MOD 2 - The Crescent overpass and active transport links

There is very little open space in the Inner West compared to other Sydney districts and connectivity is critical to improving this
• The horseshoe bridge shared-user path should be reinstated as a park-to-park connection
• The bridge can be designed to create an attractive urban design element
• The bridge can be used to provide a lookout for users providing attractive vistas of Rozelle Bay
We would also like Transport for NSW to make improvements to the connection between Railway Parade and Rozelle Bay. Mums with prams, kids on bikes and the elderly who want to use a level connection to the Glebe foreshore, will now need to cross three traffic lights via the City West link.

❌ The evidence demonstrates this modification won’t solve congestion in Annandale.
❌ An underpass would be less overbearing on the local area and provide the best visual and urban outcomes.
❌ The community needs a direct pedestrian and cycling link between the Glebe foreshore and Rozelle Goods Yard. Seamless park to park connection is key!
❌ We also want to preserve the people’s mural which will be significantly obscured by this overpass.
❌ This project prioritises the needs of motorists are prioritised over pedestrians, cyclists and residents. Our community opposes it!

While this version is an improvement over the previous proposal, it totally fails to give any safe, direct access from the approved EIS Greenlink to create a continuous green open space connection from Rozelle rail yards and Annandale to the foreshore. This is more than a walk way – it’s a vital link reuniting the community and allowing for safe and pleasant pedestrian/bike commuters over an area that will be carrying an increased level of traffic volume/movement, especially vital with regards to school children attending Blackwattle Bay High School.

My key concerns are:

• Safety – increased risk for pedestrian/cyclist traffic with the removed access over the Crescent to Bicentennial Park. Of particular concern is the number of inner west school children who ride/walk to Blackwattle Bay campus.
• Division of the community access by removing direct links to foreshore.
• Increased heat/sun exposure and lack of green space in an area already fraught with concrete and roadway.
• Failure to provide a safer, more aesthetically pleasing design by providing an underpass for cars, not an overpass right next to the green way

I am one of the original submitters against MOD 2 of the M4-M5 Link. I raised some concerns and I feel that they have mostly been unaddressed.

Not properly addressed from my original submission: "But any changes should be true to the original concept and the proposed overpass is not." In C.2.3, the Response to Submissions dismisses this concern by saying that the intersection is not really part of the interchange. If it were truly separate, it could be considered separately instead of as a modification to the M4-M5 Link. If the intersection needs to be modified in order to make the interchange work properly, then this change should also be true to the interchange concept. Not credible: comparison of a road which could be below or above ground and would have a high impact above ground with infrastructure which is naturally above ground and/or has little impact.

Unaddressed from my original submission: "There is no indication in the documentation of how much more expensive option 2 would have been compared with the proposed option. There is also no substantiation of the claim that tunnelling would be likely to lead to contaminated soils being encountered. Thus the deviation from the original concept is not adequately justified." Interestingly, the Response to Submissions elsewhere assures the public that adequate mechanisms are in place to deal with contaminated soil. So, the question really is whether any additional soil dug up for option 2 would be more seriously contaminated than what the mechanisms which have already been promised can cope with. There is no indication in the Response to Submissions as to why we should expect this. As for the cost, I would have liked to see some dollar estimates.

As a cyclist i feel based on other West Connex projects that any cycling/active transport infrastructure will either get heavily modified to our detriment and there will be major inconvenience/danger involved in its construction.
The intersection of Victoria Rd / The Cresecent / Anzac Bridge is an absolute disgrace. Right now there is major inconvenience for whats looks like the builder using areas for storage of equipment and goods, and the intersection was heavily compromised while alternatives are still being constructed, aside from being a major inconvenience and unsafe.

The interchange seems unnecessary and question whether there are more limiting bottle necks beyond this intersection.

As a resident of the inner west, who will be directly impacted by the Annandale overpass, I implore the Government to consider the local community as equally as the desires of private equity, fund raising toll roads and increasing traffic flow. Importantly;

- Evidence demonstrates the modification will not solve congestion in Annandale.
- An underpass, as was initially promised, would be far more tolerable and reduce the ugly visual impact the overpass will have.
- The community should have a direct pedestrian and cycling link between the Glebe Foreshore and Rozelle Goods Yard. There needs to be park to park connection. Please
consider the less mobile and the elderly
- The people's mural is a part of our history, the overpass deserves to visible and enjoyed by all.
Please adjust the priorities; pedestrians, cyclists and residents first, vehicles second.

Thank you
Janice Duncan

I object to the revised design because, even with modifications, it will make the northern end of Annandale a less liveable suburb.
We will lose much of our historic and current access to open and green space. To be blunt, the proposed overpass, even at two metres lower, will be an unnecessary eyesore. There is no need for a structure of this magnitude. It will disconnect North Annadale from the park, bay and sporting clubs that are a vital aspect of life for local residents and create a barrier that risks destroying the existing cohesion between neighbouring suburbs. A short tunnel under the City West Link would suffice, and would save taxpayers money.
The modified design still prioritises the movement of cars and trucks over pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. There is no expansion of public transport routes for this area, and this is at a time when forward-thinking city governments around the world are moving towards alternatives to motorised vehicles. Nor does there seem to be any strategy to address the inevitable increase of traffic in Annandale. There is no "seamless" pedestrian and cycling link between the Glebe Foreshore and the Rozelle Goodsyard; even though this was promised as part of the deal.
The character of this area will be irreparably changed: on one border (north), there will be a dominating concrete overpass hemming us in, while behind us (west) the increased vehicle flow from WestConnex and the tunnel entrance will add to the air pollution coming from the exhaust stacks and noise pollution generated by vehicles entering the tunnel.
This revision shows scant regard for current and future local residents. The focus is solely on cars and concrete, with only tokenistic adjustments to the original plan

Annandale’s chronic traffic congestion won’t be solved by this interchange design.
A seamless park to park connection from Glebe foreshore to the Rozelle Goods Yard redevelopment should be a priority of the interchange design.
Local residents deserve better pedestrian/cycling access with a plan that prioritises community need over motorists needs.
Our local historical mural will be obscured by roadway infrastructure.
Planners have to start from the idea of preserving what has been part of the visual fabric of the Annandale community rather than assuming transport gains will compensate locals for their loss of amenity and heritage.

Well, the revised plan is a lot better than the original one. It now addresses all the Government's own policy goals. Unfortunately, it is still ugly and unneccessary. If car really can't wait at a set of traffic lights as they currently do, then the new lane should be moved underground.

However, I feel that the intersection really doesn't need an overpass, and that traffic management would be better done by reducing the number of cars on the road. Given that we have just come through a period of reduced car use and increased pedestrian and bike traffic, I think this intersection would work better if it was designed to discourage cars and allow more room for bicycle and foot traffic.

I am not confident that the modification will solve existing congestion issues in Annandale and specifically on the Crescent from the Tramsheds to the western distributor. The visual impact of the proposed overpass is not in keeping with the green space and amenity that the community has fought for, over the 30 years I’ve been a resident of Annandale.
Proper planning should be able to accommodate a seamless park to park connection between the Glebe foreshore and Rozelle goods yard and not have the outlook dominated by a massive piece of transport infrastructure.
This community has seen the destruction of established trees and reduction of open space around the western side of the Bay with the assurance that those losses would be replaced with beautified areas. An elevated overpass at the heights proposed can only be an eyesore.
Annandale, Glebe , Roselle and Balmain have for a long time been connected to the term village. This is a term that reflects communities of people who LIVE in this location and appreciate the importance given to green space that our past Local Council and residents fought hard to achieve. Let’s not destroy that for the ease of transport that is just PASSING THROUGH.

Please read the attached submission

I object to this proposal which will be on my doorstep for the following reasons:
The evidence demonstrates this modification won’t solve congestion in Annandale.
An underpass would be far less overbearing on the local area and provide the best visual and urban outcomes.
The community needs a direct pedestrian and cycling link between the Glebe foreshore and Rozelle Goods Yard, providing a seamless park to park link keeping pedestrians and cyclists safer.
The people’s mural is a significant local landmark which will be significantly obscured by this overpass.
The needs of motorists are being prioritised over pedestrians, cyclists and residents. Why on earth would you build a hideous overpass in a bayside location that has the potential to become an area the community can actually use? Our community opposes it!

My key concerns with the current design are:
1. There is a complete lack of safe, usable pedestrian and cyclist access between Rozelle and the Glebe foreshore. Residents aren't only interested in being able to access the tram stop, they also want to be able to exercise and move safely around the area. If the government is trying to design a space that is innovative and will meet the needs of the local community for years to come then the ability to move easily between Rozelle and Glebe is vital. Surely the current social distancing restrictions and the associated increased number of people running and cycling, alone and as families, has shown how important it is for people to be able to exercise and for green spaces to be located in inner-city suburbs. I therefore think that the horseshoe bridge shared-user path should be reinstated to ensure community connectivity.
2. Removing the right hand turn from Johnston Street to the Crescent will redirect traffic to other streets that are currently pedestrian heavy. These local streets are not design to deal with this traffic. Funnelling cars into these spaces, while also making it harder for pedestrians, people with prams and cyclists to move between Glebe/Annandale and Rozelle/Lilyfield will create bottlenecks on other roads and increase the risk of accidents occurring. The proposed design should be modified to preserve the existing ability to turn right into the Crescent from Johnston Street.
3. I think that the proposed elevated vehicular overpass will be unnecessarily overbearing and is completely at odds with local development standards. While I understand that it is important for vehicles to be able to pass through the area, an underpass is less intrusive visually and should allow the retention of the green link for residents.

Thank you for considering my submissions. Considering the cost and time associated with the Westconnex project, and the fact that the community will be living with these designs for decades, I think that it is important to ensure that the space works for residents and cars alike.

As a resident of the local area in which this proposal is based, I strongly OPPOSE the project and the modifications proposed in this round ("MOD 2”).

The reasons for my objection are as follows:

I strongly disagree that this project will reduce traffic in my community. The evidence demonstrates this modification won’t solve congestion in Annandale.

An ugly, concrete overpass is visually unacceptable and not in keeping with our community aesthetic ideals. An underpass would be less overbearing on the local area and provide the best visual and urban outcomes.

The practical outcomes for cyclists are poor and should be urgently revised. Preference is given to vehicle-only roadways, resulting in non continuous cycle paths, and awkward, inefficient crossings. The NSW government and local councils must urgently invest in sustainable, practical cycleways and away from pollution-heavy private vehicle transport infrastructure. In addition, the community needs direct cycling link between the Glebe foreshore and Rozelle Goods Yard. Seamless park to park connection is key.

We also want to preserve the people’s mural which will be significantly obscured by this overpass.
This project prioritises the needs of motorists are prioritised over pedestrians, cyclists and residents. Our community opposes it!

I object to this project as

1/ the overpass is ugly. If really needed why can't it be put underground? A year ago the NSW GOV said that the interchange woul dbe undergroud - so what happened?

2/ the works obscures the existing mural on the light rail line

3/ what happens to active transport eg walkers, runners, cyclists wanting to move north across the expressway without negotiating intersections - we were promised bridges for active transport to keep it apart from the traffic - this would reduce accidents and be a better long term solution


Whatever you build will be there for 30, 50 100 years - look at the Cahill Expressway an dhow it destroys the connection between Circular Quay and beautiful old Buildings - better to design it right from the start rather than doing it half baked

Cheers

When I read that the proposal overpass was being reviewed I was hopeful that the overwhelming feedback on the original proposal was going to be considered and that an improved outcome that balanced the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists would be developed. To say that I was underwhelmed by the amended design is an understatement. Lowering the road by 2m and slightly adjusting the design of the green link do not in any way resolve the significant negative impacts caused by the proposed modification compared with the originally approved scheme.
Specifically, the proposed modification significantly adversely impacts two fundamental aspects of the original approved scheme:
- direct access from the green space of the former Rozelle rail yards to the green space at Bicentennial Park
- the commitment that the entire Rozelle interchange would be below ground
I believe that not delivering on these previous commitments, as included in the approved scheme, is completely unacceptable considering that a feasible alternative does exist that maintains these elements - being an underpass rather than an elevated road. Even though concern with lack of investigation of alternatives was raised in a number of the submissions, very little time appears to have been spent on properly considering the merits of an underpass as part of the updated submission. The underpass option appears to have been dismissed purely on the basis that it is difficult and expensive - however, as the basis of this modification is the construction of the Western Harbour Tunnel a significantly more complex and expensive project than this small underpass would be, it is inconceivable that an underpass option could not be achieved. The cost and complexity of the underpass option would be a drop in the ocean compared with the Western Harbour Tunnel and would avoid the government backtracking on commitments made to the community in the original proposal.
As noted in the submissions report, an underground solution would avoid the majority of the impacts on the pedestrian and cycle connections associated with this modification – if the proponent is serious about achieving acceptable pedestrian and cyclist connections consistent with those that they committed to in the original design then it is surely it is not sufficient for them to say that the only reason they cannot deliver on this commitment is that it is too hard and expensive. If it is too hard and expensive then how can they progress with the Western Harbour Tunnel project.
The updated proposal, while making minor amendments to the previous green link, still forces pedestrians and cyclists heading towards Bicentennial Park onto a narrow footpath cramped between the carriageway and retaining wall before making them wait to cross at signals to access the foreshore - this is not a comparable outcome to the original proposal which provided a direct link between these green spaces as a fundamental part of the scheme.
Further, while the proposal slightly reduces the height of the overpass at its centre, it is still above the pedestrian link for the majority of the length and completely separates the green link from the harbour in direct contrast from the approved scheme. Again this could be avoided with an underground scheme.
In addition to not delivering on previous commitments, the responses to issues raised in the submissions are frequently disingenuous and seek to use loop holes and half truths to justify the position - this includes the statement that the commitment to the interchange being underground does not apply to this as it is not formally part of the interchange - if this is the case and this is not part of the interchange then why is it being assessed as a modification to the approval for the interchange? This response treats the respondents with contempt and shows that Transport for NSW is not realistic in considering the feedback or the overwhelming concerns of the community, over 1,000 of whom took the time to raise their concerns with the proposal which is clearly in breach of the intent of the original approval.
On a day when the Blackwattle Bay Precinct Planning proposals were released to Community Consultation, with a key tenant being improving access to the foreshore of Sydney Harbour, and highlighting the opportunity to achieve a consistent 15km foreshore path from Woolloomooloo to Glebe, it is inconceivable that at the other end of this same bay that TfNSW would be seeking to reduce access to the foreshore. The creation of this overpass will be a blight on Sydney in line with the Cahill Expressway and destroy the opportunity to achieve the community based outcomes committed to in the original approved scheme.
This would be bad enough if this were the original proposal, however as this is an attempt to wind back previous commitments on the basis of them being too difficult to deliver on, it only shows the utter contempt that TfNSW has for the local community. Alternatives to the modification proposal that do not compromise critical elements of the original approval exist and these must be considered seriously and not dismissed on the basis of them being to difficult.

Thank you for considering my comments.

I am a long-time resident of the Inner West and the City of Sydney LGAs – I have lived in the area since 2012 (except for one six month period). There is very little open space or green space within our community boundaries when compared with other LGAs around Australia, and even around Sydney – even though there is arguably greater demand for it given the small size of our backyards and the high density of many areas. Covid-19 has highlighted the need for active transport options that provide enough space for safe social distancing. We need more space for pedestrians and cyclists, not less.

The horseshoe bridge for walking and cycling should not be removed from the plan.

Given the Covid-19 crisis, and also the need to decarbonise transport to mitigate climate change, at this time we should be concentrating on making active transport easier and more accessible. Encouraging residents to cycle for their commutes means less road congestion, less pressure on public transport, and better health outcomes for the cyclists. Electric bicycles are becoming popular and make cycling even more attractive for those who are unfit or who might have hilly commutes.

WestConnex has made congestion for locals worse, not better. Retaining the overpass for active transport goes some way towards fixing this.

The pedestrian overpass artists impression shows it could be a beautiful feature of the local area.

This project prioritises the needs of motorists over pedestrians, cyclists and residents. As someone who has lived in Annandale for 20 years I oppose it.

The evidence demonstrates this modification won’t solve congestion in Annandale.
An underpass would be less overbearing on the local area and provide the best visual and urban outcomes and provide safer access for all ages.
The community needs a direct pedestrian and cycling link between the Glebe foreshore and Rozelle Goods Yard. Seamless park to park connection is key as I believe was originally spoken about.
Please preserve our people’s mural because it will be significantly obscured by this overpass.
This project prioritises the needs of motorists are prioritised over pedestrians, cyclists and residents.this park is an integral part of our heritage and community. It is a meeting place for all ages groups, the current proposal is advantage given those who drive through , not the people who live and live this place.

It is unacceptable that there would be no direct pedestrian and cycling link between the Glebe foreshore and Rozelle Goods Yard
. This proposal hasn’t reinstated the seamless park to park connection that was originally promised. This means that cyclists and pedestrians are forced to cross the Crescent via traffic lights. 

It is unacceptable that the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and residents are not being adequately addressed.
The government should prioritise the needs of local residents, pedestrian and cyclist access and the retention of vegetation and greenspace as originally promised.

The evidence demonstrates this modification won’t solve congestion in Annandale. This overpass is only designed to address the additional traffic that will be created by WestConnex. It will not reduce the amount of traffic in Annandale but will negatively impact local residents, cyclists and pedestrians. 

An underpass would be less overbearing on the local area
The plan for an overpass should be replaced by a short tunnel under the City West Link with slot trench approaches. An underpass provides the best visual and urban outcomes and should allow the retention of the green link in a location to best connect different areas of greenspace together.

The people’s mural will be obscured
The proposed overpass will obstruct Rodney Monk’s heritage mural which decorates the northern side of the light rail viaduct along The Crescent and has significant local heritage value.