M5 East Motorway between King Georges Road, Beverly Hills and St Peters, , NSW

M5 East - New multi lane twin motorway tunnels between the M5 East Motorway (east of King Georges Road, Beverly Hills and Bexley Road, Bexley) and St Peters, and a new road interchange and upgrade of local roads at St Peters to connect to Campbell Road and Euston Road, St Peters and Gardeners Road, Mascot.

External link Read more information

16 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Andrew Chuter commented

    I strongly object to the new M5. It will not achieve its stated aims. It has not been compared against public and active transport solutions that will better serve the public.

  2. Jen Barnett commented

    NO. This motorway is against community wishes and makes no sense for the future well-being of Sydney. Better public transport is what is required. No intelligent city in the world thinks more roads bringing more cars into its centre is the answer. BUILD LIGHT RAIL INSTEAD.

  3. Vincent Bardet commented

    I'm a resident of the 125 Euston Road, at the intersection of Sydney Park Road and Euston Road where your project plan to widen the road from four to seven lanes coming as close as two metres from our bedrooms windows. I would like to know - based on your environmental study - how soon we will have a car landing in our three-year-old twins' bedroom.

    Aside from the fact that the Westconnex project is a pure political idiocy which is based on a flawed business case, urbanism ideas from the 1970s and a waste of AU$15bn which could be better used to sort the Sydney road congestion issues with a proper public transport plan, the widening of Euston Road is dangerous for the residents of the 125 and 95. We can't wait for the first fatality to get an acknowledgement that this shouldn't have been done in the first place.

    I dont see how the widening of Euston Road will solve any congestion issues as it only pushes the bottle neck 500 metres further up the road to the intersection of Euston and Maddox where the road goes back to four lanes. What difference does it make? It only creates a nightmare for the families living there.

    If your project really has the support of the majority of Sydney councils and Westconnex goes ahead, then, rather than widening Euston Road, why don't you use Bourke Road (which doesn't have any residential developments) and connect directly with Botany Road and the M1?

  4. Jasmine Andrews commented

    This development is inappropriate and will destroy the character and amenity of our local community. We need more public transport and for jobs and industry to be distributed across greater Sydney to reduce the need for people to commute into the city centre from suburbs an hour away. The more this goes on, the fewer businesses will be left in the inner region of Sydney anyway - it's going to be all highways and apartment towers.

  5. Joe Ortenzi commented

    I strongly object to the new M5. It will not achieve its stated aims. It has not been compared against public and active transport solutions that will better serve the public.

    We need more public transport and for jobs and industry to be distributed across greater Sydney to reduce the need for people to commute into the city centre from suburbs an hour away.

    The M5 extension needs to be stopped, and a business case put forward BEFORE a solution is started. Many high quality transport solutions have been put forward, in far more populated cities than Sydney, that don't put so many eggs in a car-centric solution. There are hundreds of great ideas suggested by non-partisan experts we should have considered first.

    This motorway, aside form decimating the neighbourhoods it seeks to support, has a very poor return on investment and will cause more problems than it purports to resolve.

  6. Nicky Barry commented

    I strongly object this proposal. Sydney needs better public transport not more roads. More roads = more cars and more congestion somewhere. This M5 extension and the proposed Westconex seams to be trying to be worked out as it progresses. Sounds like the whole thing is I'll worked out and poorly planned.

  7. Jacinta O'Brien commented

    Never in all my days have I seen such a poorly thought out plan for a road. It's not a small road either so the changes in air quality will be significant. Are their clauses in the contract for compensation when people start to get sick?

    The proposed M5 roads end at awkward junctions, one way streets that are already busy, lead into school zones which can only cause danger to students and add to conjestion.

    In all seriousness this an appalling design and significant waste of taxer payers money which will only cause detriment to the health, wellbeing and lifestyle of the residents whose homes were not forcibly acquired. Residents clearly oppose it so why force it on us?!

  8. sue commented

    This development will adversely effect nearly everyone in our local community.
    Unfiltered exhaust stacks near schools, parking restrictions and constant construction noise & dust will make life nearby hell.
    I think it's a lot to sacrifice for a few minutes off the commute time for the few that will be willing to pay the hefty tolls.
    All in all I would say poorly planned, so far poorly executed & seriously lacking in vision

  9. Wendy Bacon commented

    This EIS is huge and it is absurd to expect Councils, community groups and members of the public to digest and respond to this over the Summer holiday period. Why not extend the period until the end of February 2016.

    I cannot believe that we have a publicly funded body that would put forward a $16.8 billion project that on the figures provided IN THE EIS ITSELF will actually end up with more traffic and a worse level of service on Stoney Creek Road, Euston Road, Edgeware Road and at times on Kings Street. Who knows what the true figures will be but we can be sure that this is just a recipe for more traffic congestion in Sydney. We already know that over on the M4 East project route the same problem would occur.

    I have spoken to residents in Euston Road and draw your attention to the submission by Vincent Baudel - you are actually planning to bring the road within 2 metres of bedrooms. I have been told no noise wall is even planned there which indicates a callous attitude on the part of consultants employed to deliver this plan at huge public expense.

    AECOM the body that has been paid $13 million of tax payer's money to deliver this EIS has other commercial stakes in the project. I would refer the Planning Department to my blog http://www.wendybacon.com/2015/m4-eis-company-aecom-has-major-stake-in-westconnex-project/

    IA fellow resident emailed me this information last night:

    "I have already looked at table 9-51 in the EIS
    Euston Rd north of Sydney Park Rd
    AM peak
    2021 with project 86% traffic increase
    2031 full WestConnex 114% traffic increase
    PM peak
    2021 with project 56% traffic increase
    2031 full WestConnex 96% traffic increase
    The widening on the road reserve
    on Euston McEvoy and Lachlan is inevitable but WestConnex won’t admit It why?"

    The reason why I think RMS and Westconnex won't admit it is because they don't want to count it as part of the $16.8 billion dollar project. The costs are already blowing out at $2 billion a year - Westconnex is just promoting more road building at the tax payer's expense

    I expect the Planning Department to publish this submission with my name and suburb that I live in on the list of submitters to the EIS that you promise to deliver on your website. I note that you have not done this so far as promised to the nearly 4000 groups and people who submitted to the M4 East proposal. How can you expect people to have faith in the planning process when you can't even keep to simple undertakings about the publication of information?

  10. Wendy Bacon commented

    Just an extra note to the Major projects team at NSW Planning . I want you to register my comment on this application as an OBJECT.
    I very strongly object to this proposal. It's important that people state that they OBJECT if they do otherwise comments can be registered as comments only

  11. Damian Haslam commented

    I strongly object to this proposal. Spending the same amount of money on public transport is a significantly better way to invest in Sydney's future. If we can't learn from the mistakes of LA and its ilk, then the future for Sydney is bleak.

  12. Sarina Kilham commented

    I strongly object to this proposal. The so-called benefits of saving a few minutes driving time are heavily outweighed by the negative impact that project will have on the area of St Peters. The widening of Campbell Street will result in extra traffic that will be pushed onto the narrow and already crowded roads of Edgeware Rd, May Street, King St and the Princes Hwy around Sydney Park. St Peters is just 7km from the CBD and has much residential development occurring. It is close to public transport and provides a healthy community with shops, schools, public parks and pools all within walking distance. Building a huge interchange and bringing more traffic into this area is an outdated mode of development thinking. I would prefer to see the monies invested in decent reliable public transport for the whole of Sydney and more communities supported to be walkable to reduce car dependency. How the State Government can support this project knowing full well that major lifestyle changes will occur over the next 50 years due to climate change is appalling. How loud does the community have to say that we object before the government pays attention? Indeed the Minister Duncan Gay seems to hold the public opinion in contempt.

  13. Isobel Deane commented

    The World Health Organization estimated in 2014 that seven million premature deaths are attributable to air pollution, and a significant share is the result of urban transit.
    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/

    Because of this FACT, I am concerned about this project. I think the enormous amount of funds would be better spent on innovative means of transport. Imagine if Sydney led the world in alternatives to private vehicles transportation.

    I am wary of the significant cost blowout for this project, reported in recent weeks. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/the-way-we-justify-investments-in-road-projects-like-westconnex-doesnt-add-up-20151129-glaq7g.html
    I am also concerned about this project because of THESE FACTS.

    Sydney traffic congestion will worsen with or without WestConnex, with the project only making a minor difference to Sydney’s overall traffic in the future. This is another FACT, which does not make the WestConnex project seem like a viable option, according to this independent study http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/232697/150427_COUNCIL_ITEM35_ATTACHMENTA.PDF

    Parliamentary ministers are the public's representatives. The strong public opinion against this project should be listened to and accounted for. The wealth of independent data opposing this project should be carefully considered.

  14. Isobel Deane commented

    Just an extra note to the Major projects team at NSW Planning . I want you to register my comment on this application as an OBJECT.
    I very strongly object to this proposal.

  15. Alison Byrne commented

    I object to this proposal as there has been little consideration of the public desire for more public transport options and less large roadworks. The inner west is becoming more densely populated with many new high rise developments. Where there are no transport options, this leads to increased car usage.

    NSW Department of Planning Major Project Assessments should look at cities that have neglected public transport and focused on car based options (LA, Manila) and failed. They should also look at cities that have embraced public transport and improved the life of the residents.

  16. Andrew Hodgson commented

    I strongly object to the new M5. It will not achieve its stated aims. It has not been compared against public and active transport solutions that will better serve the public.I object to this proposal as there has been little consideration of the public desire for more public transport options and less large roadworks. The inner west is becoming more densely populated with many new high rise developments. Where there are no transport options, this leads to increased car usage.

    NSW Department of Planning Major Project Assessments should look at cities that have neglected public transport and focused on car based options (LA, Manila) and failed. They should also look at cities that have embraced public transport and improved the life of the residents.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts