I strongly object to the proposed modification to the M4-M5 Link replacing a tunnel with an overpass and changes to the pedestrian infrastructure in North Annandale, Rozelle and Rozelle Bay Foreshore areas contained in the above report, on the following grounds:
1. SIGNIFICANT DIVERGENCE FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL
Whilst I had issue with the lack of genuine consultation and work progressing before the masterplan was finalised, I fully support progress and building an integrated transport infrastructure that Sydney needs to support its current and future population growth; in a manner that puts us on the map as a progressive international city, and central to this is the consideration of people first and foremost. Therefore, I had accepted that whilst there would be disruption and inconvenience during the construction phase there were some really positive key elements in the original proposal that outweighed this, namely:
a. the assurance that beyond construction there would be little impact on the area
b. the creation of the “Green Link” connecting the Rozelle Goods Yard through to Bicentennial Park. I saw this as really progressive step towards improving both our City and our suburb something that we could be proud of as a thoughtful space that connected people, facilitated community, and introduced much needed accessible outdoor space; reflecting contemporary values that are sympathetic to our areas unquestionable historical heritage (this is a listed conservation area) making this a destination as well as a desirable place to live.
c. Proposed Foreshore Ferry Wharf and Metro Station.
The proposed “modifications” to replace the tunnel with an overpass that will dominate and destroy the local landscape and alterations to the “Green Link” plans are so significant; it contravenes the conditions of the original consent. The Inner West Council states on its website, “Little change can be expected other than modest additions and discrete alterations” https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/develop/planning-controls/heritage-andconservation/heritage-conservation-areas
The overpass will create a massive, and negative, visual impact on a large number of residents in Annandale and Lilyfield, completely out of keeping with a heritage conservation area. Building a large, ugly and unhealthy infrastructure is also incongruent with the Transport for NSW Future Strategy 2056; we should learn from the planning mistakes and benefit of hindsight of many other international cities and know that we only have this one opportunity to get it right (or wrong).
The proposal also seeks to relocate the “Green Link” and remove the promised direct active links to the foreshore park areas of Jubilee and Bicentennial Park. This will cut the direct connection from the Rozelle Goods Yard to Bicentennial Park which was such an attractive benefit of the original proposal. The proposed modification will require a 20-minute walk, alongside a raised motorway overpass, besides heavy traffic and include five pedestrian crossings; it includes unsafe concrete plazas and caged walkways, which can be really intimidating, particularly at night or lesser busy times of day.
We have an opportunity to make a fantastic community space for walking, running, cycling and connection as well as providing easy access to the Light Rail, bus stops, and the proposed Ferry wharf and Metro station; how short sighted to waste it acting again with incongruence to the Transport for NSW Future Strategy 2056, and no priority for people.
2. DESTRUCTION OF COMMUNITY AND LACK OF CONSIDERATION FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR RESIDENTS
Annandale is a quiet family friendly community where it is safe for children to play in the streets, explore and develop independence (a unique quality for a City in the 21st century) and have easy access to the parklands, including those of Jubilee and Bicentennial Park. This is one of the main reasons people, including my family love living here. The Jubilee and Bicentennial Parklands in particular are used by people of all ages for planned exercise, bike riding, relaxation, dog walking and play.
• Over 20% of Annandale residents are under the age of 18, at a time when we are trying hard to keep our children active and fight obesity, and the NSW Government is spending money on the ‘Healthy Children Initiative’ it seems ludicrous that another department is making short term financial decisions without factoring in the impact that the loss of easy access to parkland creates.
• Currently the pre-teen/ teenage age groups (one of the most critical to keep active) can safely access the foreshore parklands with their friends as they start to develop independence; the current redevelopment of recreation areas and the inclusion of a new skatepark by the City of Sydney council are much anticipated. However the significantly increased safety risk for pedestrians and cyclist with removed access over The Crescent, increased traffic flow along Johnson Street and the requirement to cross five sets of pedestrian lights to reach these parkland areas will result in less freedom and activity for not only our youth but all our community members.
• The construction of an inherently noisy overpass will change the essence of our suburb forever, and also have a significant adverse environmental health and social impact; which I can only summarise will have longer term financial cost implications, which appear not to have been considered.
3. REMOVAL OF RIGHT TURN OUT OF JOHNSTON ST INTO THE CRESCENT
• I would like to assume proper analysis has been carried out of traffic movement along The Crescent through to Parramatta Road and all the connecting streets, and therefore you will know that this route is already heavily congested for long periods during peak times of day, and that there is no obvious alternative at present for residents trying to access Annandale than this right turn, and I cannot see one being proposed.
• Removing it will only add to congestion and push traffic into local residential streets of Annandale, Forest Lodge, Glebe and Lilyfield that are not designed for heavy traffic flow, creating further safety and pollution concerns and destroying the fabric of our local communities.
• The change to this traffic flow has to have proper planning and consultation – there is little value building roads to improve our infrastructure unless the flow on impact is looked at holistically.
For all the reasons detailed above I strongly oppose:
• the proposed modification from a tunnel to an overpass
• the removal of the “Green Link”
• the impact to the easy access from The Crescent to the Foreshore Parklands and proposed better public transport options, and
• the impact to local traffic conditions around Annandale and the surrounding areas.
I am asking RMS and the Project Team to:
• complete a proper cost/ benefit analysis that considers the longer-term impact social, environmental and health that these changes will have.
• redesign the car overpass in consultation with the community
• reinstate your vision as laid out in the Transport for NSW Future Strategy 2056, put people back in the plan and design a future we can all be proud of that retains our historical heritage, supports a connected and active community and have an inner city suburb around the Rozelle Bay foreshore area that our national and global counterparts take note of:
- reinstate the “GreenLink” to connect our communities through a green open space from Rozelle to Bicentennial Park and the Rozelle Bay Foreshore
- relocate and design pedestrian and cyclist connections that are continuous, safe and direct
- integrate active and direct connection to all active transport in the future

I think it is disgraceful that the underground option has flipped to a massive flyover that fringes on the beautiful, charismatic village of Annandale, not to mention forshadowing the beautiful, peaceful Jubilee Park(one of the few peaceful havens in the inner west-a real gem in an already busy crowded city). It is completely out of character with the area and could only be classed as an 'eyesore' and what would appear to be an easier fix than having to tunnel. This shows a complete disregard for our beautiful city and how it looks to us and to others and to generations that follow. Not only to I object to the actual structure but I am incensed that the only reason that I became aware of this was because of an email from The Greens, who I don't vote for but seem to be the only political group with their eye on the ball regarding this matter. It seems somewhat underhanded that this MAJOR change should sneak through without giving the community the proper awareness that it deserves. I am from Haberfield and have been living with the gut wrenching chaos that has surrounded our beautiful (once quiet) suburb and now you want to move ahead and put in a massive ugly flyover over another quaint village. It is an assault on our environment and if it is essential that we need to have it to clear the traffic congestion then do what you originally had planned and keep it underground. The Inner west community clearly DOES NOT WANT it ! It is wrong to make the Inner West the dumping ground for traffic to service the greater west unless environmentally sustainable transport solutions are implemented .Further, the fact that it is not possible to make e-mail complaints and the tedious complex drama which unfolded just to create a profile so that I could lodge my complaint unfortunately makes me wonder if this was done intentionally to stop people from entering their objection ? Please reconsider this and ask yourself if you would like to live in a suburb or surrounding suburbs that had to look at this ugly grey construct, daily, breath in the extra pollution from extra traffic levels and be responsible for ruining parklands and cutting down old trees just to make the easier option of not tunnelling. The easy option is not always the right option ! Be forward thinking and please do the right thing by the people of the Inner West and maintain rather than destroy the fine balance between harbour, inner city living and a working city !

This proposal is vastly different from what was initially proposed for this intersection, which was a complex of tunnels completely underground. This concrete overpass with no green landscaping would be a horrendous blight on the foreshore landscape, reminiscent of the much maligned Cahill Expressway, which still faces continual calls to be removed. We should be promoting and celebrating our beautiful harbour and green spaces, not adding more concrete eyesores. We don't need another Cahill Expressway.

I am also just as concerned about the restricted access to the foreshore by local pedestrians and cyclists, with a series of traffic lights required to travel a short distance across this road system I suspect these traffic lights would also have a significant detrimental effect on local traffic, which as any resident will tell you, is already bottlenecked at these intersections. The government should be prioritising people over cars and supporting those who choose more environmental ways to travel.

I have always been a supporter of West Connex in principle as I believe Sydney needs to have ring roads like other major cities of the world. But I believe it has been poorly handled in respect to acquisitions and the effect on local residents and this is another example. This overpass needs to be redesigned so that the cars are kept underground to prioritise the visual beauty of our beautiful harbour foreshore, and to provide safe access for the many many walkers and cyclists who use the foreshore for work and leisure every day.

Please see attached file. I do not agree to the proposed Crescent overpass and the changes to the pedestrian infrastructure in North Annandale, Rozelle and Rozelle Bay foreshore. I request RMS to work with the community to explore alternate design options and the reinstatement of the approved EIS design.

Proposed modification to M4-M5 Link, Mod 2 The Crescent overpass and changes to pedestrian infrastructure in North Annandale, Rozelle and Rozelle Bay Foreshore area.

I am requesting RMS put people back into the plan – I want you to reinstate your own vision as laid out in Transport for NSW Future Strategy 2056.

My submission is asking RMS and the Project Team to work with the community to design a feasible option that brings the best elements from the approved EIS design into the modification:
● Reinstate the GreenLink connecting communities and green open space from Rozelle to Bicentennial Park.
● Relocate and design pedestrian and cyclist connections that are continuous, safe and direct.
● Design the modification infrastructure and active links in response to the character of the suburbs, the location of the foreshore and its potential future development.
● Provide pedestrian and cyclist paths that maximise people safety and do not force us onto busier streets, unsafe concrete plazas and caged walkways.
● Integrate active and direct connections to all active transport – including the future Metro West and Foreshore Ferry Wharf.

My key concerns with the M4-M5 Modification are:
● The significantly reduced safety and increased risk for pedestrians and cyclists with removed access over The Crescent to Bicentennial Park and the increased traffic along Johnson Street.
● Being required to cross five sets of pedestrian lights at The Crescent as my option to reach the foreshore from Annandale or from Rozelle Bay light rail stop.
● Removal of direct active links to the foreshore, cutting the community off from the area and the proposed revitalisation of the entire Bays Precinct, including linking the Light Rail and Bus stops to a Ferry wharf and Metro station.
● Urban and landscape design that is being built before a finalised Masterplan for the area.
● Traffic changes that limit movements around the suburb and create further congestion in the local streets of Annandale, Forest Lodge, Glebe, Lilyfield and Rozelle with no planning to deal with these.

I request RMS work with the community to explore alternate design options to the proposed new car overpass design and the changed pedestrian and cyclist links. I am seeking the reinstatement of the safe, direct access from the approved EIS GreenLink to create a continuous green open space connection from the Rozelle Rail yards and Annandale to the foreshore. The GreenLink was more than just a walkway - it put people central to the design, maximising safety, and providing much needed accessible open space for the community now and into the future Bays Precinct design.

Yours sincerely
Sally Trevena
318 Annandale Street, Annandale, NSW 2038
[email protected]

Submission on M4-M5 SSI-7485-Mod-2
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed West Connex Modification 2. My key comments are listed as follows and are supported by a pdf package of drawings. The modifications is driven around traffic improvements and has not adequately considered Landscape, urban design outcomes for pedestrians and local users. The overpass has significant visual impacts in its own right, and is leading to a range of multiple flow on effects all to the detriment of the public realm, visual amenity and pedestrian connectivity. The overall outcome now is a spaghetti junction of vehicular and pedestrian aerial overpasses that is at odds with the NSW Government commitment to have all of the vehicle movements underground.
This is an abridged version of my submission. My full submission is covered by the two associated attachments included with the upload.

Key outcome 1:
Remove the overpass. Return to option 1 at grade intersection or solve underpass option 2 technical constraints.
The above ground road overpass is what has primarily changed from the original EIS design, with multiple flow on effects. The decision to put in an overpass has driven a range of undesirable flow on changes particular around pedestrian connectivity, including the need to move the green bridge west. It has led to the relocation of the green link, the addition of a new pedestrian bridge, and associated visual impacts and reductions in pedestrian connectivity. The overpass blocks views from the relocated green bridge to the harbour. The alternative options need to be reviewed.
The Tunnel option however was discarded due to constructability and other concerns. The design reviewed, however was a 165m tunnel. By exceeding 120m it then required mechanical ventilation and escape routes. This drove the tunnel lower for the ventilation equipment, and therefore made it longer, and meant that it exited past James Craig Road and the Crescent to the south. All this dramatically pushed up cost, complexity, and workability.
We believe however that the underpass option should have come from the premise of making it shorter than 120m so that it sat below the threshold for ventilation. This would mean that it could be shallower, therefore shorter and substantially cheaper. To do this it needs to come from the centre lane, necessitating the relocation of the bus stop to just south of Johnston Street.
The option 2 underpass is a far better urban design outcome to improve the LOS.
1.1 Review Option 1 in terms of traffic light phasing. This option provides maximum traffic movement options.
1.2 Review option 2 with objectives to:
• Keep the tunnel shorter than 120m to avoid need for mechanical ventilation and emergency egress to reduce cost and complexity. The remaining areas to be open slots. This is a far better urban outcome.

• Consider relocating bus stop south of Johnston Street to have underpass in middle lane to reduce tunnel length.

• Ensure northbound tunnel entry starts after Johnston Street.

• Solve waterproofing issues with precast box solution with waterstop joints or other appropriate means as has been applied to other Sydney tunnels (LCT and SHT).


• Concerns about constructability should be reviewed to investigate temporary traffic diversions through the goods yard
1.3. The option 3 outcome is not desired at all. If it is to remain then.
1.3.1 Design speeds northbound should be reduced given the proposed alignment up and around the rail bridge pylons and onto Johnston street and back.
1.3.2 The option 3 overpass needs to be lower than the green bridge so that you can see the water from the green link.
Key outcome 2:
Improve pedestrian connectivity.
Issues:
The 20% concept design in the EIS did not adequately cover pedestrian connectivity. The Current MOD 2 has not adequately covered off on issues raised in the EIS stage about connectivity. The MOD 2 has made some considerably worse. These include:
• Removal of direct park to park connectivity between Rozelle Goods yards and Glebe Foreshore by relocating the green link, (See notes below)
• Tortuous 4 traffic light pedestrian crossing at Johnston street The crescent
• No at grade wheelchair / pram / kids on bikes connectivity through Buruwan Park and the western side of the crescent. ( see notes below)
• Addition of a third crossing into Rozelle parklands, but one that has ended up 120m longer than necessary to be able to get over the overpass, and its flow on visual impact issues.
Outcomes
2.1 Provide for the direct grade separated connection between the Glebe Foreshore and the new Rozelle Parklands via the green bridge.
2.2 Simplification of the Johnston Street crossing of the Crescent. Change to a single traffic light crossing in the current location on the Northern side of Johnston Street as currently exists.
2.3 Ensure provision of easy “at grade” access from Railway Parade to the Glebe Foreshore. Route via Buruwan Park and the western side of the Crescent (adjacent the mural) with a direct connection to the simplified Johnston Street / The Crescent intersection note above.

Key outcome 3:
Immediately halt all further tree removal in Buruwan Park. Urgently review design to adjust roads for maximum tree retention on the southern side of Buruwan Park in line with EIS commitment C13.2.1
Issues:
Existing trees make a positive visual and environmental contribution and the EIS committed the consortium to review of significant trees in Buruwan Park. Yet trees are being cut down without apparent design development or review and in contravention of requirements stipulated in the EIS.
In response to community concerns, the EIS community comment review under C13.2.1 Visual impacts during construction (general) on page 13-8 stated the following:
“At The Crescent, investigate measures to retain the mature trees of high retention value adjacent to the light rail corridor at the corner of The Crescent and City West Link, and to provide screen planting alongside the retaining wall edge of the light rail corridor, to minimise landscape and

Outcomes:
3.1 The EIS community response committed the consortium to “investigate measures to retain trees of high value adjacent to the Light rail corridor at the Crescent” Community response to the EIS stated under clause C13.2.1. It is essential that tree removal is halted while an urban and landscape design review takes place.
3.2 The trees in Buruwan Park against the light rail make a significant visual and environmental contribution - including urban cooling.
3.3 We urgently need the landscape architects and urban design team to review the design with the traffic planners to maximise the retention of these trees including the large 30m diameter fig. This can be made to work through good design. This needs urban design thinking “Beyond the Pavement” for pedestrians and urban outcomes. Minor changes to line marking across City West link, reduction in medians and revised curves can all make this happen.

Key outcome 4:
Consider local traffic including right turn lane from Johnston Street / The Crescent
Issues:
This modification would remove the option to turn right out of Johnston Street into the Crescent to destinations such as the tramsheds, Glebe, Sydney University etc. This will increase traffic through local streets including Piper Street and Booth Street as they seek alternate routes.
Outcomes:
4.1 Consider options to retain the right turn lane from Johnston Street to The Crescent in the redesign of the pedestrian intersection and location of the traffic lights.
4.2 review option 1 for ability to turn right into James Craig drive.