North West Rail Link - Civil Works

Could I please have 1) an aerial view of the path of the line under what streets in beecroft 2) an explanation why there is no station at Beecroft. I work at Norwest as do others in b/chelt area and no one is going to travel to Epping or Cheerybrook to catch the train to norwest. I have seen the depths of the tunnel and my recollection is that there were some areas in beecroft which were of the same depth as some of the other stations. Thanks

I support the project fully, although I have to make the suggestion to extend the line to connect / cross with Schofields station, for the following reasons:

- There is physical space there currently
- Future growth in the area
- Access to and from Richmond and Blacktown as well as Penrith and the south west region
- Avoid being another Carlingford "dead end" line that is very ineffective
- Enable for a future outer Sydney loop
- It is going 23km's, might as well add a few extra km's to join the lines.
- Future proofing the network

If you are going to do something, do it right. Connect the lines.

An absolutely splendid proposal. Now lets get on with it and complete it.

If you do not mind me suggesting though, why don't you consider extending the existing Epping to Chatswood line by way of quadruplicating line to North Sydney, and then across the bridge by way of utilising the 2 eastern lanes, and then extending the lines into the old Wynyard tram tunnel, thus providing a city terminus at Wynyard.

Or better still extend the two lines under Town Hall station, making an addition station at Hymarket, and then ascending into the unused "ghost platforms" at Central on platforms 26 & 27. Voila, there is your Central Railway Terminus.

To gain access to the eastern lanes would require a bridge from the old tram line structure already located south of North Sydney Station, across the freeway approaches to the bridge. I realise that such a proposal would lose two south bound city road lanes, but the loss would be worthwhile as access would then be given to the old Wynyard tram tunnels.

I do not deny that such a programme would be cheap, but the overall benefit to the people of Sydney would be enormous.

Can you tell me which document contains the detailed route map. The only route/map I can find is a high level, it does not capture which streets will be affected by the tunnelling.

Dear Sirs,

I am living at the above property and per the EIS 1 it appears that my property is being directly impacted by the construction phase from 2013-onward. This would mean that I will to suffer because of Traffic movements, Noise, Dust/ Pollution, Potential Rezoning, and overall drop in land value as the property will be adjoining the car park / station facilities. It is unclear if you are going to be acquiring my property either during EIS 1 or EIS 2. I require that an officer from NWRL Project team discuss this with me. Our property is Lot No 7 in Plan DP270405 Folio Identifier 7/270405

Why didn't you link Parramatta to Epping first before starting North West Rail Link? Why didn't you prove your real integrety by building much easier link than NWRL before starting a MultiBillion biggest one?

I have lived in the hills for many years and agree with the rail link going ahead but am concerned about the level of noise from the sky train effecting the houses in the close proximity between Bella Vista & Rouse Hill, also the pillars under the sky train will become covered in graffiti and it will become an eye soar in year to come, I suggest the Government spend some extra money and provide the tunnel all the way to Rouse Hill therefore avoiding the negative impact on local residence, why only do half the job, lets make sure this project is state of the art and not a patch work quilt.

Build Parramatta to Epping First!

I strongly object to the Northwest Rail Link proposal.
I am a resident of Castle Howard Rd, Beecroft. The rail tunnel is proposed to run under Castle Howard Rd. The Intermediate Services Facility is proposed to be constructed nearby at Cheltenham netball courts. My major concerns include:

* impact of vibration on my property during construction and railway operations.
* decline in property value due to railway operation
* decline in property value due to proximity to Service Facility
* destruction of bushland for Service Facility access roads, constructed through Beecroft Bushland Reserve
* additional degradation of bushland reserve on top of destruction already inflicted by widening of M2.
* loss of amenities due to construction of Service Facility, removal of netball courts and children's playground.
* 960 truck movements on a local road, which in some areas are only one lane, for a two year period during construction of the Service Facility.
* no direct access to the rail line for Beecroft / Cheltenham residents.

I support the plan for a rail link to the Northwest of Sydney.
There is an existing transport corridor to the northwest - the M2. The Northwest Rail link should be built under the M2 to minimise the impact of this project on residents and property owners.

Residents of Castle Howard Rd Beecroft are being impacted by three major projects - the M2 upgrade, the Epping to Thornleigh Freight Track and now a Service Facility for Northwest Rail. The impact upon existing residential areas must be considered in infrastructure planning. The existing transport corridor under the M2 should be used for this project.

I strongly object to the Northwest Rail Link proposed Intermediate Service Facility at Cheltenham.

My major concerns include:

* destruction of bushland for Service Facility access roads, constructed through Beecroft Bushland Reserve
* additional degradation of bushland reserve on top of destruction already inflicted by widening of M2.
* loss of amenities due to construction of the Service Facility, removal of netball courts and children's playground.
* 960 truck movements on a local road, which in some areas are only one lane, for a two year period during construction of the Service Facility.
* Emergency access to the facility is via residential roads

I support the plan for a rail link to the Northwest of Sydney.
There is an existing transport corridor to the northwest - the M2. The Northwest Rail link should be built under the M2 to provide a better position for the required service facilities access and ventilation shafts.

Hello

It appears from some notices posted near Cheltenham oval and netball courts that two options are being considered for building access to the site of a ventilation shaft for the rail link. It is unclear whether the notices are official, or whether they have been posted by a concerned resident. The notices were posted just before the school holidays started, when some people will be away and would miss the opportunity to consider and comment. The timing is unfortunate.

The notices describe two options for providing permanent access to a ventilation shaft. The access is for occasional maintenance purposes, and the options described are:
1. directly to the M2, or
2. through bushland directly to Kirkham Street.

I do not understand why the existing residential streets cannot be used for access for occasional maintenance purposes - if it is occasional as the notice suggests. If this is not an option then the direct access to the M2 would be far preferable to the Kirkham Street option for the following reasons.
1. the amount of bushland destroyed would be far less - about 50 metres compared with between 400-500 metres. In my opinion this pocket of bushland is one of the least spoilt in the area, with no weeds or rubbish. It also has many nesting spots for lorikeets, cockatoos and brush turkeys.
2. the cost of the M2 option must be less given the respective distances.
3. Kirkham Street is another residential road, whereas the M2 is where large trucks belong.

Also, fyi, there is asbestos contamination in the landfill above the netball courts. Specifically, it comes to the surface within a 7m radius of a picnic table above the netball courts , just near where your truck did some test drilling. It looks like pieces of fibro sheeting. I raised this with Hornsby Council in 2010. I have copied in Warren Southwell at Hornsby Council who is aware of this matter.

I support the new railway link, however, I would like the impact on the local environment minimised.

Thanks and regards, Carl

Re. proposed haulage road for North West Rail Link ventilator shaft, Kirkham St, Beecroft to Cheltenham Oval.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to a haulage road being built through bushland on the northern side of the M2 from Kirkham St Beecroft to Cheltenham Oval. The purpose of this road is to allow access for the construction and maintenance of a ventilator shaft to the North West Rail Link. While I strongly support the construction of the rail link and am not opposed to the ventilator shaft's proposed location near the oval at Cheltenham, I believe the second identified option of constructing access ramps directly to the M2 to allow the necessary haulage must be chosen.

The bushland around Beecroft and Cheltenham is important natural habitat and provides opportunities to residents for relaxation and exercise. I often run or walk along the bush track that runs from Kirkham St to Cheltenham Oval and usually see other people using it at the same time. This bushland is beautiful and contributes to the local community's well-being. It is part of a whole collection of local parcels of land that relate to each other and that allow quite extensive bushwalks with brief bits of street crossing.

Once a bit of bushland like this is knocked down for a road, it is gone. We just have to find other ways that have less impact. In this case, the project has already identified the alternative possibility of building access ramps to the M2. I expect this would cause less damage to the local bush if done carefully. Another option may be to use the existing Castle Howard Rd for access to Kirkham St., though realistically, residents of Castle Howard Rd would probably oppose that option.

I urge you to protect the bushland between Kirkham St and Cheltenham Oval by not building a haulage road through it.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email and if you have a mailing list for interested residents, I'd like to be on it. I would like to receive any available information about the north west rail link works in my local area.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Dear Sir

I fully support the construction of the North West Rail Link but I would like to comment on the two options under consideration for permanent access to the Cheltenham Intermediate Services facility.


1. Directly on and off the M2 requiring new on and off ramps from the motorway. Or 2. On and off Kirkham St on a new road through bushland to the proposed site.

I have been a resident of Beecroft since 1967 and have been involved in volunteer work in the local bushland since 1987. Many local residents have worked as bushcare volunteers with Hornsby Shire Council to improve the condition of bushland in the area over the last twenty years or more.

The bushland which would be impacted by the second option of a road through the bush from Kirkham St to Cheltenham Oval is and always has been in good condition. It was gazetted reserve over one hundred years ago and has remained intact until 1995 when the southern edge near Devlins creek was taken for the building of the M2, and currently its widening.

To me it would be a tragedy if more of this quality bushland is to be lost for the building of yet another road.

The site for this facility at the netball courts at Cheltenham Oval is a good one provided alternative courts can be provided for the netball players. The site has local road access on one side and a major road on the other. As the purpose of the facility is for the access of emergency vehicles in the event of an accident or problem in the rail tunnel it would seem that to have a choice of both local roads and a major high speed road would be desirable. I have been told by a road engineer that access to and from the M2 should be possible by widening the breakdown lane from 2m to 3m to use as off and on ramps. A new road to Kirkham St would only allow emergency vehicles access to the local road system and back onto either Beecroft or Pennant Hills Roads.

I realize that another reason for needing the heavy vehicle access road is for the construction of the facility, however once this is complete access to and from the site is only going to be needed for maintenance or in the event of an emergency in the rail tunnel. The normal operation of the M2 would therefore not be compromised except for the period during construction when perhaps truck movements could be confined to off peak periods.

A short walk through the area by botanists from the Australian Plant Society managed to identify a list of over 100 species of native plant in the area of the site and some of the area to the west. Epacris pururascens was not found but Persoonia laurina and Trochocarpa laurina were and they are both uncommon in the area. It would be difficult to offset a similar area of bushland in good condition and certainly not in the area of Beecroft and Cheltenham.

This area of bushland is important to the local community and is well used by bush walkers, dog walkers and cyclists. It is one of the nicest bush tracks in the area as it goes through such good quality bushland.

The EIS states that the visual amenity of the area will only be minimally affected. This might be true if the M2 access option is chosen but if a new two lane paved road is built it would require the removal of a large number of mature trees as well as the clearing of the understorey and the loss of this vegetation would be very noticeable both from the bush and from the neighbouring roads and houses and of course the M2 itself.

While I accept that the bushland in the area of the site facility itself has to be lost it seems hard to justify the permanent loss of the good bushland through to Kirkham St for the building of 350m of paved road when there is a better alternative right next to the site.

Hello, after attending the meeting on Saturday afternoon in Millhouse Road I wish to note my concerns on the following issues:

Problem 1:
I wish to request you reconsider the location of the Bella Vista Rail Station. When I purchased my townhouse in the Waterstone complex in September 2010 there was NO MENTION of a train station at Bella Vista. Can you please consider either moving the station long further (say half a kilometer) towards Rouse Hill - at least this would help with the constant noise that the open cut train station will produce at night once operational. As noise carries I'm sure all the residents in Waterstone will be able to hear, in the dead of night, "all stations to Epping"!!! If the station is moved along the road a little further this could be avoided.

Another option could be to put a dome over the open cut station/track - this would also help with the noise and constant announcements that occur at rail stations day and night.

Problem 2:
Street/resident parking during construction AND once the station is operating.
Reason: I live in the Waterstone townhouse complex and we have limited parking within the complex. The majority of residents use street parking as their second option. Can you please organize for RESIDENT PARKING PERMITS/STICKERS to be made available so initially the construction workers and further down the track the train commuters do not park in Brighton Drive and surrounding residential streets. I realise you intend to build a multi level car park - however you will find that a lot of commuters would rather park on the street than in a car park situation where the possibility of theft is greater.

I will also send the parking issue to Baulkham Hills Council, but I would like your department to be aware of my concerns.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email and comment on my concerns.

I support the North West Rail link however I think the proposed Skyrail section will be a hideous eysore and allow the noise from the trains to carry further than if they were located on the ground or even better in a cutting.

I also think that the overhead strucutre will be a focus for grafitti artists and vandals.

In short it seems the cheapest option has been selected which will be to the detriment of the community in the long run.

There are other possible solutions but it appears these designs have been ignored.

We have waited nearly two decades for this rail link. Isn't it worth doing it right?

Dear Sir,

I'd like to place a formal objection as to the raised sky line that is proposed in your Impact Statement 1.

The proposed sky train/line will now pass in front of our premises in Bellcast Rd Rouse Hill and has the concern of all of us in this area.

The original plan was for a tunnel from Sanctuary drive to the Rouse Hill centre, which would have provided the necessary privacy , lower noise reduction and lessen the environmental impact that is so sensitive to this catchment area that feeds into caddies creek!!

This is a newly developed area and no doubt concerns will also be lodged by the developers Lend lease.

With regards to you recently published impact study , no reference is made as to the types of trains that will be using the line or data measuring dBa from existing lines using such sky system.

Also what screens / acoustic barriers will be used to reduce both visual and noise impacts to the on facing local residence and what protective barriers will be in place to prevent items coming from the the train and into resident properties or onto public walkways that are under the line, that could cause personal injuries?

I look forward to your reply,

Yours Faithfully

Mr M . Dinger

Submission to the EIS 1 for the NWRL Project relating to the Cheltenham Intermediate Services Facility
Application No: SS 1 - 5100

Sender: Mrs Barbara Darmanin, 7 Plympton Rd., Carlingford 2118

I would like to comment on the proposed 400 metre two lane access road from Kirkham Rd, through pristine bushland, to the Cheltenham Intermediate Services Facility.

I have been working for 15 years as a volunteer bush regenerator for Hornsby Shire Council and I fully appreciate the high level of value of the reserve through which this proposed access road would be constructed. It contains a huge variety of vegetation endemic to that area much of which has already been removed for the construction of the M2. It is also an area used extensively by local residents for recreation. Construction of the proposed access road would destroy its value.

If the purpose for the construction of this Intermediate Services Facility at Cheltenham is for quick access in the case of breakdowns or accidents surely a short section constructed to join the M2 would provide a much speedier access than the proposed access road which would lead onto narrow suburban streets to join either busy Beecroft Road or congested Pennant Hills Road.

The proposed 400 metre two lane access road from Kirham Road would seem to be unsuitable for both the above reasons.

Thank you for reading this submission. Barbara Darmanin.

A haulage road through here is short sighted.

Such a move would alienate the many users of this bushland and the people who choose in this leafy area.

Please consider using the M2 or alternatives.

Eddy

I live at rouse hill and I object to the sky train. Please build a tunnel!

Saving money is great but not for residents to hear and see an eye saw in the sky!

It's so convenient that all the other eastwards suburbs won't need to hear or see the train.
If this was out the front of your house you would also want it under ground. The amount of tunnelling already being done just finish the job nicely and put it all underground!!!!!! Please!