Sydney Gateway Road Project

A very simple submission:
Please provide a good alternative cycle route to link with the Bourke Street Cycleway.

I object to the Sydney Gateway project and propose that the project should not be approved, until it is strongly aligned with current NSW Government policies and plans, to meet its stated goal “making journeys from west and south-west Sydney to Sydney Airport, the M5, Eastern Distributor and Port Botany easier, faster and safer”, for all customers.
The Sydney Gateway project is missing important walking and cycling integration from the surrounding area's active travel network, to Sydney Airport, a major destination and employment centre for the local community.

See attached letter.

See attached letter.

The NSW Government continues to put cars ahead of active transport and this is no exception.
As a frequent traveller to Sydney Airport (once a week) I have been looking for ways to move around including the use of an e-bike or similar. However, there is NO safe route to the domestic terminal on a separate cycleway and this proposed plan is no different. There is no direct connection from Alexandra Canal cycleway to T2/T3 and beyond to Bayside Council Network.
Not all of us want to continue clogging our roads with cars and buses when there is a safe and environmental alternative.
Whilst I agree we need to get cars off the road on the surrounding streets, and set up better airport access, this should not be at the expense of pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.

Based on review of the submission, predominantly the air quality component, I object to the project with its currently proposed design.
The submission admits that the air quality in the project area is already poor, but does nothing to address the issue. This is not a sustainable development. This does nothing to even maintain, let alone reduce the human health risk to locals currently or for generations to come.

On top of all this, the current locals are being subjected to severe construction fatigue and poor management of air quality (especially dust from construction that is not adequately suppressed and the emissions from added truck movements), odour, pedestrian management (I.e. none) and noise issues. Why will this project be any different? What is the benefit to locals in the short and long term?

This project will cause a major disruption to active transport (walking and cycling) links. Better plans must be made for preserving these links before the proposal is approved. Active transport should be getting better when major projects are undertaken, not worse.

For the last 4 years we have lived in absolute hell in ST Peters with the Westconnex project. Last night 18 December was an example. Night work was done yet once again and very loud noise and vibration was felt till 05:00 this morning. This has been ongoing for 3 years and yet we are only offered alternative accomadation when night work is for 3 consecutive nights. This has impacted on my mental and physical health. The Sydney gateway project will mean this noise and distruption will continue for years to come. And it will not solve traffic probelms. Instead the money should be spent on improving public transport links to and from the airport.

Your EIS fails to completely assess public transport options in the analysis (within reason). There is no reference to removing the access fees to the airport that are currently in place (nor any mention of the cost to government for comparison to the cost of the Gateway). This fails to fairly assess the outcomes of removing the access fee against Objective 1, 2 and 3 of the Gateway project. The EIS should not be considered thorough and completed until a proper investigation is done - this project is entirely funded by taxpayers, not by future tolls/users.
There is also no reference to the future use of the Princes Highway or surrounding areas following this project. There is currently no incentive for trucks to use this Gateway road, nor disincentives to avoid other areas (such as the Princes Highway or other Metro roads). The NorthConnex project included fines against trucks using the surface road - there is no similar mechanism to ensure that the trucks are using this taxpayer funded road (note the Port, Airport and transport companies are not contributing to this in fees/donations etc). Is there any objective related to residents impact?
There is supposedly a 'gateway' project for the Princes Highway and King St as part of the WestConnex project. There has been no EIS, or any further mention of this project that was designed to disincentivise heavy traffic from the area. This Project also omits any mention to this project. The surrounding suburbs of Sydenham, St Peters, Alexandria and Mascot have been inundated with major project work over the past three years (ie. WestConnex, Sydney Metro project, transmission lines) and there has been no expenditure on community related projects that were originally included (as mentioned above re King St gateway, and a park redevelopment at Bedwin Rd and May St in St Peters). It is understandable that such projects are required for the greater state's needs, it is a huge strain on local areas to be consistently surrounded by 24 hour worksites, B double semi trailers on secondary roads and dust, gases and smells from the worksites. There is no mention of alleviation of resident impact in the EIS, although there is certainly mention of business impact and the mitigation to avoid this as possible.
Finally, as a lot of residents' feedback for the WestConnex project and Metro, there is no public transport upgrade included in any of this for surrounding areas to alleviate local traffic - the Metro skips from Sydenham to Waterloo (an extra station would be percentage points of the Gateway project budget), the Westconnex work ends at the Bedwin Road bridge (a narrow secondary road, without an inclusion of a single bike lane across at least), and St Peters and Erskineville stations remain inaccessible, despite being one of the heaviest used suburban stops on the entire network. Will this Project finally accept the local area's needs as the local area has accepted the needs of Sydney and NSW at a larger scale? There seems to be further examples of this happening across smaller local areas in Sydney eg. Parramatta Road corridor following the M4 East extension. There has been no further progression of narrowing the road, increasing public transport or any strategic plan despite the huge costs of construction for the WestConnex and supporting projects. There appears to be a reluctance to engage with local areas once an EIS has been approved and construction commences.

I am objecting to the Sydney Gateway project and don't believe the project should not be approved, until it allows for more active transport pathways to Sydney Airport.

This is part of NSW government's stated goal of "making journeys from west and south-west Sydney to Sydney Airport, the M5, Eastern Distributor and Port Botany easier, faster and safer”, for ALL customers.

The Sydney Gateway Project provides a unique opportunity to rehabilitate and transform the local area around Sydney Airport.

The vicinity truly is a Gateway into Sydney, providing a first look for travellers landing into Sydney Airport. This is an opportunity for travellers to get a glimpse into Sydney and showcase what our city is all about.

A lot of work has been invested into some parts of the Cooks River and making it an important part of the community. Similarly, the Sydney Gateway Project is an opportunity to rehabilitate Alexandra Canal by constructing environmentally friendly seawalls along the banks, encouraging the growth of plants and reintroducing marine life into the area.

On the banks of Alexandra Canal, along with the seawalls, the growth of native plants should be encouraged, transforming what is a polluted waterway into something with more biodiversity and returning the wetlands to their original state. In place of the old Airport Drive, a green space with low lying plants, which is not only benefiting the community, but also provides a visually pleasing space for users of the Sydney Gateway.

Similarly, where the road crosses to the western side of the Alexandra Canal, in Tempe, native plants and flowers should be placed alongside the road, to create a visually pleasing setting, which will also have the added benefit of reducing noise for local residents. As this is the Gateway into Sydney, it is another fantastic opportunity for art installations along this road showcasing what Sydney has to offer and reflecting the local area.

Sydney Gateway is an important piece of infrastructure for access to and from Sydney's International Airport. Paying close attention to the design details and the projects connection to the local area is important to ensure this project has a positive impact for years to come, rather than just another road.

My name is Christopher Aschman.
My residential address is 23 Wentworth Street
Tempe, Which in the EIS exists within the NCA03 Zone of construction. I have a wife & 7 year old son.
The New M5 currently runs beneath my home. When I bought the property in Dec. 2014 it’s (New M5) planned alignment on display was not impacting my land and it influenced my decision to buy property in East Tempe.

As the EIS is a highly technical document, as a layman it is a hard document to be able to ascertain all the Information required for consideration in a legible way for a private citizen. I have been unable to attend any of the offered consultation sessions as I work long hours. There were also doorknocking sessions, but as my family works we did not receive a visit to our knowledge. The consultation process is set-up to favour the developer, not the resident.

My concerns are these:

1. Will the proposed sound wall of the gateway project in the South Street Tempe area be sufficient to not only cut down on Roadway noise, but to also mitigate any effects of the removal of the containers that currently shield some of the noise that emanates from the airport ? The residents of East Tempe already have noise pollution from Sydney Airport, will this increase? Also considering noise pollution, it is a local feature that when the wind blows from the South/South East that the noise of Sydney Airport is considerably more prominent in the area. I would hope that the modelling that is being done on noise pollution for the project would take into consideration the local conditions and that it could be considered in any further discussions regarding noise mitigation factors. Will the combination of the new Roadway and airport noise in a southerly and south-easterly wind pattern affect residents well-being even more ?

2. The EIS also mentioned proposed noise mitigation treatments for houses within the East Tempe area.
How will these treatments be assessed on an individual house by house criteria? Will these treatments be provided before construction begins, or on an individual case by case basis after construction begins ? How will owners access information regarding the proposed mitigation treatments ( what treatment specifically will be provided ) and on what basis can this treatment be sought? What are the structural mechanisms in place to protect residents well-being? Will residents be consulted?

How serious is the gateway project in mitigating resident disruption, especially during night-time construction to alleviate the health effects of increased noise, the health effects of disturbed sleep during construction, and the noise effects and air quality with increased traffic within the area once the project is completed? These concerns are not just regarding increased noise but also in air quality for residents with increased volume of traffic at a close proximity. After the considerable media and resident uproar over the St Peters interchange part of the New M5 and the handling of resident concerns during the construction of the project , I would hope that more careful thought has gone into consideration of residents and their well-being during and after construction of these major development projects.

These are my major concerns regarding the project.

Yours sincerely,

Christopher Aschman
23 Wentworths Street
Tempe NSW 2044
0402 296 891

For many years I cycled to work along the Alexandra Cycle path and whilst this project reports to provide active transport benefits I fail to see it provides any. The old Alexandra Cycle path seems to be increased in length, there is no cycle connection to the Domestic Terminal, no connection to suburbs east of the airport and no reasonable connection to the Botany Bay cycle network.
Until this project provides benefit to all Sydney commuters I don't think it should be approved. In its current form it does not comply with NSW infrastructure guidelines. This projects seeks to encourage only more car dependency.

Comments are in attached letter

Bayside Council submission

I object to the Sydney Gateway project and propose that the project should not be approved, until it is strongly aligned with current NSW Government policies and plans, to meet its stated goal “making journeys from west and south-west Sydney to Sydney Airport, the M5, Eastern Distributor and Port Botany easier, faster and safer”, for all customers.
The Sydney Gateway project is missing important walking and cycling integration from the surrounding area's active travel network, to Sydney Airport, a major destination and employment centre for the local community."

Please see attached submission

Please see attached

Please Consider the following

Interim

- Interim dog park solution within walking distance of the current one (Tempe Oval off leash at timed slots of day or a new temporary fenced off area away from work zone)

- No impacts to Tempe wetlands.

- No thoroughfare traffic via South Street, Barden Street, Smith Street, Hope Street, Wentworth Street, Fanning Street, Station Street

- Assistance with sound proofing for local houses during works



Future/long term

- Sound proofing for highway (i.e.. sound barrier or wall) as well as sound proofing of houses

- Improved dog park with water, perhaps pool (like Sydney park) along with a separate small dog and big dog off leash area

- Investment into the reserve such as Tempe Oval surface upgrades, potential to add AFL posts, basketball courts, baseball diamond, upgrade existing cricket nets.

- Full restoration of the around new road so it is green and leafy! Consider the use of suitably selected tree species appropriately placed to aid in noise reduction to the area and strongly consider the area for use in Govs 5 million tree project

- Also consider the 5 million tree project if agreeing to assist in sound proofing properties and giving incentive to plant a tree in any yards suitable (a bigger assistance package for those who agree to plant for example)

- Consider the use of catchment and drainage to aid Tempe wetlands in the construction design

Submission to opposite Gateway EIS
I would like to lodge an objection to the Gateway Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
To make a general overall comment, the consultation with the local Tempe community has been extremely poor with no attempt at transparency or answering any specific questions from residents directly affected. I refer to correspondence to my local member, Ron Hoenig, and the response from the Minister for Planning, Rob Stokes, (Ref: MDPE19/2161) which Mr Stokes stating my concerns would be addressed in the EIS – this has not occurred and specific concerns have not been addressed in the EIS. This is further underscored by the ridiculous deadline of December 19, the Thursday before Christmas, as a `tick a box’ approach to stakeholder engagement and an attempt to bury important details about the impact on the local Tempe community without adequate consultation.
The actual EIS document has not been centrally located at, for instance, Clock on/off café at Tempe where consultations were originally held. This is very poor stakeholder engagement as it is quite a bulky, unwieldy document impossible to print out at length.
Dust pollution and mitigation
When it comes to dust pollution and mitigation, nothing appears to have been learnt from the WestConnex debacle and the fine handed out to contractors only after sustained campaigning from the St Peters community and substantial inaction from the NSW Government and EPA.(https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/news/media-releases/2018/epamedia180815-epa-fines-contractor-at-st-peters-site)
The noise impacts of the Sydney Gateway will be significant during construction and operation. Residents in St Peters and Haberfield suffered mental and physical impacts including asthma and bronchitis during WestConnex and continue to do so. Areas around South Street, Tempe look to be particularly exposed to dust pollution and health impacts from the Gateway – where are the appropriate mitigation measures? To refer to a construction noise and vibration management plan – which hasn’t even been developed yet – is fairly pointless. That excavation will include the former Tempe tip area with no clear mitigation measures is outrageous – when will the measures be introduced, before or after excavation begins and the community affected?!
``Any impact you and your community might experience from dust during construction will be temporary. Our work at the former Tempe landfill has the potential to generate odour, however this is unlikely due to the type of waste that may be exposed.’’ Since Gateway can not be sure what type of waste will be exposed, this statement is extremely hard to justify, let alone quantify.
The reference to ``best practice management measures’’ when it comes to dust impact is another hollow promise given what has happened at St Peters.
Air pollution
The air quality aspects of this EIS are based on 2016 data which is well under the 2018 and 2019 results for PM 2.5 and that is before the bushfires. Even on the predictions of this EIS, there is a serious air quality problem in this area, but instead of focussing on improving it (like increasing rail traffic to the airport) the focus is just on more and more roads. St Peters school and Tempe High schools are both community receptors and St Peters Childcare appears to be forgotten altogether.



Noise and traffic impact on Tempe
We note with concern continual references to ``returning local streets to the Mascot community’’ – what this actually means is diverting the problem to Tempe and our little community having 10,000 trucks a day imposed on us instead. Mascot has always been zoned industrial due to its vicinity to Port Botany and the Airport so local residents and those moving to the area would be aware of its reputation for industrial, noise and other pollution.
Why is it now acceptable to inflict the same pollution and lack of amenity on Tempe, which is a small tightknit community of only 3,000 people (2011 Census)? References to noise, vibration and noise walls being imposed on our community without adequate consultation are extremely alarming. Monitoring noise activities and providing alternative accommodation to residents ``where feasible or reasonable’’ is another very poor outcome with again no consultation with the affected residents given the small nature of our suburb. Given the actual physical dimensions of this ``noise wall’’ are not given or appropriately displayed to scale in the EIS, how are residents supposed to understand what this will look and whether it will even work.
Why do your communications focus on getting ``10,000 trucks off Mascot roads’’ but buried in the fineprint are the references to INCREASED noise in ``some areas’’ ie Tempe – of course, this wouldn’t make your glossy brochures as we are just collateral damage for the rest of Sydney.
``We acknowledge our project will introduce new sources of road traffic noise to some areas, with some properties on Smith Street and South Street noticing some increases in noise. A new noise barrier will be built in Tempe as part of Sydney Gateway. We have identified and assessed all properties that may be affected by the project when it is open to traffic. We always try to mitigate noise at the source first, such as installing low noise pavement. If this does not reduce the noise enough, or is not feasible, we will then look at other options. This includes measures like building noise walls or providing your property with noise treatments.’’ This is not proactive enough and more needs to be done to protect Tempe residents from unnecessary and intrusive noise. The mitigation of operational noise impacts should be considered prior to the implementation of at-property treatments.
In relation to maximum noise levels at night-time, the maximum increases are predicted on South Street, Tempe due to the proximity of new roads in this area. The impacts are already well identified so mitigation measures need to be urgently introduced given the large number of lanes and huge volumes of traffic expected ABOVE GROUND.
Other issues
Reduced travel times and congestion
Can you explain how Tempe residents will be able to get to either the domestic or international airport given you are closing Airport Drive so we will need to drive in the OPPOSITE direction and try and link up with essentially a massive traffic jam in the future when, currently we can get to either airport in under 20 minutes depending on the time of day. How is that reducing our travel time and congestion? It seems to be an integrated road and public transport network - a faster, more reliable, and safer journey – for everyone, but for those who live in Tempe.
Loss of parking
``There may be some temporary loss of on-street parking in some areas, such as within Tempe Recreation Reserve and residential areas in Tempe and Mascot. This could potentially reduce the number of parking spaces available to residents and people accessing the reserve, airport or other nearby businesses’’. Where will this be?
Cooks River Intermodal Terminal/3 Link Road
Can you explain where the intermodal terminal ends in essentially a dead-end in the north-east corner (Page 52). Will this mean a further land grab in Tempe between Swamp Road and the Alexandra Canal which will be pitched as a ``missing link’’ but is in fact another poor outcome for the local community which will further impact biodiversity and green space?