Redfern Station Upgrade - New Southern Concourse

Christopher Blair
117 Hereford Street
Forest Lodge NSW 2037

Dear Sir/Madam




Re: Application SSI-10041 Redfern Station Upgrade- New Southern Concourse


I write to oppose the proposed application.

I ride my bicycle through this area on an almost daily basis and am concerned with the cycle and pedestrian access issues. I have considered carefully the application by Walk Sydney and agree with their deliberations. The reasons for my objects wholly adopt those submissions.

1. Connect Directly: The new bridge should connect South Eveleigh and Alexandria with North Eveleigh, Darlington, and the University of Sydney with a minimum of circuity. This will help maximize access for the community. It should serve not only users of Redfern station, but also pedestrians crossing the barrier created by the railway tracks. This ensures convenient walking access between north and south Eveleigh with the southern footing located at Cornwallis /Margaret Street

2. Bicycle Solution: A distinct solution should also be provided for bicyclists crossing the tracks, and additional pedestrian and bicycle crossings to the west are needed.
3. No Payment Gates: The bridge should not be controlled by payment gates, pedestrians crossing the tracks should not need an Opal or equivalent to cross the bridge. Many crossings throughout the Sydney Trains system are open to the public, and we do not see why the residents and workers of Alexandria and Darlington should be discriminated against. Payment pillars, rather than gates, are even now used at Redfern at the current Australia Technology Park (South Eveleigh) entrance and the northwest entrance on Lawson Street. The use of the “criminals” bogeyman (that criminals will be able to use the bridge) by TfNSW staff (presenting to Alexandria Residents (ARAG) August 14, 2019), presumably quoting police, is especially problematic and an attempt to breed fear in the community. Rest assured that criminals can get smartcards too, even if they steal them.
4. Wide Platform: The platform should be at least 20 metres wide to accommodate future population growth and transit patronage.
5. Wide Stairs and Lifts: The new connection should include wide direct staircases to the platforms and ground level as needed, and large lifts for prams, shopping carts, bicycles .
6. Weather Protection: The new connection should have weather protection, particularly on the staircases.
7. Pedestrian Signals: A pedestrian signal should be installed at Gibbons Street and Marian Street so people can walk to Regent Street/Botany Road, the Indigenous Excellence Centre, new development in Redfern and Waterloo, and other activities of importance.
8. Wider Footpaths at Station Entrances: The left turn lane from Gibbons to Lawson is barely used and yet people pour out of the station and wait at the traffic lights. The left turn lane needs to be closed and the footpath widened. If counts were done at almost any time of day of cars turning left and people waiting at the lights, the need for footpath space would win by far.
9. Safe Bicycle Access: A two-way north-south separated and protected bicycle facility should be provided in the Wyndham Street/Gibbons Street/Regent Street/Botany Road corridor from Green Square Station to Waterloo Station to Central Station, which connects to Redfern Station.
10. Align Entrances and Exits with Actual Pedestrian Demands. We are disappointed with the so-called “Gibbons Street entrance” which does not actually enter on Gibbons Street, and increases the exiting time for pedestrians traveling to Redfern, and would not want to see a repeat of that mistake. Care should be taken to minimise the travel time for pedestrians. Accessibility increases non-linearly with reach. A 1 minute (out of 30)increase in travel time is 6.5% fewer jobs reachable in 30 minutes, in direct contravention of the 2056 plan that clearly endorses “30-minute cities”.
11. Relocated Bus Stops: We believe the bus stops should be relocated to better connect to the station entrance, rather than worsen connection, as has been recently done on Gibbons Street, as shown in Figures 3 and 4.
12. More Honest Communication about Future Development: In justifying their design, Transport for NSW staff indicated (ARAG meeting, Aug 14, 2019) that a high-rise building would be constructed in the triangle between platforms 10 and 11. While we don’t oppose development, and if it occurs, adjacent to public transport is an excellent location, we believe that such forward looking information should be included on public planning documents, at least in indicative terms, because such changes affect the optimal design, and clearly that community of relatively informed people was not aware of this development.

Yours faithfully

Chris Blair

The Project in its current form lacks provisons for connecting the comminities and business on either side of the Railway.
The new southern concouse could easily provide both acces to Redfern Station and free flowing commuter (both pedestrian and bicycle) connection over the rail corridor. By providing a free flowing (i.e no ticket gates) link beween ATP and the Darlington side of the corridor, it wouldl make Redfern station the hub of the local high tech community between the businsess district (ATP) and the university. By providing a cycle way it will enable cyclist on the Wilson st cycle way to access ATP without making a concoluted detor.

The Redfern Station upgrade is a much needed improvement to our inner city infrastructure. The area has a high volume of cyclists. The current cycleways and existing plans are inadequate to cope with future demand.

I note the current improvements underway to link the gaps in the network at Lawson street. These are welcome but insufficient. Cyclists are deposited in dense traffic and forced to intersect with pedestrians. It is dangerous.

Please consider a dedicated cycleway bridge over the tracks. Please ensure there are no gaps in the cycle network. Please include sufficient bike bays and storage.

The Redfern area will see an ever increasing number of cyclists in the future. It is a link from East to West and to the University. Commuting by bike is good for the environment and individual health. The government has a duty to provide a safe means to do so.

New major state developments such as Green Square and Barangaroo have overlooked opportunities to integrate proper cycleways. It will cost lives to further neglect these opportunities.

It’s about time a second concourse was built across Redfern station. My only criticism is construction should start sooner and platform 11 and 12 access should be improved ASAP. Thank you for finally progressing with this proposal.

I would like to see the whole development carry an Indigenous theme with history points of the local area

DPI Agriculture has no comments to make on this proposal.

I urge NSW Department of Planning and Environment to not approve the proposed design in upgrading Redfern Station. Instead alternative options that alleviate most of the issues below should be revisited to ensure that the substantial costs expended by the NSW State will result in a positive and lasting legacy for the foreseeable future.

TfNSW “Preferred” Solution
This was based on survey information mainly gathered from commuters who were mostly university students, others travelling to work/school, corporate and government body representatives. Accordingly these statistics did not provide an appropriate balance to account for the broader local community and residents’ input (i.e. the community) who in a simple count were the minority.
We dispute these results as not at all validating the real community concerns.

Pedestrian Traffic Management
One of the stated aims of the new concourse is to reduce congestion on the station - this is welcomed. However the option proposed and touted as ‘preferred’ does address the safety concerns of reformed congestion resulting from the spilling out of thousands of commuters from the station into the very narrow and unsafe parts of Marian and Little Eveleigh streets.

The presented proposal in the (May 2020) Redfern North Eveleigh Precinct Renewal – New Southern Concourse visually depicts the east side of Marian street entrance to the station where the road is at least 3 lanes wide, where the projected pedestrian traffic is not currently high and unknown moving forward. However it does not visually depict the west side (cnr Cornwallis & Marian St) where there is projected to be up 20,000+ people per day in peak hour pedestrian traffic being funnelled through an approximately 5 metre wide (1 lane) road accessing the South Eveleigh business precinct (Australian Technology Park). The EIS does not include any feasible safety mitigation measures to account for congestion of people, vehicles, bicycles and service vehicles converging in this constricted location.

The safe and practical solution is to design the entrance to the lift concourse south of the Cornwallis/Marian Street corner so the 20,000 people exit directly into the South Eveleigh precinct. Both alternative community group designs (“H” design and Option 5) depicted in the TfNSW’s Scoping Report incorporating this solution were presented by the ReConnect Redfern action group but TfNSW has deemed this as not preferred on the basis of unsubstantiated objections.

Connectivity to Surrounding Area
TfNSW has deemed that a key benefit is providing better connectivity with the surrounding areas including key destinations such as South Eveleigh (formerly known as Australian Technology Park), and education centres.
This claim is counterfactual. Connectivity to North Eveleigh (e.g. Carriageworks, University, RPA, etc.) is not improved by the TfNSW’s design solution. The existing train entrances/exits on Lawson street are a mere 50-60 metres from the proposed new entry on Little Eveleigh Street, and connectivity to South Eveleigh (ATP, CBA, etc.) is in fact further away than the current entrance/exit from Platform 10. Connecting Marian Street to Little Eveleigh Street via the newly proposed concourse bridge has no quantum benefits.
Both alternative community group designs (“H” design and Option 5) depicted in the TfNSW’s Scoping Report clearly provided much improved and logical connectivity to all precincts - this was presented by the ReConnect Redfern action group but TfNSW has deemed this as not preferred on the basis of unsubstantiated objections.

Noise and disruption Impact on The Watertower residents (during construction)
There are no feasible mitigation measures in the EIS to counter the inevitable noise, disruption and traffic risk to residents during the planned construction phase of nearly 2 years. At a Watertower meeting held in June 2019 representatives from TfNSW suggested providing noise abatement barriers (walls) and double glazing.

Noise and Light Impact on The Watertower residents (ongoing)
TfNSW’s Scoping Report (Section 7.3 Environmental Risk Analysis) indicates that the risk is very high (RED) in terms of operational noise impacts from upgraded station facilities and changes to pedestrian and traffic arrangements. There are no feasible mitigation measures to counter the ongoing noise (commuters, announcements, etc) and the EIS is silent on the issue of artificial light emanating from the proposed new station entrance impacting the Watertower apartments.

Privacy
There is no presented solution to counter the inevitable privacy issues emanating from the proposed new station entrance impacting the Watertower apartments, as it is apparent that the height of the public concourse is (while not depicted) is obviously high above ground level. (i.e. will commuters see into The Watertower apartment windows?). Again the EIS is silent on this matter.

Natural Light
The impact of the station entrance/bridge structure on the natural light and shadow lines for north facing Watertower apartments has not been made available to the public and is not addressed at all in the EIS.

Street Parking
16 street car parking spaces around The Watertower will be permanently removed. Other than finding parking elsewhere, there is no suggestion of any replacement parking spaces.

Hello I have a couple of requests about the above proposal.

Cycleway inLittle Everleigh Street - I request the current cycle way be maintained and separated from the shared zone. The pedestrian traffic is likely to be very heavy and incompatible with sharing with cyclists. The newish separated Wilson Street cycleway from Newtown and Erskineville should feed into the Little Everleigh Street cycleway.

Private dockless bike hire should be banned in public spaces - private deckles bike hire should be banned in all public spaces. The relevant companies have a history of considering prominent public space around the station to be exhibition areas (shop areas) for their private for profit bike hire operations. in busy areas they interfere with pedestrian movements. The companies have a poor record in providing helmets for bike hirers and therefore are breaking the law.The effect is for short distance cyclists without helmets to use public footpaths, badly interfering with the flow of pedestrian traffic. Unless there is a specific corralled bike hire shop on private land, dockles bike hire should be banned from the precinct and dockless bikes left in public places confiscated

Pedestrian crossing - a new pedestrian crossing across Little Everleigh Street on the south side of Lawson street is needed to formalise. Traffic control lights are needed here to manage the conflict between pedestrians and vehicles

Advertising - No advertising billboards should be added to the precinct. It is a historic precinct and the usual action of the current government to cover transport infrastructure with paid advertising needs to be resisted.

Public Seating - public bench seating should be provided every 200m from the exit of the station to assist the use of the facilities by people with mobility problems.

Design Option 1 does not adequately meet the objective of SEAR 6: Place and Urban Design including contributing to the accessibility
and connectivity of communities. The final design does now allow pedestrian or cyclist connectivity across the railway corridor and only supports patrons using Sydney Trains services. This is a fundamental opportunity lost to increase pedestrian amenity in the district leaving the only access across railway corridor via the narrow and dangerous pathways on Lawson Street. The Project SEARs required TfNSW to provide opportunities to integrate cycling and pedestrian elements with surrounding network. This has clearly not being achieved and dramatically reduces the operation and benefit of this project. Chapter 4 does not adequately address the alternative options raised during stakeholder engagement. Adequate grades for a cyclist ramp could be achieved by using the TfNSW operated car park on Marion Street.

Dear NSW Government,
Please please consider the following two additions to the Redfern station upgrade:
1. Include a pedestrian and cycleway connection between Marion and Little Eveleigh streets. It's a 10 minute walk around and the cycle connections aren't linked which is frustrating and dangerous on the busy road next to the station. This should be able to be accessed without tapping on/off.
2. Consider linking the new entrances to platform 11 and 12. Its already a frustrating walk up and down platform 10 and looping around! You'd be saving money by linking it now, rather than doing it later and digging up your work.
I appreciate your consideration and your effort to include these submissions in the final proposal to make the Redfern and Eveleigh precinct a safer place for all.
Thanks,
Ivan

I urge NSW Department of Planning and Environment to not approve the proposed design in upgrading Redfern Station. Instead alternative options that alleviate most of the issues below should be revisited to ensure that the substantial costs expended by the NSW State will result in a positive and lasting legacy for the foreseeable future.

TfNSW “Preferred” Solution
This was based on survey information mainly gathered from commuters who were mostly university students, others travelling to work/school, corporate and government body representatives. Accordingly these statistics did not provide an appropriate balance to account for the broader local community and residents’ input (i.e. the community) who in a simple count were the minority.

I dispute these results as not at all validating the real community concerns.

Pedestrian Traffic Management
One of the stated aims of the new concourse is to reduce congestion on the station - this is welcomed. However the option proposed and touted as ‘preferred’ does address the safety concerns of reformed congestion resulting from the spilling out of thousands of commuters from the station into the very narrow and unsafe parts of Marian and Little Eveleigh streets.

The presented proposal in the (May 2020) Redfern North Eveleigh Precinct Renewal – New Southern Concourse visually depicts the east side of Marian street entrance to the station where the road is at least 3 lanes wide, where the projected pedestrian traffic is not currently high and unknown moving forward. However it does not visually depict the west side (cnr Cornwallis & Marian St) where there is projected to be up 20,000+ people per day in peak hour pedestrian traffic being funnelled through an approximately 5 metre wide (1 lane) road accessing the South Eveleigh business precinct (Australian Technology Park). The EIS does not include any feasible safety mitigation measures to account for congestion of people, vehicles, bicycles and service vehicles converging in this constricted location.

The safe and practical solution is to design the entrance to the lift concourse south of the Cornwallis/Marian Street corner so the 20,000 people exit directly into the South Eveleigh precinct. Both alternative community group designs (“H” design and Option 5) depicted in the TfNSW’s Scoping Report incorporating this solution were presented by the ReConnect Redfern action group but TfNSW has deemed this as not preferred on the basis of unsubstantiated objections.

Connectivity to Surrounding Area
TfNSW has deemed that a key benefit is providing better connectivity with the surrounding areas including key destinations such as South Eveleigh (formerly known as Australian Technology Park), and education centres.

This claim is counterfactual. Connectivity to North Eveleigh (e.g. Carriageworks, University, RPA, etc.) is not improved by the TfNSW’s design solution. The existing train entrances/exits on Lawson street are a mere 50-60 metres from the proposed new entry on Little Eveleigh Street, and connectivity to South Eveleigh (ATP, CBA, etc.) is in fact further away than the current entrance/exit from Platform 10. Connecting Marian Street to Little Eveleigh Street via the newly proposed concourse bridge has no quantum benefits.

Both alternative community group designs (“H” design and Option 5) depicted in the TfNSW’s Scoping Report clearly provided much improved and logical connectivity to all precincts - this was presented by the ReConnect Redfern action group but TfNSW has deemed this as not preferred on the basis of unsubstantiated objections.

Noise and disruption Impact on The Watertower residents (during construction)
There are no feasible mitigation measures in the EIS to counter the inevitable noise, disruption and traffic risk to residents during the planned construction phase of nearly 2 years. At a Watertower meeting held in June 2019 representatives from TfNSW suggested providing noise abatement barriers (walls) and double glazing.

Noise and Light Impact on The Watertower residents (ongoing)
TfNSW’s Scoping Report (Section 7.3 Environmental Risk Analysis) indicates that the risk is very high (RED) in terms of operational noise impacts from upgraded station facilities and changes to pedestrian and traffic arrangements. There are no feasible mitigation measures to counter the ongoing noise (commuters, announcements, etc) and the EIS is silent on the issue of artificial light emanating from the proposed new station entrance impacting the Watertower apartments.

Privacy
There is no presented solution to counter the inevitable privacy issues emanating from the proposed new station entrance impacting the Watertower apartments, as it is apparent that the height of the public concourse is (while not depicted) is obviously high above ground level. (i.e. will commuters see into The Watertower apartment windows?). Again the EIS is silent on this matter.

Natural Light
The impact of the station entrance/bridge structure on the natural light and shadow lines for north facing Watertower apartments has not been made available to the public and is not addressed at all in the EIS.

Street Parking
16 street car parking spaces around The Watertower will be permanently removed. Other than finding parking elsewhere, there is no suggestion of any replacement parking spaces.

The concourse will be good for enabling pedestrian access in Redfern but it shouldn't have ticket gates. This will cause confusion, congestion and privacy issues.
Also what if someone doesn't have an Opal card or have the means to top up - it isn't fair and I don't think people realise this restriction yet.

I fully support the project. It is a very good outcome for the community. The new concourse will enable improved station access and an opportunity for barrier free movement for all of our community. The new concourse will also provide a legible connection to Sydney University and allow the existing concourse to be upgraded in a staged manner. The clear and direct circulation lines through the concourse and along Little Eveleigh Street are very important aspects of the design.

WalkSydney is pleased to make a submission on the Redfern Station Southern Concourse.

WalkSydney is a community group working to make it easier, safer and more pleasant to walk in Sydney. With a growing population we need to ensure people can easily walk to public transport, local shops and services, and shared transport options.


Historically there was a pedestrian crossing of the railroad tracks south and west of Redfern station, which unfortunately was removed in the 1990s. We are encouraged to see any improvements in this area, as almost any crossing is better than no crossing, and additional entrances help increase accessibility to public transport and thus ridership, but we hope that the improvements can be as valuable as possible for as long as possible, so the community can maximise the value for the expenditures involved.
We believe the following principles should guide the design of the bridge:

Connect Directly: The new bridge should connect South Eveleigh and Alexandria with North Eveleigh, Darlington, and the University of Sydney with a minimum of circuity. This will help maximize access for the community. It should serve not only users of Redfern station, but also pedestrians crossing the barrier created by the railway tracks. This ensures convenient walking access between north and south Eveleigh with the southern footing located at Cornwallis /Margaret Street

Bicycle Solution: A distinct solution should also be provided for bicyclists crossing the tracks, and additional pedestrian and bicycle crossings to the west are needed.

No Payment Gates: The bridge should not be controlled by payment gates, pedestrians crossing the tracks should not need an Opal or equivalent to cross the bridge. Many crossings throughout the Sydney Trains system are open to the public, and we do not see why the residents and workers of Alexandria and Darlington should be discriminated against. Payment pillars, rather than gates, are even now used at Redfern at the current Australia Technology Park (South Eveleigh) entrance and the northwest entrance on Lawson Street. The use of the “criminals” bogeyman (that criminals will be able to use the bridge) by TfNSW staff (presenting to Alexandria Residents (ARAG) August 14, 2019), presumably quoting police, is especially problematic and an attempt to breed fear in the community. Rest assured that criminals can get smartcards too, even if they steal them.

Wide Platform: The platform should be at least 20 metres wide to accommodate future population growth and transit patronage.

Wide Stairs and Lifts: The new connection should include wide direct staircases to the platforms and ground level as needed, and large lifts for prams, shopping carts, bicycles .

Weather Protection: The new connection should have weather protection, particularly on the staircases.

Pedestrian Signals: A pedestrian signal should be installed at Gibbons Street and Marian Street so people can walk to Regent Street/Botany Road, the Indigenous Excellence Centre, new development in Redfern and Waterloo, and other activities of importance.

Wider Footpaths at Station Entrances: The left turn lane from Gibbons to Lawson is barely used and yet people pour out of the station and wait at the traffic lights. The left turn lane needs to be closed and the footpath widened. If counts were done at almost any time of day of cars turning left and people waiting at the lights, the need for footpath space would win by far.

Safe Bicycle Access: A two-way north-south separated and protected bicycle facility should be provided in the Wyndham Street/Gibbons Street/Regent Street/Botany Road corridor from Green Square Station to Waterloo Station to Central Station, which connects to Redfern Station.

Align Entrances and Exits with Actual Pedestrian Demands. We are disappointed with the so-called “Gibbons Street entrance” which does not actually enter on Gibbons Street, and increases the exiting time for pedestrians traveling to Redfern, and would not want to see a repeat of that mistake. Care should be taken to minimise the travel time for pedestrians. Accessibility increases non-linearly with reach. A 1 minute (out of 30)increase in travel time is 6.5% fewer jobs reachable in 30 minutes, in direct contravention of the 2056 plan that clearly endorses “30-minute cities”.

Relocated Bus Stops: We believe the bus stops should be relocated to better connect to the station entrance, rather than worsen connection, as has been recently done on Gibbons Street.

More Honest Communication about Future Development: In justifying their design, Transport for NSW staff indicated (ARAG meeting, Aug 14, 2019) that a high-rise building would be constructed in the triangle between platforms 10 and 11. While we don’t oppose development, and if it occurs, adjacent to public transport is an excellent location, we believe that such forward looking information should be included on public planning documents, at least in indicative terms, because such changes affect the optimal design, and clearly that community of relatively informed people was not aware of this development.

Please check attachment for our submission about the project. Thank you.

I urge NSW Department of Planning and Environment to not approve the proposed design in upgrading Redfern Station. Instead alternative options that alleviate most of the issues below should be revisited to ensure that the substantial costs expended by the NSW State will result in a positive and lasting legacy for the foreseeable future. Without considering these issues outlined below, the Department of Planning and Environment is both ignoring a large groundswell of well-evidenced and valid community concerns - and also setting itself up for expensive remediation work in future years. Given we have not been listened to up in the process to date, I hold little hope we will be now. However, despite current evidence from this project to date, I continue to believe in community-based partnership design. I should note, we all believe a connecting bridge across Redfern Station is a great idea - we simply object to the lack of true listening and effective design response to our valid and clearly evidenced community concerns.

TfNSW “Preferred” Solution
This was based on survey information mainly gathered from commuters who were mostly university students, others travelling to work/school, corporate and government body representatives. Accordingly these statistics did not provide an appropriate balance to account for the broader local community and residents’ input (i.e. the community) who in a simple count were the minority.
We dispute these results as not at all validating the real community concerns.

Pedestrian Traffic Management
One of the stated aims of the new concourse is to reduce congestion on the station - this is welcomed. However the option proposed and touted as ‘preferred’ does address the safety concerns of reformed congestion resulting from the spilling out of thousands of commuters from the station into the very narrow and unsafe parts of Marian and Little Eveleigh streets.

The presented proposal in the (May 2020) Redfern North Eveleigh Precinct Renewal – New Southern Concourse visually depicts the east side of Marian street entrance to the station where the road is at least 3 lanes wide, where the projected pedestrian traffic is not currently high and unknown moving forward. However, it does not visually depict the west side (cnr Cornwallis & Marian St) where there is projected to be up 20,000+ people per day in peak hour pedestrian traffic being funneled through an approximately 5 metre wide (1 lane) road accessing the South Eveleigh business precinct (Australian Technology Park). The EIS does not include any feasible safety mitigation measures to account for congestion of people, vehicles, bicycles and service vehicles converging in this constricted location.

The safe and practical solution is to design the entrance to the lift concourse south of the Cornwallis/Marian Street corner so the 20,000 people exit directly into the South Eveleigh precinct. Both alternative community group designs (“H” design and Option 5) depicted in the TfNSW’s Scoping Report incorporating this solution were presented by the ReConnect Redfern action group but TfNSW has deemed this as not preferred on the basis of unsubstantiated objections.

Connectivity to Surrounding Area
TfNSW has deemed that a key benefit is providing better connectivity with the surrounding areas including key destinations such as South Eveleigh (formerly known as Australian Technology Park), and education centres.
This claim is counterfactual. Connectivity to North Eveleigh (e.g. Carriageworks, University, RPA, etc.) is not improved by the TfNSW’s design solution. The existing train entrances/exits on Lawson street are a mere 50-60 metres from the proposed new entry on Little Eveleigh Street, and connectivity to South Eveleigh (ATP, CBA, etc.) is in fact further away than the current entrance/exit from Platform 10. Connecting Marian Street to Little Eveleigh Street via the newly proposed concourse bridge has no quantum benefits.
Both alternative community group designs (“H” design and Option 5) depicted in the TfNSW’s Scoping Report clearly provided much improved and logical connectivity to all precincts - this was presented by the ReConnect Redfern action group but TfNSW has deemed this as not preferred on the basis of unsubstantiated objections.

Noise and disruption Impact on The Watertower residents (during construction)
There are no feasible mitigation measures in the EIS to counter the inevitable noise, disruption and traffic risk to residents during the planned construction phase of nearly 2 years. At a Watertower meeting held in June 2019 representatives from TfNSW suggested providing noise abatement barriers (walls) and double glazing.

Noise and Light Impact on The Watertower residents (ongoing)
TfNSW’s Scoping Report (Section 7.3 Environmental Risk Analysis) indicates that the risk is very high (RED) in terms of operational noise impacts from upgraded station facilities and changes to pedestrian and traffic arrangements. There are no feasible mitigation measures to counter the ongoing noise (commuters, announcements, etc) and the EIS is silent on the issue of artificial light emanating from the proposed new station entrance impacting the Watertower apartments.

Privacy
There is no presented solution to counter the inevitable privacy issues emanating from the proposed new station entrance impacting the Watertower apartments, as it is apparent that the height of the public concourse is (while not depicted) is obviously high above ground level. (i.e. will commuters see into The Watertower apartment windows?). Again the EIS is silent on this matter.

Natural Light
The impact of the station entrance/bridge structure on the natural light and shadow lines for north facing Watertower apartments has not been made available to the public and is not addressed at all in the EIS.

Street Parking
16 street car parking spaces around The Watertower will be permanently removed. Other than finding parking elsewhere, there is no suggestion of any replacement parking spaces.

With the conversion of Little Eveleigh Street to a shared zone, will some of the parking space adjacent to the Little Eveleigh Street entrance of the station, or new parking spaces on land that TfNSW owns off the western end of Little Eveleigh Street have electric vehicle charging spaces installed for commuters and the local community to use?

Will the car park be directly accessible from Wilson Street, adjacent to Ivy Street?

Hi

I am excited about the prospect of a second entrance, with lift access to all platforms, at Redfern station. As a current Redfern resident and past Newtown and Erskineville resident I would also like to suggest that parking be provided for at least 100 bicycles on each side of the new concourse. The bicycle parking currently available at Redfern station is inadequate and, in the case of the parking on Little Eveleigh St, not considered safe by most cyclists. The same is true of the existing parking at Macdonaldtown and Erskinevile stations. Secure and reliably available bicycle parking would allow people from throughout the Inner West, many of whom are already inclined to travel by bicycle, to use Redern station as a 'park and ride' station and to complete most of their journey by bicycle without having to contend with dangerous traffic within the CBD.

I also strongly support the proposal to include a bicycle path across the Southern concourse to connect the Wilson St / Darlington and ATP / Alexandria areas, which is a gap in the existing cycle path network, and the removal of car parking on Little Eveleigh St.

Kind Regards

Please make it easy for cyclists to cross the tracks. It's really hard to get from north of the tracks to the South Eveleigh area right now, because the Wilson St cycleway goes through a pinch point at Redfern station with extremely narrow footpaths.

Please expand the footpaths around redfern station, particularly on the bridge and on Gibbons St, where pedestrians are forced into narrow areas between trees and bus shelters while cars enjoy 4 lanes. It's out of proportion of the number of pedestrians using that area for such a busy train station.

I object to the project due to the significant increase in pedestrians using Little Eveleigh Street. The section of roadway is narrow, the footpaths are extremely narrow and not sure for access for those with limited mobility. Little Eveleigh Street has a contra flow bicycle lane, to the west of Little Eveleigh Street there is Ivy Lane and further west is Ivy Street. Between Ivy Lane and Ivy Street is a shared access area that is crossed by the Wilson and Burren Street Cycleway. One only needs to observe the speeds that cyclist proceed through this are to realise that adding significantly more pedestrians is UNSAFE. If you remove all parking and resurface the footpaths and road surface, and clear make and promote pedestrian safety as #1 then perhaps it might be possible to safely integrate the road users. As it there are many electric bikes, skate boards, hover boards, hover balls etc. that travel through this area at considerable speed, all these pose a significant risk.