Part 2 Chris Standen: New M5 EIS fails to meet requirements

(Ed: The New M5 is being assessed under State Significant provisions of the NSW Environment, Planning and Assessment Act. Under this law, the Department prepares  the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs). You can read a full copy of the SEARS here.

This is the second part of  Transport planning and modelling specialist Chris Standen’s  four part submission. In this part, Standen analyses the SEARS and finds the EIS does not meet a number of requirements. It’s worth noting that some local Councils and other experts agreed with Standen that the M4 EIS requirements were not met by the Westconnex EIS.  The failure to meet requirements should be a serious matter that if allowed to pass without examination undermines the entire assessment process. No decision has been made on the M4 East project yet.

( If you have missed the first part of his submission, read it here.)  

The submission has been presented by the People’s M5 EIS is a format that suits wordpress. The full submission will be uploaded later on the People’s M4 EIS. You can use this and other submissions on the People’s M5 EIS to develop your own response. 

ITLS_Staff_BoardCards_01

SEARS

Alternatives

The SEARS provide for  an analysis of feasible alternatives to the carrying out of the proposal and proposal justification, including:

  • an analysis of alternatives/options considered, having regard to the proposal objectives (including an assessment of the environmental costs and benefits of the proposal relative to alternatives and the consequences of not carrying out the proposal), and whether or not the proposal is in the public interest,
  • justification for the preferred proposal taking into consideration the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,
  • details of the alternative ventilation options considered during the tunnel design to meet the air quality criteria for the proposal,
  • details of the short-listed route and tunnel options from the tender process and the criteria that was considered in the selection of the preferred route and tunnel design, and staging of the proposal and the broader WestConnex scheme, and in particular access to Sydney Airport and Port Botany and improved freight efficiencies.

Standen’s finding: FAIL 

Comment: The EIS does not include cost-benefit analysis, modelling, or any other objective analysis of feasible alternatives. Only cursory descriptions are provided.

No alternative staging strategies are described or objectively assessed. Continue reading

Advertisements

Beverly Hills resident rejects WestCONnex impacts on South West Sydney

By Kathy Calman, spokesperson for the Beverly Hills/Kingsgrove WestCONnex Action Group

For those of you who are not familiar with our suburbs, the communities of Beverly Hills, Kingsgrove, Bexley North, Earlwood and Arncliffe lived through years of construction for the first M5 circa 2001, (Legacy M5).

The legacy M5 resulted in a ‘Berlin Wall’ effect that separated our community into two. The North and South sides.  It also had a devastating impact on residents in regards to pollution. Turrella and Earlwood, with an unfiltered exhaust stack, and Bexley North and Arncliffe with tunnel portals (openings).

Homes, the trees and parks taken. Years of construction, and then, to thank us for our endurance, we were handed cheap, visually divisive noise walls and poor urban design.   The urban design and landscaping was of such a poor standard that Allambee Crescent Nth Beverly Hills actually features in the RMS Landscape and Design Principles as an excellent example of what NOT to do.

Allambee Crescent Nth Beverly Hills circa 2015.

Screenshot from the RMS Urban Landscape Design Principles
Screenshot from the RMS Urban Landscape Design Principles
The noise wall is visually divisive and bears no contextual relationship to the setting in this residential area on the Northern side of the M5 East
The noise wall is visually divisive and bears no contextual relationship to the setting in this residential area on the Northern side of the M5 East

It is a credit to Council and a few residents of these communities that they took the repair of our environment into our own hands.  We had no choice because the RMS would not.

“Landscaping” by the Community & Canterbury Council – maturing growth circa 2015.
“Landscaping” by the Community & Canterbury Council – maturing growth circa 2015

Untitled

 

The M5 turned out to be a noisy congested old fashioned solution to traffic congestion. But the NSW government has learned nothing. Again last year we found ourselves faced with new projects.  Firstly there was the expansion of the King Georges Road Interchange and now a duplicate of the old failed M5 – call the New M5

Continue reading

Vol-1A Chapter-04 Project-development-and-alternatives

Previous chapter: Vol 1A Chapter 03 Strategic context and project need

Vol 1A Chapter 04 Project development and alternatives

Pdf: New M5 EIS Vol 1A Chapter 04 Project development and alternatives.pdf

Section Pages
4 Project development and alternatives 4-1
4.1 History of the M5 East Motorway and WestConnex 4-5
4.2 Strategic alternatives 4-8
4.3 Motorway options 4-20
4.4 Eastern interchange options 4-31
4.5 Preferred motorway alignment 4-36
4.6 Design development of operational ancillary facilities 4-36

Next chapter: Vol 1A Chapter 05 Project description