King Street

To Whom it may concern,

Sydney Park provides great amenity to 1000s of people in the area and beyond. WestConnex will destroy this amenity.

First, the park provides much needed green space in an area that becomes ever more densely populated. The green space improves physical and mental health and provides a meeting space for the community. This is public park land it should not be reduced to build a motorway.

The placement of the expanded WestConnex exit roads and flyovers next to the park will create noise and particulate pollution. This will make the park and unpleasant place to visit.

The ventilation outlets from the tunnels will pollute the air of thousands of local residents and visitors to the park.

The huge increase in traffic to the surrounding suburbs will reduce the amenity of all residents. It will bring gridlocked traffic, and increase noise and particulate pollution. It will be disastrous for local businesses making it harder for potential customers to stop and shop.

The exit routes out of westconnex for this traffic is badly planned and will result in a huge problem for all the surrounding suburbs.

I strongly object to the construction of the westconnex, tunnels, flyovers, and exit roads around Sydney Park, St Peters , Euston Road and King Street

The proposed motorway is an example of retrograde planning.
1. It will encourage vehicular traffic to come into the city. BAD
2. The inner western suburbs of St. Peters, Newtown and Alexandria, are already burdened by traffic. It is undesirable to increase the traffic flow . Not only will it affect the residents and business owners in the area but the increased air contamination will be detrimental to everyone's health.
3. The proposal to remove trees onthe edge of Sydney Park is criminal. The park is a welcome refuge from the surrounding in a busy urban environemnt. It is unfair to deprive the local residents of this green space so that motorists can have a faster trip.

I am a heavy user of Sydney Park for running and fitness. Especially doing laps around the outside. I have run literally hundreds of kilometers around the perimeter.

The shade of the trees along the Euston Rd and Campbell St sections of Sydney Park are a great relief from the heat while running and West Connex will not only result in the loss of those trees but of the ability to run (on the footpath of course) along those two streets in particular.

Running in and around Sydney Park is a part of my daily routine and the destruction of the southern end of the park would be a great loss to me as well the other daily joggers/walkers etc who use this area.

I also walk my dog daily in Sydney Park and prefer some of the quieter southern areas to the busy northern section. Any small loss of this wonderful park would be terrible for the local community.

Debra Little
17 Heath St
Bexley North,
NSW, 2207
29th January, 2016

Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment,
NSW Department of Planning and Environment,
GPO Box 39, Sydney NSW 2001

Dear Sir/Madam,


Re: WestConnex New M5 EIS, project number SSI 14_6788

Response to New M5 EIS (AECOM 2015)

I raise the following issues in relation to the new M5 EIS, which I object to.

UNACCEPTABLE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON BIODIVERSITY

I object to the removal of nearly 80% of the Critically Endangered Ecological Community known as Cooks River Ironbark Forest (CRCIF) at Beverly Grove in order to build a construction compound. The EIS fails to acknowledge that this bushland's preservation was a condition (Condition 86) of approval for the original M5. The removal of such a substantial amount of this already small remnant will result effectively in the degradation and loss of the entire remnant. The EIS acknowledges that the viability of the remaining 0.4 hectares will be seriously compromised, yet still downplays the significance of the impact of destruction by omitting any indication of the high conservation value and the good condition of the bushland. This value and condition class can be ascertained from a report for prepared and accepted by RMS (NGH environmental 2014) as well as from the Approved Conservation Advice (including listing advice) for CRCIF of the Sydney Basin Bioregion under Federal Environmental Legislation (TSSC 2015).
No formal offsets have been identified in the EIS. To offset the destruction proposed is in itself irresponsible and inappropriate given the Critically Endangered listing under the EPBC Act.

I object to the destruction of the habitat of the Vulnerable Green and Golden Bell Frog (GGBF) population at the Kogarah Golf Course at Arncliffe. The area to be destroyed is significant for the dispersal, foraging and sheltering of the species, and the EIS even acknowledges that the viability of this `Key Population' of the species will be decreased through the removal of in excess of 7 hectares of the Golf Course area. I object to the fact that no new field surveys were done by the consultant's (Eco Logical) engaged to examine the current biodiversity impacts of the New M5 in this location. The project's impact upon the species is in direct conflict with the findings of many scientific studies, as well as a number of Australian and NSW Government (eg NSW OEH) plans, programs, review committees and policies. Mitigation measures proposed are either untried or high risk.

I object to the removal of habitat that is foraging habitat (including critical foraging habitat) for the Grey-headed Flying-fox, to the EIS's understating of the total amount of foraging habitat removal that the project will result in, and the down playing of the significance of this removal for this Vulnerable mammal species

DESTRUCTION AND DEGRADATION OF OPEN GREEN SPACE

I object to the destruction of socially and environmentally valuable green space at Kingsgrove, Bexley North, Kogarah Golf Course at Arncliffe, and at St Peters. It is unacceptable that further open space areas in the Kingsgrove/Beverly Hills/Bexley North area will be subjected to removal and significant disturbance in addition to that wrought on the area via the original M5. The M5 Linear Park with its many native plantings, its corridor connection to the eastern reaches of the Wolli creek Valley, and it's social and environmental amenity for the residents in its vicinity will post construction be but a mere shadow of what it was - and this was purposely created to mitigate against impacts from the original M5. I also object to the proposed loss of valuable parkland areas at Sydney Park. This Park is increasingly important as the population of adjacent suburbs continues to increase at an almost exponential rate.
As the density of Sydney increases and the associated and now well recognised `urban heat island' effect intensifies, all of our existing green spaces must be preserved, not destroyed for projects such as Westconnex which will in fact only lead to an increase in this urban heat island effect. Green open spaces must be increased and enhanced, not decreased and degraded as a result of the New M5.

TRAFFIC MODELLING

I object to the failure of the Sydney Motorway Corporation to publicly reveal the peer review of the traffic model, as well as and their failure to reveal the assumptions on which it is based so that independent traffic planners can test its results.

TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON LOCAL ROADS

I object to the increased traffic the New M5 will bring to local roads. When complete, King Georges, Stoney Creek, Canterbury, Forest and Moorefields Rds. Are projected to carry increased traffic as motorists avoid the new tolls. This increased traffic is completely contrary to what is being touted by advocates for the New M5 project. These roads, already carrying numerous diesel-fuelled dangerous goods vehicles, will not cope with additional traffic, posing dangers for all using such local roads, in particular school children.
The numerous heavy construction vehicles on local roads particularly pose unacceptable dangers to schools in the catchment of the construction traffic movement, as well as elderly residents.

NOISE AND VIBRATION

I object to the significant and unacceptable impacts of noise and vibration on local residents. The EIS acknowledges that noise levels will exceed stated guidelines. Talk of `minimising' noise is subjective, and provides no measurable mitigation of what is projected on this front. Vibration will be experienced as a very negative impact by residents, especially overnight when people seek a good night's sleep, yet the EIS appears not to propose any mitigation let alone compensatory measures.

AIR QUALITY AND TUNNELS AND STACKS

I object to the three new unfiltered, emissions stacks proposed for Kingsgrove, Arncliffe and St Peters. These will negatively affect air quality in all surrounding suburbs. This is compounded for the densely populated suburbs of Wolli Creek and Arncliffe. These suburbs are already impacted by the current unfiltered M5 emission stack at Turrella. They will now be additionally affected by the proposed new stack on the Kogarah Golf Course at Arncliffe.
Tunnel design information suggests that the New M5 tunnel will use a longitudinal ventilation system through a stack. All polluted air produced in the tunnel will travel along this ventilation pathway, increasing in concentration all the time as it travels, until it reaches the exhaust point (the stack), and is emitted unfiltered. These emissions will be of varying concentrations with peaks and troughs, and it is the peaks that will most impact people in the vicinity of them. These peaks will not be accommodated by the `monitoring' to be established.

The utility of the monitoring is also questionable. As the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHRMC) 2008 report observes : 'No clear evidence exists to show that monitoring such as that carried out to assess compliance with air-quality goals, especially for PM10, can reliably predict the size, nature and course of adverse health impacts."
The calculations and modelling of impacts, be it of PM10 or PM2.5, as done in the EIS documents, are fundamentally misleading and claims made about the `results' are disingenuous. This is because it is not scientifically valid to simply `add' the tunnel PM10 and PM2.5 to the background as a predictor of adverse impacts because the tunnel exhaust is made up almost entirely of carcinogenic diesel emissions.
The planners of the road admit that any new developments proposed after the stacks are built will need to be carefully assessed as to where the exhaust pollutants will be going; because they do not currently know. More and more of these pollutants are diesel particles which in 2012, were upgraded by the World Health Organisation to the highest cancer warning level because they are particularly dangerous for the lungs of growing children.

POOR ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

I object to the bias of the project objectives towards road infrastructure, and the exclusion of other potential solutions such as demand management or public transport infrastructure. The EIS confirms that the project will have significant societal, environmental and economic impacts and these could be avoided by pursuing other approaches. Sydney's population is forecast to increase but increasing private vehicle usage is not a sustainable solution to support this population growth.


Debra Little
29/01/2016

NOTE: I have not donated more than $1,000 to a political party in the current financial year. I confirm that my name and suburb but not my full address nor email address can be published on the Major Project website where all submissions will published. I also request acknowledgement of receipt of my submission with its assigned number.

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.

This project will be a disaster for our city.

Viable, sustainable public transport alternatives must be prioritised. Public transport infrastructure will improve the city, attract more visitors, ease congestion, and last well into the future.

My concerns about the WestConnex proposal are:

Traffic in the Inner West is already VERY congested and, owing to several new medium density housing developments, is becoming much worse. The Westconnex plan will direct tunnels of traffic towards roads that are already struggling to cope, and those cars will have nowhere to go. It is already very difficult to drive from A to B in the Inner West, and parking is next to impossible. Where will all those extra cars go?

King Street will be forced to become a permanent clearway, which will harm local businesses and destroy the suburb. Newtown is one of the few suburbs with any character left. Do we want everywhere to become bland apartment blocks and busy roads? No, I don't think so!

Air pollution is a significant problem, with car exhaust fumes spewing cancerous particles into the air we breathe. It seems ludicrous and pointless to ban smoking in outdoor areas while simultaneously wrecking air quality by pumping more exhaust fumes into the air. I approve of the smoking ban, but car fumes are proven to be as harmful as passive smoking, especially for children, according to research at Dartmouth College, and a report published in the European Respiratory Journal, among many others. (And car manufacturers, as we know, are not always honest about their emissions in the first place...) Air quality is already terrible along the busy roads of the Inner West; the Westconnex can only make it far worse.

If the scheme is about job creation, the money would be better spent upgrading existing infrastructure and making public transport more appealing - which will create just as many jobs. Road surfaces are poor in the Inner West - divert the money to improving the roads we have, fix the rail networks and put more trains on. Half the reason people don't catch trains is that they are so often running a bus replacement. It is embarrassing for Australia that its rail networks are in such poor shape. Follow the European model.

We need to be encouraging people to reduce their reliance on their cars. If people are less sedentary, they will not be so fat! Improving trains and buses, and adding cycle lanes, will help reduce the obesity epidemic by encouraging people to move more, thus reducing the burden on health services. I know from personal experience that using a car all the time makes you less fit and healthy, and makes you gain weight. It's basic stuff.

Please, please reconsider destroying inner Sydney by turning it into a massive motorway. It has not turned out well for America. If you want Australia to be a progressive nation that is the envy of the world, you need to come up with progressive solutions. Westconnex is a band aid for a much wider problem about increasing population, carbon emissions and environmental degradation. Ultimately it will not solve the challenges we face. Take the lead and find solutions that will reduce all our carbon footprints, decrease emissions and make this city fit for the 21st century. Create a transport system to be proud of - don't strangle our suburbs. You can do it!