MOD 1 - Design Modifications

This submission is in response to the Sydney CBD and South East Light Rail Project design modifications currently on exhibition.

The following information, which has been carefully compiled by some concerned citizens in order to assist others in formulating a coherent response, comprehensively expresses my own concerns about the issue, and I therefore wish for you to regard this submission as an individual response.

I support the minor change that would ensure the preservation of trees in Tay Reserve, Randwick. However, in recognition that one of the project's principle aims is to improve the overall amenity of areas along the alignment, I hold some strong objections to other suggested modifications:

I object to the overall increase in the number of trees to be removed as a result of design modifications such as the realignment at Alison Road and at the Alison Road/Anzac Parade intersection, and changes to the construction method for the Anzac Parade tunnel
The loss of over 700 trees in the approved project is already unacceptable. This additional tree loss is completely unacceptable.

The suggested replacement trees are insufficient. There are no commitments to replace trees of the same quality, nor in the same location. That is because replacing these trees is in fact impossible. Many of these trees are of significant heritage and biodiversity value.

I am deeply concerned that there have been no modifications proposed with regards to retaining trees and parklands in Randwick despite the community and council support that has been voiced for the preservation of our trees.

Citizens recently submitted a petition of over 500 signatures to the NSW Parliament asking that there be no loss of trees in Randwick city, and that the Randwick interchange be relocated from High Cross Park.

I object to the realignment of light rail along Alison Road and flood mitigation changes at Centennial Park (as described in Section 3.7)
This realignment would allow for an additional 50 trees along Alison Road within Centennial Parklands to be removed. I am deeply concerned about any loss of trees due to this project. Such loss of trees will result in harmful impacts to the wildlife and to the amenity of the area.

I am also concerned about the loss of the entire new and popular bike and pedestrian tracks.

The loss of both the trees and paths can be avoided here with track and stop re-alignment into the middle of Alison Road.

I object to the realignment of light rail at the Anzac Pde/Alison Rd intersection
I am concerned that no satisfactory reason has been provided as to why an additional four fig trees before the corner of Alison Road need to be removed when they have not been flagged for removal in the approved plans.

I am deeply concerned about this extra tree removal. The alignment should be adjusted to avoid the removal of all trees.

I object to the new retaining wall, approximately 200 metres long and up to approximately three metres in height that would extend along the eastern side of the tracks within the central section of the proposed alignment, between Doncaster Avenue and Darley Road next to Alison Road, Randwick
Such a wall would adversely affect the character of the area. This wall is unnecessary if the trees along this section of Centennial Parklands are retained and the tracks are re-aligned into the centre of Alison Road.

Avoiding the construction of such a wall would also result in a cost reduction for the project.


Finally, I object to the fact that the report claims that these modifications will result in an overall improvement, yet no improvements have been proposed with regards to tree loss, nor to socio-economic, biodiversity, air quality, utilities and services, or greenhouse gases `environmental issues'. I am disappointed by the disregard this project shows to the local randwick community.

Please truly consider my concerns as they are equal to the concerns of any stakeholder.

The CSELR is deeply flawed project that fails to address the true long term issue of public transport. There has only ever been one real solution to the issue of moving a great number of people for the eastern suburbs and that is to complete the Eastern Suburbs Railway to Kingsford as it was originally designed. A further extension of the line down the centre of Anzac Parade using cut cover to Maroubra and beyond would provide a reliable heavy rail spine through some of the most desirable urban environments in Sydney. The current at grade solution of trams will do very little to improve transport options and is a foolhardy, wasteful, stopgap measure of addressing the problem of moving vast numbers of people quickly and cheaply. Infrastructure NSW nominated the completion of the Eastern Suburbs Railway as a highly desirable goal as coupled with sensible rezoning of land along the route would achieve the best possible outcome in transforming and achieving urban consolidation. If this government was serious about urban consolidation and providing a true long term solution to moving thousands of people it would stop work on the CSELR and complete ESR.

I don't accept this light rail plan

I dont accept this light rail plan

The purported aesthetic reasons for having a wire-free part of the light rail line close to the Circular Quay end of the line are unjustified and will result in significant operational limitations.

The provision for longer trams & stops is also designed, it would seem, to operate the system at less than its optimum. Smaller but more frequent trams would service the needs of the city better.

I strongly oppose every aspect of this light rail plan.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this E.I.S.

I am strongly opposed to this latest Light Rail Plan and disappointed that most of the community concerns expressed in relation to the previous E.I.S. regarding the project have not been addressed.

I oppose the introduction of larger trams particularly since these trams would be operating in tiny, heavily populated streets like Devonshire Street within metres of residents' homes and local businesses. The route of the CSLER must be changed to larger thoroughfares or built underground in residential areas such as this to safeguard the public, protect resident amenity and avoid creating serious congestion on Sydney streets like South Dowling, Bourke, Crown, Elizabeth and Chalmers Streets, near Prince of Wales hospital and throughout the C.B.D. The proposal to increase the size of the trams operating on this line from 45 metres to 67 metres in length would further exacerbate all these impacts and create new impositions unless re-routed or placed underground.

Noise

If approved this E.I.S. will greatly increase the noise impacts that the proposed tram line would inflict on nearby residents and businesses. We live and work very close to Devonshire Street. The unrelenting noise impacts 7 days per week from early in the morning until very late at night would be untenable causing impediment to our work, constant irritation, sleep disturbance and permanently affecting the quality of our work and home life. Devonshire Street and its nearby streets are densely packed residential areas. To impose these noise impacts 7 days per week permanently is unacceptable and would likely violate EPA noise requirements. There is tremendous local community and business opposition to the current CSLER project in Surry Hills and elsewhere. Noise is already of great concern even with with the smaller trams let alone these huge trams which are significantly noisier..

Danger to pedestrians, cyclists and motorists

In addition, trams this long would pose significantly more danger to pedestrians, motorists and the many cyclists in this area. In Surry Hills the tram line is close to a school and there are a lot of children riding on the bike paths. There are also a lot of intoxicated people regularly in the vicinity of the proposed tram line - a recipe for disaster. The community has consulted engineers who have suggested a number of other cost-effective, safer alternative routes and solutions but these have not been acted upon by the N.S.W. government despite overwhelming opposition to the CSLER in the area. If longer trams are being considered the route must be changed or the line put underground in highly populated areas with narrow streets.

Traffic Congestion

The CSLER will greatly increase traffic congestion in the area. To increase the length of the trams will exacerbate these impacts creating serious, permanent traffic problems at South Dowling, Bourke, Crown, Elizabeth and Chalmers Streets as well as the C.B.D. After the recent so-called 'Sydney siege' , chaos prevailed in the CBD even with existing roads open. One wonders how such a situation would be handled if most of George Street had been closed to traffic due to the CSLER.

Loss of trees

The proposed changes discussed in this new E.I.S. will result in even more significant trees being removed than the 100s that are already earmarked for removal. We am strongly opposed to this.

Centennial Park

We are very strongly opposed to the changes to Centennial Park mentioned in this E.I.S. This E.I.S. proposes that the light rail will encroach on the historic Centennial Parklands through the construction of a 3 metre high 300m long retaining wall along Alison Road together with a light rail stop in the park. This will permanently affect the peaceful, quiet character of the parklands and its surrounds and create an ugly eyesore in this natural area. This must not be permitted.

This E.I.S does not address critical Community and Stakeholder Concerns that have been raised in regard to the design and impact of the CSELR Project concerning its route and impacts on resident amenity, business viability, safety, traffic congestion, parks and trees and inability to provide as good transport as currently exists.

We were not informed by relevant bodies that there was a new E.I.S. concerning the CSLER currently on exhibition and are concerned about this lack of notification to affected communities and Sydneysiders as a whole, given the significant impacts the CSLER would impose, if approved. In addition this E.I.S. only went on exhibition on 3rd December for two weeks. The exhibition period should be extended until after the Christmas school holiday period has finished so that affected residents are properly notified and the whole community has adequate time to respond.

There has been significant opposition by both the public and businesses to the CSLER project, particularly by those who are meant to use it. Given the extent of opposition, the project should be put on hold until after the election and further consultation undertaken to iron out its many problems before its E.I.S. is approved.

To Planning and Environment

I am very concerned about the proposed modifications to the CSELR that affect Surry Hills, Moore part West and Centennial park.

I am very concerned about the significant increase in the noise to be expected with the large trams now being introduced. Already the section through Surry Hills was to expect more noise than elsewhere on the line.

In particular I object to the moving of the racecourse tram stop into Centennial park. From my reading of the rationale for this move, it is clear that protecting the interests and convenience of the racecourse has been prioritised over protecting the park. Centennial park is public land held in trust for all Sydneysiders. It is not vacant space to be taken over to suit the convenience of traffic arrangements and commercial entities such as the racecourse.

I am also puzzled about the proposed pedestrian bridge to be built over Anzac parade. Why is this needed given the almost completed Albert Tibby Walkway, that for some odd reason is never shown on the plans. Does this mean that the Department of Transport and the RMS are not coordinating these developments? And if not why not?.

The extent of the modifications and their nature so late in the process is itself a concern. After all the form of community consultation to now make these changes and impose such a short deadline on community input undermines further any trust in how this project has and will proceed.

I offer these comments as a professional engineer (with extensive experience of project evaluation in a variety of positions including a period with the Bureau of Transport Economics), as a long-term resident of Surry Hills, and as a member of a family which has made extensive use of the current bus services linking the CBD, Surry Hills, Randwick, the UNSW, Kingsford and beyond.

I have for all my life been a great fan of trams. In my experience, light rail works well in situations where its tracks are well-separated from pedestrians, cyclists and public roads, and where a frequent and regular service is required but passenger numbers are too low to justify a "proper" heavy rail system. Sydney's Central/Lilyfield/Dulwich Hill line, running along disused heavy rail tracks, is perhaps a good example of this.

In contrast to the above, the CBD and South East Light Rail (CSELR) proposal appears to ignore both international "best practice" and common sense. It seeks to replace a large number of frequent bus services (some of which have an easily-fixed reputation for poor timekeeping) with a system employing gigantic trams running a relatively infrequent service along a limited route which will permanently remove two or three lanes from busy existing roads.

Supporting documents for the CSELR make it clear that most current bus travellers will discover that their journeys will take longer and will often require them to switch between buses and trams during their journey, since most bus services currently running along or near the route of the CSELR will be terminated.

Given the fact that the current fleet of "blue" buses serving the route allow around 45 passengers to sit for every 15 who have to stand, the new trams (with only about 80 seats per 300+ passengers) will also greatly reduce the quality of "travel experience" for most customers.

The only economic justification that I can find for the CSELR is a document entitled "Business Case Summary", published by Transport for NSW (TfNSW) in November 2013. In a format apparently aimed at primary school children, this estimated that the (then) $1.6 billion capital cost of the project would be offset by accumulated savings (over 30 years) of $707 million in "public transport operational savings including increased revenues (and) reduced bus operating costs..."

Further details of these benefits are deemed "commercially sensitive" and have not been released to the public, although a very senior TfNSW official verbally assured me that they primarily represent savings in bus drivers' wages, given that a single tram and driver could replace about five buses.

This $707 million is of course insufficient to offset the cost of the project, which has now risen to at least $2.2 billion, and a collection of extraordinary other "benefits" has been added in an attempt to justify the CSELR. These "benefits" - accompanied by no supporting evidence - include $264 million in "benefits for road users", $308 million in "environmental and health benefits", $333 million in "benefits for pedestrians" and a breathtaking $2.2 billion in "public transport benefits relating to faster, more comfortable, more reliable journeys".

I believe that this laughably inadequate "Business Case" is completely unprofessional, and that the design amendments tabled in the "CBD and South East Light Rail Modifications Report" do little or nothing to ameliorate the CSELR's failure to meet international best practice.

In fact, many of the proposed changes - including the increase in length of the LRVs from 45m to 67m, and the associated reductions in service frequency - do the opposite. I suspect that implementation of the CSELR in its original or modified form will make the NSW Government an international laughing stock, for many years to come.

I hereby request that:

-1- The closing date for submissions on this CSELR Modifications Report be extended until the end of January 2015. Providing only a 2-week deadline for submissions, just before Christmas, is a glaring and offensive example of the "token" community consultation which has surrounded this project;

-2- An independent Cost:Benefit analysis of the CSELR be carried out and made public;

-3- An underground route (perhaps following the old Bradfield alignment beneath Foveaux Street) be used to provide a faster and safer passage for the proposed 67-metre-long light rail vehicles through the narrow and crowded suburb of Surry Hills;

-4- Additional stations be added to the CSELR to make it more attractive to users. I am shocked that the CSELR Modifications Report proposes to reduce the number of stations in the CBD, even though this section of the CSELR is markedly slower than the underground rail system which runs parallel with it through the CBD;

(If the CSELR route remains unchanged, I would also propose a station on the "Olivia Gardens" site. This would significantly improve amenity for several thousands of people living in houses (and in several blocks of units) on the Eastern side of Surry Hills, whose east-west bus services are to be reduced or curtailed by the CSELR. The light rail stop proposed for Ward Park, uphill and to the west of this area, is currently served by the north-south 30x bus routes along Crown Street. As I understand matters, these bus services will survive the CSELR.)

-5- One or more new parking stations be built near Devonshire Street and/or beneath Ward Park.

(I note that the Sydney Turf Club (STC) are to be provided with a new parking station on their Randwick Racecourse. The EIS makes it clear that all of the heavily-sought-after parking along both sides of Devonshire Street in Surry Hills will be removed to make way for the CSELR. This will have a disastrous effect on many people who live, work or shop nearby and - as people needing to park on Devonshire Street will be forced to seek street parking elsewhere - will dramatically increase parking problems and congestion within the entire suburb of Surry Hills. It is essential that these lost parking slots be replaced - perhaps with parking stations under Ward Park, Wimbo Park and/or Moore Park West (all of which will be extensively disturbed during construction of the CSELR).
To risk stating the obvious, the paragraph on p24 of the original EIS Overview which suggests that "... there is adequate parking available to absorb most spaces lost" is utterly false, at least within Surry Hills.
Similarly, the paragraph on p29 of that EIS Overview which states that "Local social benefits include ... Increased access to local businesses, shops and services" makes no sense whatsoever within Surry Hills. The Modifications Report has done nothing to address these errors.)

-6- The proposed move of the Racecourse stop onto Centennial Park land be abandoned. The stop is principally for the benefit of Racecourse patrons, and should use land owned by the Sydney Turf Club rather than hijacking a (currently) tree-lined part of Centennial Park.

- There is no information on why they need to increase the length of the trains. The business case needs to be shared so a correct assessment can be made
- There will be an increase in noise levels due to the increased length and frequency of trains, especially during the noise sensitive periods of 5-7:30 am and 7pm-1am. TfNSW use emotive language of "minimal" yet clearly state that the number of impacted properties rises from 15 to 101. Much greater detail is required regarding noise footprint comparisons. My view is that this change will have a significant impact on noise along the whole route
- The increased length of the trains will have an impact on congestion at traffic junctions. TfNSW again state this will be minimal. But with a 50% increase in train length the "wait" time at junctions must be increased by a similar 50%. It is hard to really understand the impact as they have declined to provide any quantitative data to back up their "minimal" claim
- The chart at 3.15 appears to have the same errors embedded as were in the original EIS. This lack of attention to detail on the critical issue of noise shows their insensitivity to the community concerns and indicates that noise impacts are not really important - they will be whatever they end up being. All noise impact footprints need to be provided clearly showing the change in impact
- TfNSW again state that they will consider noise reduction designs at a later stage. These need to be clearly outlined now showing what improvements could be made with treatments such as rubber around the rails, slower speeds, removal of overhead power lines etc.
- Numerous additional trees are planned to be removed due to the proposed changes. These trees are mature which provide much needed shade. A commitment to just replace with new, young trees, is not acceptable. There needs to be a further requirement for TfNSW to justify why each tee must be destroyed and that there are no alternative solutions available at all. Just "easier" should not be a reason.
- TfNSW have introduced the use of a "live third rail" as opposed to battery power as proposed in the initial EIS. In the Surry Hills heritage precinct, removal of thye ugly overhead cables was rejected as a solution as the gradients were too steep for battery power. Now that a live rail is available, this should be required through Surry Hills to reduce the visual impact, reduce the number of trees to be destroyed and reduce the noise levels through this residential area. TfNSW have now changed their objection to this proposal on cost grounds yet provide no information on the relative cost levels between the two solutions.
- Car parking is a continued concern. These changes to the proposed project plan do nothing to address the issue of the removal of hundreds of spaces. TfNSW have not provided any quantitative data on the actual impacts on parking. They have also ignored any suggestions to improve car parking such as retaining the 200 car spaces under Olivia Gardens units as a safe and secure park for hospital staff. This would free up above ground spaces for use by those who need to travel by car into the area. No reason has been given other than its not in our plan.

As I have stated in previous submissions the level of detail and accuracy in this submission just demonstartes to me that TfNSW only view the EIS as a process document and not one they have to get right.

I request that you ask TfNSW to provide much greater detail regarding all the changes. When this is provided we can then correctly assess the impacts of these changes. This of course will take time to do correctly

CENTENNIAL PARK RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

Co Chairs: Julie Osborne, Peter Tzannes

c/o 43 Robertson Rd Centennial Park NSW 2021

Objection to the Light Rail Modifications Report

The Centennial Park Residents Association (CPRA) is the umbrella organisation of the street committees of Centennial Park. Our charter is to protect and preserve the Centennial Parklands and the residential amenity of this historic garden suburb for future generations.

The public transport project currently under way is a major infrastructure project with wide ranging ramifications. It will be with us for decades and unless properly thought through will burden the eastern suburbs and diminish our great city. It must enhance our public transport not diminish traffic flows and not destroy public parklands and its trees.

The Light Rail project - City to Randwick/Kingsford - is in total disarray. The latest unacceptable modifications clearly demonstrate that the project was rushed through without proper impact studies. The consultation process was useless because the plans we were shown were not final and have since been changed.

Common sense suggests that the whole project should now be put on hold and that no contracts should be signed until an overall review has been carried out.

The best plan for eastern suburbs public transport would be a heavy rail underground system. Although costly, the benefits would be massive and long term.

Heavy underground rail -

1. Would decrease surface traffic markedly

2. Has a superior passenger carrying capacity

3. Is faster because it does not compete with surface traffic.

4. Does not affect street parking

5. Kingsford and Kensington shopping centres would not be destroyed

6. UNSW students would not have to be stuck in the middle of Anzac Pde waiting for trams

7. Access to the surrounding residential precincts would not be affected as there would be no extra restrictions on right hand turns

I totally object to the modifications and would like to see a better thought out plan for this most important part of the eastern suburbs.

Objections to the modifications

1. The new route along the Alison Rd corridor adversely affects the

Centennial parklands

2. Racecourse patrons will have to cross busy Alison Rd disrupting

traffic and exposing themselves to risk.

3. Access to Centennial Park via the Darley Rd gates for all people east of

Darley Rd will be removed

4. The removal of major trees along the modified route and the destruction of the acoustic mound will degrade the aesthetic appeal of the parklands

5. Darley Rd / Alison Rd intersection will be degraded by trams crossing.

6. Alison Rd will still be subject to traffic delays as the tram will continue to cross it further east.

An Alternate Suggestion.

This had merit and should be re-considered.

There was a proposal to have all trams (both Randwick- and Kingsford -bound) cross into Anzac Pde. north of the Alison Rd /Anzac Pde. intersection.

The trams destined for Randwick would turn left at Abbotford St (a very wide road with a wide centre `nature strip' as this was the old tram line entry into the racecourse)

The Randwick bound trams would go directly into Royal Randwick for the convenience of their patrons. Once in the racecourse, the track could travel underground along the Alison Rd route. The track should be built in the same way as is proposed in Moore Park West i.e. cut and cover the tracks.

Advantages:

1. No damage to Centennial Parklands after Robertson Rd

2. Less noise pollution to homes at Martin/Robertson Rds

3. No crossing of Alison Rd near Doncaster Ave or further east

4. One crossing at Anzac Pde where trams can be stacked for one

light-controlled crossing

5. Trams cross at Doncaster Ave not Alison Rd for racecourse entry

6. Trams can be stacked near the entry to the racecourse.

7. Racecourse patrons would be safely deposited at racecourse with no pedestrian crossing interfering with the Alison Rd traffic flow

8. Darley Rd not affected

9. Access through the main Centennial Park gates at Darley Rd not compromised as cars would not be impeded by a Darley Rd tram crossing

10. No trees lost.

11. Parkland serenity preserved.

12. No double crossing of Alison Rd.

13. Centennial Park patrons can cross at the existing pedestrian crossing at Doncaster Ave consistent with the CP Masterplan

14. Parkland vistas preserved.

We need a complete rethink of the project. The reported blowout from $1.6 billion to $2.2 billion in the cost of the light rail project makes it obvious it was neither properly costed nor fully researched before it was put out for comment. The numerous changes to the plan since it was first announced have resulted in an unworkable public transport scheme which will decrease the efficiency of our roads, while failing to cope with both major events and the 5000 plus students who pour out of UNSW at 4 pm and 5 pm each weekday. At the same time businesses along the length of Anzac Pde will be needlessly destroyed.

I respectfully again ask that the project be put on hold and re-assessed.

Peter Tzannes (Ph 9663 3370)

Cc The Hon Mike Baird MP Premier of NSW

The Hon Gladys Berejiklian MP Minister for Transport

The Hon Rob Stokes MP Minister for the Environment

Ms Clover Moore Lord Mayor of Sydney

CEO of Centennial Parklands Kim Ellis

CPT Chairman Tony Ryan

As a Geriatrician I am concerned about the terriblly high risk of pedestrian injury from the light rail, particularly on Surry Hills' narrow raodways. This inefficient and dangerous plan should NOT go ahead. Rational minds should prevail and determine a more effective and safe way to improve public transport in inner Sydney. As the Londoners are showing us with their new tunnel under the Thames, it is more than possible to do really innovative projects unlike this abysmal proposal. Despite multiple requests to see the business case and real details of this project, we have been provided only the most superficial information and glossy leaflets. Shame on TfNSW for wasting precious funds on this proposal.
There is still time to STOP IT so act now.

I object to the lack of general Public display ; the time NOT given to make submissions at this time of the Xmas season0 I view this as a deliberate and unjustifiable to public interest manoeuver;
I object to the complete lack of proper studies and acquisition and availability of details in public forums and in fact on display- there are significant and unacceptable gaps that can not be left open to any consortium/contractor to just come in and change and adjust when the planning underpinning studies have not been done- THIS IS NEGLIGENCE ON THE GOVERNMENT and its DEPARTMENT side;
I object to the unsubstantiation of most of the claims made in the modifications report- particularly coming under the projection of insignificant changes- THEY ARE MASSIVE and again with NOT PROPER STUDIES nor public time for scrutiny.-This is completely transparent as a declaration that the government , through its department DONT care about community consultation; The community consultation so far has been a: hold a forum, don't fix anything, don't provide details BUT tick the box EXERCISE in NON Consultation. This plan STILL doesn't carry the numbers necessary;
DEGRADES our current roads ; ABUSES the expectation of the public that proper and thorough study has been done (BUT HAS NOT BEEN); DISADVANTAGES the public in SAFETY; DEMINISHES ACCESS TO HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SERVICES; ENDANGERS THE PUBLIC AND ENERGENCY SERVICE PERSONS; ENDANGERS our environment and ecology of this area and by implication the adding to the global warming with the depletion of our Carbon sink and cooling effect of the trees to be removed. the said replacement policy will not equal the 100+ years of the mature trees to be taken; diminishes the environmental aesthetics and cultural advantages of this area and the city.;
ENDANGERS the aquifers of the area and will lead to the stagnation of the Centennial Park ponds that will be dammed- this in GROSS IGNORANCE AND INCOMPETENCE - another degradation of this plan that is not about Good transport but greed at any cost. the initial cost benefit of any of this will be to raise unit prices (as seen in Melbourne already) that will be sold overseas- this does not help Australia in the long term only the developers who will be the 1st sellers any subsequent on selling will see price drops in profit and leave a glut of unoccupied overseas owned units who only wish to hide money offshore- THIS IS NOT GOOD ECONOMIC PRACTICE fro any government in Australia;
Will you be advising the insurance companies of the added risk due to flooding as a result of your undone studies on water dispersement in times of flood that the levy interference will produce?- We have already seen insurance companies raising costs in areas that have been developed where they should not have been due to inadequate and inappropriate action by authorities.
This plan does not work and can not be made to work. Something you would have realised if you have ticked all the pre study boxes. The negatives are toooooooo Many. Spend this money on other needy areas to improve.

I seems that the major beneficiaries of the South East Light Rail the commercial entities such as the football & cricket stadium, the racecourse & UNSW. While it appears that Centennial Parklands will lose a significant number of well-established trees that provide visual & acoustic protection from the impact of heavy traffic in Alison Road. Furthermore extensive tree removal and clearing of the grassed parkland which has protected the fields from the impact of traffic on Anzac Parade and westerly winds will also leave that area without a visual, acoustic & pollution barrier.

In this age of increasing temperatures due to Climate Change, we need our beautiful established fig trees which absorb carbon, improve the streetscape and provide shelter & bush figs for native wildlife such as birds & flying-foxes. Removing these magnificent trees on Centennial Parkland & adjacent land is downright vandalism and actually can only be a result of inferior government planning. I do not support the impact of the South East Light Rail project on Centennial Parklands and the adjacent land. I urge the Planning Department to rethink the proposed devastation of the parkland and alter the proposed route to protect it.

Yours sincerely,

Jillian Snell

I have not had time to consider the entire modification report as the process seems to be really rushed. Everybody is very busy at this time of year with work and having Christmas celebrations, and affected communities have not had time to look at this. I think the consultation period should be extended.

My concerns are with the area along Alison road. I object to the moving of the light rail into Centennial park from the other side of the road. I object to: .
-taking part of the parkland
-loss of many trees and landscaping along Alison road
-appearance of the wall
-the area is quite beautiful and green with many trees and this will be lost
-effect on the cycleway and pedestrian area
-effect on the centennial park ponds
-effect on flora and fauna and native wildlife
-effect of heavy rain and flooding on the ponds and centennial park

To whom it may concern
The prospect of even longer trams running on the "Light Rail" system through Sydney CBD and then through Devonshire St Surry Hills beggars belief. Have you really seriously considered the consequences of this?
The noise impacts on the tight knit community along this route through Surry Hills will bee devastating causing great stress to all living close by.
The increased length will take longer to pass across intersections thereby interrupting foot traffic/cyclists and other road traffic causing chaos.
There has been a huge volume of critical concern raised by the community and various stakeholders to this" Light Rail" project. It will not be laughable at the waste of tax payers money when it fails to meet the needs of the travelling public. Another White Elephant.

It is my personal view that the proposed project will not provide the claimed benefits and will severely disrupt local businesses. Devonshire St. route is sheer lunacy

Greg Lenthen
15 Robertson Rd
Centennial Park 2021
[email protected]
9663 4858

17 December 2014

RE PLANNED MODIFICATIONS TO THE CBD AND SOUTH EAST LIGHT RAIL
It is clear that the NSW government committed itself to the CBD and South East light rail without adequate study. This is reflected in the reported cost blow-out from $1.6 billion to $2.2 billion as well as the many modifications to the project announced this month.
The project needs a complete rethink. It is plain the light rail was neither properly costed nor fully researched before it was put out for comment. The newly proposed changes to the project invalidate the community consultation to date because the plans shown to the community were not final.
The latest changes simply amplify the adverse effects of the light rail on the amenity of the south east. Of particular concern is the loss of additional trees and parkland.
My specific concerns about the modifications include:
* Moving the Randwick Racecourse stop to the northern side of Alison Rd will mean a net loss of some 25 trees, plus parkland, plus cycle ways.
* It creates significant safety issues, and will increase traffic delays on Alison Rd as thousands of racegoers attempt to cross a six-lane road to get to and from the light rail.
* The loss of the right-hand turn from Alison Rd into Darley Rd will force vehicles to make substantial detours through local roads to access Centennial Park.
* The proposed changes to the flood levy banks along Alison Rd must increase the risk of inundation throughout Kensington, especially with the vibration impact of LRVs within a few metres of the levy. (In May, 2003, traffic in Alison Rd was stopped for fear of a levy collapse. Yet now it is proposed to increase the flood water held back by 30,000 cubic metres or more.) Where are the detailed geological and engineering surveys? Who will indemnify residents if the levy banks fail?
* Given the significant increase in length of the trains from 45 to 66m, why haven't the traffic modelling, traffic intersection phase modelling, journey times, capacity modelling and LATM plans all been redone?
* How will safety requirements be affected by coupling two trains together? How can one driver observe all the door openings for the 66m train? If the driver is forced to use cameras to check every exit/entry before closing the doors, then journey times will blow out. Otherwise passenger safety is at risk.
* Declaring "minor" increases in noise impacts at 86 sites is insulting given this project has twice the normal margin above existing background noise levels.
* Forcing 2,000 or more students from Sydney Boys and Sydney Girls high schools to cross the LR rails would appear to pose a safety risk.
* As a resident of Robertson Rd I am particularly concerned at the planned removal of a number of established trees from the junction of Robertson and Martin roads and Anzac Parade. The trees are on the acoustic mound which separates the south western end of Robertson and Martin roads from the present bus roadway. The mound is to be largely removed to accommodate the revised route of the Randwick arm of the light rail. Once the mound is cut back and the existing trees are removed, it will no longer be able to support trees comparable to those being destroyed. The existing trees are a precious natural asset. They create an effective barrier between nearby houses and traffic on Anzac Parade and the bus roadway. Moreover, the trees make an irreplaceable aesthetic contribution to the intersection. The trees could be saved by shifting the proposed re-alignment of the light rail just a few metres to the west.

Common sense suggests that the whole project should now be put on hold, and that no contracts should be signed until an overall review has been carried out.
The best short-term public transport solution for the south eastern suburbs is an improved bus service.
The best long-term plan is underground heavy rail. It would carry more passengers, more quickly and be largely future-proof.

Yours Sincerely,
Greg Lenthen

* Closing date for submissions should be extended as not enough time to allow adequate scrutiny during one of the busiest times of year.
* Amount of time required to analyse 'noise exceedance' fully not permitted with such a short public exhibition period.
* I work full time and only can address these changes, which appeared with no prior warning, late at night or weekends which are fully occupied at this time of year.
* Insufficient information provided and inaccurate information provided on many of the changes.
* No substantiation made of most claims made in the Modifications Report.
* Repeated claims of 'minimal impact' from changes yet no substantiation provided, and highly untrustworthy.
* Why do the SCG/SSG Trust and ATC get their wish list fulfilled but Randwick gets totally ignored +/or punished by the proposed changes?.
* Object to loss of right hand turn from Alison into Darley Rd forcing large numbers of vehicles to detour up to 2.5km through local roads to access Centennial Park.
* Why does the ATC have the LR moved from in front of the proposed 8 story hotel at the expense of over 50 significant trees in Centennial Park as well as the cycle ways and pedestrian pathways?
* Moving the stop from in front of Randwick Racecourse to occupy park land creates enormous safety issues and increases traffic delays on Alison Rd due to need for racecourse users to stream across the six lane roadway.
* The proposed changes to the flood levy banks increases the risk of severe inundation throughout Kensington especially with the vibration impact of 120+ tonne LRVs with metal wheels on metal tracks rocketing alongside within one or two metres of the levy. In May 2003 all transport was stopped due to fears of levy collapse and now the proposal is to increase the flood water held back by between 30,000 cubic metres or more. Where are the detailed geological and engineering surveys substantiating the claims made within this report?
* Placing much of Kensington at risk for the sake of saving the winning consortium a few million dollars is an insult to the community.
* Who will indemnify residents if the levy banks fail?.
* Given the significant increase in length of the trains from 45 to 66m, an increase of over 45% why have the traffic modelling, traffic intersection phase modelling, journey times, capacity modelling and LATM plans not been redone?
* How can the community be expected to examine this report when crucial substantiation is missing since previously the community was repeatedly told that many of these issues 'addressed' by the report - were not issues at all?
* How can one driver observe all the door openings for the 66m train length when the normal operating model assumes 5 people standing per square metre - so direct line of sight will be impossible? It is totally inadequate and inappropriate to simply say the PPP will sort that out. TfNSW is completely responsible for this and needs to answer these questions.
* If the driver is forced to use cameras to check every exit/entry before closing the doors then journey times will blow out. Otherwise the community safety is put at risk. How is this supposed to be different to the situation with trains where a platform attendant ensure public safety?
* No information has been provided to satisfy the community that coupling two separae trains together with satisfy 'crashworthiness' or 'buff strength requirements'. Since the IWLR failed to meet Australian Standards of Independent Access for the mobility impaired - saying 'trust us' rings hollow.
* What different safety requirements are there for coupling two trains together? Why were they not provided to allow full consideration?
* What implications on speeds are there from coupling together two trains? Why were the safety impacts not covered?
* The proposed change to the entry/exit of the LR onto Anzac Parade heading to Kingsford destroys more trees and creates an adverse impact on the surrounding intersection operation - making it especially dangerous for cyclists. - object.
* Why have the safety impacts for cyclists not been covered?
* Increasing the ground level at the stabling facility will exacerbate flooding elsewhere as it currently serves as a retention basis that mitigates flooding in surrounding streets. It is not acceptable to improve the return to the winning consortium at the expense of Randwick residents.
* Declaring 'minor' increases in noise impacts at 86 sites is insulting since this project has been given twice the normal margin above existing background noise levels to any other project in NSW history. Please explain to the people of Sydney.
* Stating that there is no vibration impact from running 66m trains at speed alongside flood levy banks is insulting and cause for concern at its inaccuracy (pg 9).
* Forcing 2,000 or more students from Sydney Boys and Sydney Girls High Schools to cross the LR rails poses a safety risk.
* The platform is not big enough to fit the 2,000+ students from Sydney Boys and Sydney Girls High Schools safely.
* Closing the subway for the revised Moore park station creates public safety risks.
* Mobility impaired individuals, parents with prams, and elderly with canes are put at risk by the changes to the Moore Park stop.

Here is my submission

I object to the realignment of the light rail and stops along Alison Road and flood mitigation changes at Centennial Park

Rationale: This proposal creates much greater impact than the alternatives of the racecourse side of alison road.
- easier for racecourse patrons
- the impacts of the proposal are excessive - loss of 50 trees, impacts on levees, impacts on the current cycle way. These impacts are too great.
- Moving the stop from in front of Randwick Racecourse to occupy park land creates enormous safety issues and increases traffic delays on Alison Rd due to need for racecourse users to stream across the six lane roadway.
The proposed changes to the flood levy banks increases the risk of severe inundation throughout Kensington especially with the vibration impact of LRVs with metal wheels on metal tracks

I object to loss of right hand turn from Alison into Darley Rd forcing large numbers of vehicles to detour up to through local roads to access Centennial park- object.