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.

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. Build public transport instead.

In terms of the big picture I believe large scale road projects such as this are outdated. It has been proved that building more road capacity just creates more congestion. It is clear that advances in car automation in the coming years will changes shift the paradigm and may result in a very short and expensive lifespan for urban motorways. This project comes at a vast cost with little benefit. I would like to see this money invested in public transport.

I am focusing my objection on my local area and the reduction of amenity to the locals of Alexandria/Erkineville/Newtown caused by the new M5. The south of Sydney is undergoing massive redevelopment with large numbers of people moving into the area with large scale developments such as Green Square and the Ashmore Estate. In addition there are numerous medium sized residential developments lining the main local roads - Henderson Rd,Mitchell Rd, Euston Rd, MEvoy St, Wyndham St, Botany Rd. All of these roads are already congested and will have greatly increased congestion as a result of the new M5/Westconnex. These are hostile urban environments that need greater amenity for residents - not more traffic. The proposal does not address the affect on the local area of the large volume of traffic being dumped on local roads. The M5 stops dead at Sydney Park with seemingly no regard for the consequences of the traffic that spews out like sewage from a broken pipe. There is no in-depth modelling of the impact on local roads in Alexandria/Erkineville/Newtown

My own rd Mitchell Rd will suffer greatly with increased traffic. Currently traffic crawls along this road at most of the time. It is my expectation that clearways will be proposed to solve the problem of increased traffic. I am sure the RMS are already planning this. I sternly object to local roads becoming sterile clearways.

The Westconnex projects will reduce the amenity of local residents due to increased congestion, atmospheric and acoustic pollution. I see nothing in the current proposal to mitigate these effects

The project greatly reduced the amenity of Sydney Park. The park is a marvellous facility, it is very popular and is currently a relatively quiet space, except for the portion of the park near Sydney Park Road. The St Peters interchange is the urban equivalent of an open cut mine - a vast noisy area devoid of life. The noise and pollution and increased traffic produced by this interchange will have a markedly negative effect on Sydney Park. The green areas around the interchange cannot be considered public parkland spaces considering the traffic noise and pollution.

I want to live in a city for people to live in where pedestrian and cyclists are given consideration

Director Infrastructure Projects

Planning Services

NSW Department of Planning and Environment

Application Number SSI 6788


Dear Director,
I am writing in response to the `WestConnex New M5' (SSI 6788) plans and it's effects on May Street and beyond.

PARKING
The lack of May street parking is currently a major problem and we have been working with council (and their plans for Camdenville Park) for at least the last 2 years. The proposed permanent removal of a further 38 May St parking spaces would magnify an already major problem which makes residents parking extremely difficult if not impossible at peak times of park use. I would stress our wish for the clear way from the May/Bedwin St intersection be as short as possible allowing for maximum parking spots for residence close to this intersection. I would also restate the residents proposal to include angle parking on May St at the north end of Camdenville park to increase the parking spaces lost from the South side.
During the construction phase of the development it is unfair to expect residents to do without any parking at all on both sides of the street (southern end) on an already heavily used unrestricted parking street close to a train station.

SPEED LIMIT
Speed limits should remain at 50km/ph or less on May, Bedwin & Campbell Streets.These streets are used by children attending 3 schools and numerous pre-schools and day care centres in the area. The Campbell St/May St and Bedwin Road intersection is already highly dangerous and has been the scene of numerous accidents. By increasing the sped limit you are putting the lives of local families at risk. Improving the intersection for traffic does not protect the number of families and young people who use it on a daily basis to get to and from school/day care.

BEDWINS ST BRIDGE (OVER RAILWAY)
Work should include some safety measures on this bridge as at the moment it is one of the main thoroughfares to 2 local primary schools and a large daycare centre. There are NO barriers between pedestrians and 4 lanes of heavy traffic. Some safety barriers need to be implemented as a priority.

TRAVEL TIME
From all reports it seems travel times are not going to improve significantly enough to warrant the massive financial, environmental and infastructural problems arising from such a plan.

UNFILTERED SMOKE STACKS
I have major concerns reading that there will be unfiltered smoke stacks, especially at the edge (or beside) one of Sydneys largest parks/childrens play grounds and cycle tracks.

CHIMNEYS
I would like to informed of there is any proposal to erect and chimneys/air filters on any part of Camdenville park? I see no mention in the plans but don't think that this necessarily rules them out?

TREES/PLANTING
Due to the proposed increase in traffic there will need to be considered saving of existing trees/shrubs and planting of new mature vegetation on the border of Bedwin Road and Camdenville Park.

CLEARWAYS
Under no circumstances should May or King Streets become clear ways.

STORMWATER BASIN
This needs to be improved and actually work as a storm water detention area. Currently Campbell Street is prone to flooding and it seems pointless to put in a major road that is susceptible to flooding.

Kind regards

Peter & Marie Bradley
107 May Street, St. Peters

I object on the following grounds
The expense
The deliberate increase traffic on already congested roads in St Peters, Enmore, Alexandria and Kingsgrove
The failure of RMS to model the impact on local roads
The impact on Sydney Park, a crucial green space which will be reduced in size and surrounded by major highways , unfiltered pollution stacks and a traffic interchange
The loss of trees and other vegetation for the widening of Euston Rd
The unsafe removal of asbestos from Alexandria landfill
The massive increase in traffic, particularly heavy roads and the impact this will have on residents

I object on the following grounds
The deliberate increase traffic on already congested roads in St Peters, Enmore, Alexandria and Kingsgrove
The failure of RMS to model the impact on local roads
The impact on Sydney Park, a crucial green space which will be reduced in size and surrounded by major highways , unfiltered pollution stacks and a traffic interchange
The loss of trees and other vegetation for the widening of Euston Rd
The unsafe removal of asbestos from Alexandria landfill
The massive increase in traffic, particularly heavy vehicles and the impact this will have on local communities

I write to express my strong objection to the WestConnex New M5 motorway proposal.
As a resident of EDGEWARE Road Enmore, I object to this proposal because:
1) the New M5 EIS does not adequately address the Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirement Section 115Y of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in relation to application SSI 6788 that the EIS make:
- an assessment and modelling of operational traffic and transport impacts on the local and regional road network (in consultation with affected councils), ... and the impacts of potential shifts of traffic movements to alternative routes outside the proposal area (including as a result of tolls);
- or adequately addresses the impacts on property and business access and on street parking provision, including permanent and temporary (construction) changes to access and parking, and traffic management measures - such as clearways on EDGEWARE Road and surrounding roads

2) The impact on EDGEWARE Road is only briefly referred to in the AECOM traffic modeling which indicates that the and PM peak traffic volume percentages will INCREASE by significant percentages up to 26% with the completion of Stages 2 and 3 of WestConnex.
Any comprehensive traffic modeling and assessment of the impact on the local road network must properly and seriously address the traffic volumes on Edgeware Road and surrounding local roads in both directions at all times (particularly in the AM and PM peak periods) which are already at saturation levels. Rather than indicating that the traffic volumes will rise, any comprehensive assessment would conclude that this road particularly and other local roads in the environs cannot accommodate any increase in traffic volumes at all.

3) The proposed traffic changes to Campbell Street, and to Bedwin, May and Unwins Bridge Road Intersections with the construction of the St. Peters Interchange are designed to direct the flow of traffic from the Interchange to Edgware Road and environs. This will mean that this whole area will be gridlocked right up to the Enmore Road intersection. This situation will not improve even with the unfunded M4-M5 link and the EIS makes that point clearly that the traffic volumes will increase on Edgware Road and surrounding streets right up to 2032 and to the proposed finalization of the M4 m5 tunnel. This is completely unacceptable.

4) It seems inevitable that EDGWARE road will be to be turned into a clearway to attempt to mitigate the impact of funneling this amount of increased traffic volume into the existing 2 lanes of traffic.
This is completely unacceptable. This is a residential street which cannot be turned into a clearway without significant loss of amenity for all residents. The EIS has a requirement to adequately address the severe economic, social, health and environment impacts of the proposal on all the residents of Edgeware road and surrounding local roads including the scenario of implementing clearway restrictions on this road.




5) Clearway restrictions on Edgeware Road will not solve the increased congestion issues as there are traffic lights at Alice St and Enmore Road and the traffic would back up right down to the Princes Highway and then onto the proposed St. Peters Interchange regularly. This is a completely unacceptable scenario.

6) The EIS also states that the expansion of the Marrickville Metro Shopping Centre will likely increase traffic volumes in the area, but claims that the major approach routes to the centre are not ones that will not be part of the WestConnex construction routes and that traffic volumes will be satisfactory if the Metro makes significant changes to key intersections in the area. This is unacceptable and an incorrect assessment of the severe impact that any additional traffic volumes will have on the whole area.
The EIS does not include Edgeware Road as one of the listed major approach routes to the Metro which it is. Any comprehensive traffic modeling would indicate that Edgeware Road is a continuous major approach route to the Marrickville Metro.

In addition I object to the New M5 EIS and WestConnex because:

7) The New M5 will have similar devastating impacts on local traffic and residential suburbs throughout all affected local communities and destroy local amenity along the route.
8) The New M5 will be a massive contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, while destroying important habitat and greenspace.
9) WestConnex and the New M5 is financially unviable and will take funds away from major public transport infrastructure and will not solve Sydney's traffic congestion.
10) The WestConnex project including the New M5 lacks transparency and accountability and the new Sydney Motorway Corporation will not be accountable to NSW taxpayers.
11) The WestConnex project comes with no proper and extensive evaluation of alternative options such as world class public transport which was also required by the SEARs.
12) The WestConnex project and the SMC do not have any social license to continue with this project without an NSW Upper House enquiry and a federal Auditor General's review due to the numerous irregularities in the planning and EIS processes.

As a local resident and taxpayer who will be severely impacted by the proposed New M5 and St. Peters Interchange, I ask that my objections are properly considered and that the Department of Planning publish my submission clearly on its website and reply directly to my submission.

I disagree against west connex because it is not a sustainable project that will benefit the city. Instead it will create new problems. Alternative planning that is environmentally friendly and also people friendly needs to be considered to make a more livable city.

I object to the Westconnex project. This project will suck billions of dollars from state and federal coffers for the next decade and will suck billions of dollars from motorists for decades to come. The only people to benefit from the project will be the consultants (who could benefit just as much by building major public transport projects). If the B$16.8 construction cost budgeted for Westconnex was spent on improving public transport and walking/cycling infrastructure, the existing road network would be more than sufficient to cope with motorised traffic.

The business case and benefit-cost ratio for Westconnex have still not been provided which tells us that it has been impossible to create a business case that is politically acceptable. The traffic modelling that has been published reveals what residents in the inner West have feared: that the performance of intersections will be downgraded to a poorer level of service (see Table 9-50). These results only reinforce the long-held belief that Westconnex will be responsible for an increase in traffic which will degrade local streets for several kilometres around each interchange.

An example of this increase in traffic can be seen in the almost doubling of traffic on Euston Rd (an already busy 4-lanes street) which will result in increased traffic in surrounding roads such as McEvoy Rd, Wyndham St and Botany Rd. With intersections degraded and increased traffic on local streets, inner-city neighbourhoods will cease to be pedestrian and bicycle friendly.

The cycling and walking facilities included in the Westconnex M5 EIS are mainly designed to mitigate the impact of the Westconnex interchanges and provide little addition benefits that encourage walking and cycling. This is because the only place walking and cycling facilities have been considered for is around the interchanges. With an anticipated cost of B$16.8, Westconnex is more likely to make walking and cycling more difficult rather than less difficult. Surely such a massive project should deliver improvements to walking and cycling ALONG THE ENTIRE ROUTE as was provided for the M7.

Of course, walking and cycling upgrades along the entire route will be considered "out of scope", however this is only the case because it has been designed to be out of scope. For all the streets surrounding the interchanges, walking and cycling will become more difficult and dangerous due to increased traffic and longer wait times to cross busy streets. A failure to build significantly-improved infrastructure for walking and cycling will condemn people to a life spent in their automobile.

An example of a project that would help significantly is the extension of the M5 path (currently going through Beverly Grove Park) Eastbound along Wolli Creek (M5 East Green Link).