Skip to main content

State Significant Infrastructure


North West Rail Link - Stations, Rail Infrastructure & Systems


Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination




Application (1)

DGRs (1)

EIS (42)

Submissions (1)

Response to Submissions (2)

Recommendation (2)

Determination (2)

Approved Documents

There are no post approval documents available

Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.


Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint


There are no enforcements for this project.


There are no inspections for this project.

Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.


Showing 1 - 20 of 322 submissions
Withheld Withheld
PENNANT HILLS , New South Wales
The desperately needed North West Link can easily proceed without adversely affecting commuters on the Northern and Macquarie Park Lines. By making the interchange for the North West Link at Epping rather than Chatswood, no commuters on any line would be required to change trains more than once (at Epping). This would also allow the Macquarie Park Line to remain as a public railway line, with the current fare structure.
kevin Wall
West Pennant Hills , New South Wales
Due to the close proximity of my property (residential) to the construction site of the Cherrybrook Station, we propose that measures are taken to reduce the negative impact of the construction traffic noise and the construction itself to our environment.
Such measures could pertain to a "noise barrier" being constucted on the north side of the existing brick fenceline which runs the perimeter along Castle Hill Road.
In addition we would request that consideration be given to "double glazing" our home.
Please be aware that our son Marcus has a profound disability and disturbed by loud noises. As we believe due consideration is being afforded the residents of Inala, we would ask that similiar consideration be given to our situation.
Brian Mackenzie
Schofields , New South Wales
Mr Brian Mackenzie
52 Grange Avenue
Schofields NSW 2762

North West Rail Link - Stations, Rail Infrastructure and Systems

Application number SSI-5414

1. I support the premise and logic covering the build of the North West Rail Line from Epping Station to Rouse Hill Station.

2. I offer concern on the build design/quality of the stations on this line.

3. I object to the proposal incorporating the extension to Cudgegong Station as it mirrors the dishonesty witnessed in the course of the Richmond line duplication.


I support the premise and logic covering the build of the North West Rail Line from Epping Station to Rouse Hill Station.

1. Quite simple really. Anyone working in the service industry at Macquarie Park (who might live at Schofields), starting work at 6.30am has to drive (approximately 35 - 40 minutes) with the cost penalty of tolls, fuel and parking. The current quickest public transport solution is two trains and one bus taking 1 hour and 45 minutes. Any short term inconvenience in the course of the build is counteracted by the benefit of the delivered infrastructure.

I offer concern on the build design/quality of the stations on this line.

2. Whilst there has not been a recent large new build project on the Cityrail network, the work conducted on the upgrade of a number of stations (and especially the poorly, built, poorly designed eyesore named Schofields) does not offer any level of trust that the stations designed on the NWRL will be any better (especially since the "bottom feeders" responsible for the "Schofields" station are still employed by Transport for NSW).
Using it as the prime example of how to not build a station:
a. It, in no way, compares to the artists impression (shame really, the artists impression had merit),
b. The awnings stop short of the rail track area which means that commuters are not afforded any protection in inclement weather,
c. Because the platform runs back to the centre any rain that falls on the platform is funnelled to the centre (no care for commuters baggage),
d. When the idiots incorporated two sets of stairs down to the platform they did not ensure that the ticket area was at the top (as it is with all other stations that have two stairs),
e. Awning design was so poor that the only phone on the station gets wet when it rains,
f. The downpipes, rather than being simple design and easy to remove have sharp changes in direction that will, over time, clog,
g. The overflows on the guttering system do not vent over the rail line but over the commuters on the platform,
h. Due to the platform design vomitus is now washed into a central grated gutter (where it most likely remains) rather than being hosed over the side,
i. Whilst the artist's impression offered a contrast of earth colours for the station the end result (no doubt based on a bet involving St George winning the NRL final) sees a monstrous maroon and off white colour scheme on both the roof and walls. First excuse offered was that it was a heritage scheme matching the roof of the Richmond rail station (the latter is actually slate). This excuse only changed on commissioning that it matched the scheme on the Stationmasters cottage at Riverstone (which is actually maroon and pale yellow and on the roof only - not white and not on the walls).

You could also look to the "bodgy built" Schofields footbridge (poor build quality but signed off by incompetent engineers).

Avoid those and you might just be on the right track.

I object to the proposal incorporating the extension to Cudgegong Station as it mirrors the dishonesty witnessed in the course of the Richmond line duplication.

3.The proposed extension that had been shown on maps such as the UBD included the Box Hill Growth Area (on way to Vineyard). The change to "Cudgegong alignment" removes the build of a rail line that includes the greater part of the northern and eastern parts of the North West Growth Centre. The question is whether the realignment and inclusion of "Cudgegong" is purely due to the inability of planners to incorporate a car park at Rouse Hill.

One of the major listed justifications offered in the EIS for the rail duplication on the Richmond line (relocation of the Nirimba station/removal of Schofields station) was that a distance of 1.5kms between stations (Nirimba station/original Schofields station) was contrary to efficient rail operation. The distance between Rouse Hill station and the planned Cudgegong station is 1.5kms (contrary to efficient rail operation).

A primary schematic offered in support of the Nirimba station relocation/Schofields station removal blatantly and dishonestly misrepresented the distance between those stations (as a visual representation). The schematic in the NWRL showing the distance between Cudgegong station and Rouse Hill station and the Richmond rail line again blatantly and dishonestly misrepresents those distances. The schematic places Cudgegong station halfway between Windsor Road and the Richmond rail line which would be a distance of 2.7kms from Rouse Hill station (not 1.5kms stated).

As with the request to supply the feasibility study based on the options associated with the Richmond rail line (none supplied because was not conducted), the request for a copy of the feasibility study covering the options that lead to the decision to plan Cudgegong over Box Hill has seen the same response (none supplied because was not conducted).

North West Metro Extension Phase 2 Study October 2008 included: 08
™. Explored alignment options between Rouse Hill and Schofields stations.
™. The preferred option introduced a station at Tallawong Road.

That changed to:
NWRL Project Overview July 2011J 2011
a train stabling facility at Tallawong Road and a proposed future station at Cudgegong Road

Yet again, no feasibility study or information supporting how the option was determined.

Transport for NSW appears to be nothing more than a "rebadged" Transport Construction Authority and, based on the evidence from the Richmond line duplication project, little to no confidence in their competence is considered appropriate.

By the way, it would have been more appropriate (and honest) to build the car park for Rouse Hill at the intersection of Schofields Road and Windsor Road (opposite the lawn cemetery) rather than at the "Cudgegong" station.
Withheld Withheld
Baulkham Hills , New South Wales
Good Afternoon,

Though the concept of a new railway link is benefical to the whole community, we have have concerns on the impact on our company
-Street parking, at present, vehicle are parked on both sides on the street, making it extremely difficult not to mention dangerous for 2 car to drive on either side at the same time. Almost always you would have to slow down when driving along Brookhollow to avoid an accident. With the new station traffic would most definitely increase and so would people parking on the streets. As it is some vehicles park over our driveway. There should be either no parking or parking only on one side of the street.
-On the plans there is to be a taxi pick and drop area opposite our building. Our concern is of security. With more people now converging at the area opposite us, there is more chance of loitering and possibile vandalism, especially after hours.
-With more traffic now expected on Norwest Boluevardm are there any plans to ease traffic congestion. As it is during peak hour it is difficult to enter and leave this area.

Withheld Withheld
Croydon Park , New South Wales
Hi I am writing to make comment on the North West Rail line.

Sydney's rail system is set up to provide transport consistent with its geographic spread. We do not have a significant population density or workforce density in the North West to warrant a single level metro style system. These systems work well in high frequency in highly built up locations like CBDs. I lived in Pennant t Hills for over twenty years and know about the long travel times to the city. It would not be bearable as a commuter to have to stand for such long time without the benefits of additional seating that the double decker trains provide. If the Government proceeds with a single deckers system then at least plan for the future and allow the tunnels to accommodate double decker trains. The money spent now will provide long term flexibility for little additional outlay.

Further the proposal to have commuters change trains at Chatswood creates unnecessary confusion and delays for commuters in the North West and creates significant disincentives for people to commute. We need to remove as many impediments to public transport as possible to make Sydney a liveable city now and into the future.

Lastly I must say I support the railway to the north west to alleviate the significant traffic issues people have there but I believe that we need to plan for the future and not see the metro system as a fad option.
Withheld Withheld
Kellyville , New South Wales
I alwyas been supportive of any step being taken by the State Goverment to complete this task.

This is the wish of all Northwest residents to see the Rail link completed asap.

Carry on the good work
Lesley Cherry
Cherrybrook , New South Wales
Re Cherrybrook Station: I have attended the last 2 presentations on the proposed North West Rail Link and on both occasions I asked for details on the strategies that will be in place to minimise disruption on Castle Hill Road especially pertaining to trucks movements. Whilst I accept that trucks must travel along Castle Hill Road, this is already a busy road and is frequently conjested in mornings and evenings. Up to 3 additional set of traffic lights are to be added to Castle Hill Road, what steps will be taken to ensure traffic flow? To date my questions have been treated with courtesy but without much detail or reassurance. I live in Curtis Close and often travel along Castle Hill Road in both directions.
Mavis Barnard
Cheltenham , New South Wales
My comments relate mainly to the development of the Cheltenham Services facility. Whilst still feeling very sad that the site was chosen I wish to compliment the NWRL on the way the plans have progressed. The concerns that many showed at the loss of bushland and recreational facilities have obviously been heard. My understanding is that by repositioning the tunnel to go under Cheltenham oval instead of under Castle Howard rd it has made it possible to reduce the amount of bush lost and to relocate the Services facility further away from houses. (Any further realignment away from Castle Howard Rd would be even more welcome.) I also support combining the service facility, and promised new community facilities and am delighted that many of the current recreational facilities will be returned to the public with improvements.
I thank you for making minimal changes to Castle Howard Rd and promising that only light traffic will use the road. I request that an additional sign is placed at the bottom of the steep hill saying 'give way to oncoming traffic.This currently happens with local residents, a sign would be an additional safety strategy.
The reason for the necessity to remove bushland to build a temporary heavy vehicle access to the site was explained satisfactorily to me at the information night. I am delighted and fully support the plan to re vegetate that area after construction. I was also satisfied with the plans for the safe entry and exit from Kirkham street that are being planned.
The disruption during the construction phase is of concern. Again I am delighted that work on the excavation of the emergency shaft will not occur at night. The necessity to work 24hrs on the actual tunnel was explained satisfactorily. I was reassured that there will be no adverse consequences from vibration either during construction or after completion, which is another positive.

I understand that there have been discussions with sports groups who use the facilities. I request that every effort is made to preserve the use of Cheltenham oval during the construction phase. I ask that consideration is given to relocating the small children's playground to the opposite side of the oval. I often witness small children using the current children's playground safely whilst their older siblings are playing competitive sport. This seems to be a small cost compared with the whole project but would make an enormous difference to many families who use the oval.

It is only recently that I have realised that the tunnel from Epping to Chatswood is to be converted for use by the light rail. Those of us who currently travel from stations north of Epping will loose the direct train via Chatswood to the city. At the information night the reason for this was explained and reassurance given that the train from Hornsby will go to the city via Strathfield.(No change needed) However, i feel that there will be a lot of people who have moved near to that train corridor who work along the line to Chatswood. I can understand that they are anxious about the future necessity to change trains at Epping, the ability to get a seat, and the impact this might have on future house prices.
thank you for the effort to keep all concerned parties informed.
Larraine Driussi
Cherrybrook , New South Wales
I wish to submit my strong objection to Robert Road, Cherrybrook, being used as an artiliary road for buses en route to Cherrybrook Station instead of them travelling
along County Drive which already has two lanes and was
originally planned and built as a feeder road.
Robert Road is in a neighbourhood area and it would
need upgrading which would necessitate 'no parking' being
allowed, which, in turn, would impact greatly on all the small
off-shoot streets (e.g. Oliver way) which already have no parking facilitite for visitors and visiting tradesmen who all currently park in Robert Rd.
Also other residents in surrounding streets would be heavily impacted by having the invasion of extra cars parking in their
Safety issues are also a prime factor as even now it is difficult
for us to exit Oliver way into Robert Rd. and this situation would only be compounded by having buses and extra other
traffic on Robert Rd.
Also the corner of John Rd. and Robert Rd. is not wide enough for buses to turn into Robert Rd. safely.
We are vermently against Robert Road being used in this way
as we feel our lives are going to be impacted by the situation
of the proposed Cherrybrook Station and we do not consider that we should simply be classified as necessary 'collateral damage' by the NWRL personnel. At least spread some of the pain and do not give us the full impact.


Anusha Fernando
Cherrybrook , New South Wales
am writing this email with respect to NWRL decision to designate Robert Rd
as the station access road. I live in Dalkeith Rd which is a no through road.
Robert Rd is the only access rd available to residents of Dalkeith Rd and oher residential roads linked to it
There are more than 100 dwellings on both sides of Dalkeith rd. The residents
in those dwelling including ourselves will be severely inconvenienced if Robert Rd
is designated to be a Station Access Rd.

While we are very happy and grateful that O'Farrell government is committed to build NWRL,
I do not understand the thinking behind the NWRL planners to designate Robert Rd
as the Station Access Rd. I don't understand why the station access could not be provided
via County Drive and Castle Hill rd. These roads are wider and designed to accommodate buses
and heavy vehicles. Even during busy hours traffic turning left to castle Hill Rd from County Drive
is very very light.

I believe NWRL planners are wrong and urge NWRL
to reconsider the decision to designate Robert Rd as the access road.
Peter McCaffrey
Cherrybrook , New South Wales
Gladys Berejiklian,

I hereby, strongly object to the proposal for Robert Road to become a "Main Access road" into the future Cherrybrook Railway Station.

It is my understanding that to enable this narrow and busy road to accommodate buses, the intention is to create a "No stopping/No parking" zone the full length of the street and that widening will be carried out. Even if the road was widened the impact of buses moving along Robert Road during the peak hours of 0700 to 0900 & 1500 to 1800 would simply be flirting with danger. There have been several near misses at the John Rd / Robert Rd intersection without larger vehicles turning there and further restricting the vision of car drivers. I can not understand why the planners for this project have come to the conclusion that pushing buses up narrow Robert Road when well established routes along David Road, County Drive and Castle Hill Road provide numerous options on wider roads that have been designed for higher traffic flows.

I have been told by other residents that NWRL representatives had told them that buses must continue to travel up John Road so that the residents of John Road are not disadvantaged. If buses turn up Robert Rd (approximately half-way along John) does that mean that 50% of them will be disadvantaged anyway? I don't think so, at least 10% of passengers getting on buses at stops on John Rd drive from elsewhere and park in John Road. If buses continued up County Rd, passengers would simply walk (or drive) an extra 200 or 300 meters and get on at County Drive.

When my wife and I purchased our land at 17 Robert Road in 2009, the abundance of on street parking was a major factor to convincing us it was a sound investment. My family includes myself, my wife and three sons who all drive and own cars (a total of 6). Where do we park if Robert Road is made a No Parking zone? Or probably more to the point do the NWRL Authority, State Govt or Hornsby Council really care about the disadvantage, danger and inconvenience that this proposal will impose on the citizens of our street?

Before this ludicrous (and dangerous) proposal goes any further the citizens of Robert Road deserve explanations.

Please answer the following questions;

1. If parking is removed, how are the residents of Robert Road to be compensated for inconvenience caused by loss of parking for their family and visitors?
2. What studies were examined to determine that County Drive & Castle Hill Road are not suitable for buses from John Road to access Cherrybrook station?
3. What studies have been done to ascertain where passengers that board buses from stops on John Rd actually live?
4. How can widening Robert Road be more financially viable than simply redirecting buses from turning left into John Road, straight up County Drive and left into Castle Hill Road?

Peter McCaffrey

17 Robert Rd,
N.S.W. 2126
Withheld Withheld
Pennant Hills , New South Wales
I am totally opposed to the "metro" style poposal of this project. It will lead to overcrowding and inconvenience to passengers. The proposed trains will only have half the number of seats of the existing double deck trains, forcing many passengers to have to stand for long periods. It will be an "orphan" in the system. It also means that the Epping to Chatswood section will no longer be available as an alternative route to Hornsby in the event of major holdups on the North Shore Line. With all services terminating at Chatswood, rather than most proceeding through the CBD, peaik hour congestion at Chatswood will be come a nightmare. Having smaller close-fitting tunnels on the new line will not allow undoing of the mistake in the future.
Robert Evans
Castle Hill , New South Wales
My concern is: will the size of the tunnels only accommodate single deck carriages. Transport issues are fluid, and in the future, the North west rail link might better serve the travelling public if it was to be integrated with the existing metro service.
As with the M2, we have seen how lack of forward planning has caused massive upheavels in bringing this road up to a level where it will handle the present vehicle requirement, let alone looking at the future.
Withheld Withheld
Cherrybrook , New South Wales
Dear Sir / Madam,

There are 3 private Roads, off Robert Road. These private Roads are narrow and have no visitor parking. So all visitors park on Robert Road. The North West Railway project plans to use Robert Road as feeder Road to and from Cherrybrook Station. This will affect the community living in this area especially those living on Robert Road. One can imagine, the chaotic traffic and noise on Robert Road with haul trucks and buses and cars. One will also come across No Parking, No stopping and No standing signs. Visitors can no longer park on this Road and the Road itself is narrow. With the busy peak hour traffic residents of this area will find it extremely difficult to use the Road themselves.

I would suggest that Traffic from Cherrybrook station, not be allowed into Robert Road.

Buses not be allowed at all on Robert Road in either direction.

Kind Regards.

Withheld Withheld
Cherryrbook , New South Wales
My objections to EIS 2 for North West Rail link are the significant disruptions to Robert Road that have been planned, despite numerous objects from residents living in the narrow, quiet, suburban street.

We purchased our home 8 years ago with the understanding that Robert Road was adjacent to the proposed Cherrybrook station, however not to be impacted by the station. Robert Road is a narrow, quiet suburban street, not designed to carry the anticipated load of traffic proposed by the station, and houses over 300 residences, many of which are battle axe blocks with limited parking.

Country Drive and Castle Hill Road were built to manage such traffic and the notion that the NWRL has dismissed these roads and decided Robert Road, in its current state, is the most suitable option is disgraceful.

I do not feel that appropriate consideration has been taken into using Country Drive and Castle Hill road as access points to the Cherrybrook station, and it is just 'easier and simpler' for the planning stage to use a quiet narrow street. Making such significant adjustments to a road, such as those suggested in EIS 2 for Robert Road, could not prove to be cost effective, whereas the use of, already existing roads equipped to manage the suggested heavy vehicle use, would be considered the cheaper option.

Why spend more time, money and effort making such significant amendments to an ill equipped road when you have the means and appropriate passage ways available to you at no extra cost?! And this option would not have a detrimental impact on 300 plus residences.

Marion Burke
Cherrybrook , New South Wales
My objections to the EIS 2 are related to changes to the use of Robert Road.. I bought in Robert Road on the basis that the road would continue to be a low traffic street with close proximity to the upcoming Franklin Road Railway Station. Consequently, I have paid market value and I am concerned the increased noise from buses and trains will have an impact on the value of my property. I have had advice from Real Estate Agents in the area who have reported that it is entirely likely that the railway will have a negative impact on property values close to the Robert Road, Franklin Road area.
In relation to the NWRL proposal of running buses south on County Drive, left into John Road and right into Robert Road, the NWRL is trying to capture commuters to and from the city who are currently situated at the bus stops on John Road between County Drive and Robert Road. There are 2 in total, across the road from each other and metres away from the County Drive Bus Stop. Therefore, if these commuters were able to catch the bus situated at the County Drive Stop, this would alleviate the need for buses to turn left onto John Road. The result of this small change would have a positive impact on the lives and value of properties of some 265 residents on Robert Road and the surrounding streets.
County Drive and Castle Hill Road are built for the purpose of handling large volumes of traffic and large heavy vehicles including buses. They do not have the traffic hazards and weight restrictions that the narrow suburban street of Robert Road has.
Traffic currently heading south up County Drive to Castle Hill Road is free flowing in the mornings between John Road and Castle Hill Road. Shortly after John Road, county Drive heading south, expands to 4 lanes as traffic approaches the intersection of County Drive and Castle Hill Road. The left turn lane has only a small amount of traffic.
I am eager for the project to be underway as the construction period will be stressful and difficult. I am concerned that with lack of funding etc the construction will drag on for many years and the residents will be left in "limbo".
The residents of Robert Road from houses 1 to 5 have been offered a buffer zone if the proposed road into the station goes ahead. This will need to be wide enough to allow some privacy as we will have gone from a quiet street to a major interchange without any offer of compensation.
Vibration damage to my property is of course expected to be compensated.
Please leave Robert Road as it is now. County Drive and Castle Hill Road are the obvious links for traffic using the railway station.
Cameron Whittaker
Cherrybrook , New South Wales
1. In principle we accept that a railway station is needed.

2. Franklin Road is not a very good option as a major transport route into the railway station, it was never meant to be a major road. Franklin Road has a high volume of children from Tangara school, as well as handicapped adults at the Inala school who constantly are crossing the road. Exposing these at risk demographics to increased vehicular access would be madness in our opinion and a recipe for disaster.

3. Edward Bennett Drive is a far better option due to minimal intervention being needed for its use as a major thoroughfare. The connection of Edward Bennett Drive and New Line Road would require absolutely minimal changes to the road. The obvious thing to do both from a practical and financial point of view would be to use Edward Bennett Drive and County Drive as a loop to gain access to the railway station via Castle Hill Road.

4. To alter Franklin Road will impact many in the street in a significant manner. I assume road widening would have to occur, with resultant reclamation of some of the frontage of my land at 116 Franklin Road. This would have a profound effect on our house and its value, as we would have people looking straight into our living room. Please advise what consideration has been done to compensate for the significant downward impact on the value of our property.

5. Our family owns 3 homes in Franklin Road and we will be the most affected group of people if this road widening occurs. In regard to this impact, it is essential that we are advised of what future changes are anticipated for our land especially regarding zoning. We believe the zoning within 800 meters of the railway station is NOT under the jurisdiction of the local council - in this case Hornsby Shire Council, but is under the discretion of the NSW Government. Please advise what the zoning changes if any - are to be so that we can plan for the future.

We would very much like to discuss these options with a member of the Department at your earliest convenience.
Urda Herbst
Beecroft , New South Wales
Re North West Rail Link- Resumption of Underground Land for Tunnelling
Lot 24/DP23858 86 Hannah Street, Beecroft 2119

I am the owner of the above property and have been informed by you of the resumption of underground land for the purpose of building underground rail tunnels.

I would like to table my concerns relating to the impact on my property of the:
1. technical construction issues
2. consultation process
3. ongoing operational impact and future tunnel maintenance commitments

1. Technical Construction Issues
I was first informed by letter dated 15 September 2011 of geotechnical investigations to be carried out in Hannah Street.

Upon receipt of this letter, I made verbal inquiry to Rebecca Saunders and was informed verbally that the tunnels would be at a depth of 27.2 metres below my property. This was followed up with a confirmation email dated 27 September 2011 at 12.38pm, stating:
"As discussed, the current proposed alignment does run under the
front corner of 86 Hannah Street, Beecroft. The proposed tunnel
would be at a depth of 27.2 metres."

On 8 November 2012, I received a letter dated 1 November, Reference A 2021769, providing details of the rail tunnel construction, resumption of underground land, and website address and login details to view the proposed tunnel depth.

To my absolute dismay and shock, I noted that the depth of the tunnels under my property had been substantially reduced from the previous formal advice of 27.2 metres depth to a revised depth of only 12 metres.
From the website that has been provided, the information contained therein has not taken into account the natural fall of land from the front of my property to the lowest point of my land. There is a fall of approximately 5 metres from the front of my property to the creek line. Assuming that your calculation of 13metres at the high point of my property is correct, this would mean that the available land for my future use between the land resumed for the tunnel (being 8m) and the proposed level remaining at creek level is zero, based on the calculations offered by your own website. This obviously implies that this will not comply with the objectives previously advised in your communications that there will be the capacity as an owner of property to be able to develop land, install a swimming pool, or to construct extensions, as there will be no depth of private land available upon which to do these activities.

I have received no information, consultation, or advice before receiving this letter referring me to a web address and discovering the revised tunnel depth; which constitutes a concerning gap in communication and customer service.

I request a revision of the tunnel depth below my property, to that of the original communication being 27.2 metres, and would be grateful for personal communication and written confirmation advising me of this revision to the tunnel depth.

In your November 2012 fact sheet, "Building the North West Rail Link tunnels", it is stated in a paragraph headed "Does tunnelling affect properties?" that
"properties above the tunnel alignment will undergo
condition surveys before and after tunneling to establish
the condition of buildings."

I request to be informed of the tender and selection process being used to contract the specialists conducting these condition surveys and a timeframe for when these surveys will be undertaken. I also wish to be informed about the actual surveys to be conducted. Please confirm that this will include a detailed surveyor's report, noise level readings and vibration readings at 86 Hannah Street, Beecroft.

I further request to be informed of the independence and objectivity of the selected contractor to Transport for NSW and the North West Rail Link project in the carrying out of this important "control" function, including the:
(i) governance process ensuring the integrity of process and measurement, and
(ii) availability and accessibility to the public of these condition survey results.

Also in your November 2012 fact sheet, "Building the North West Rail Link tunnels", it is stated in a paragraph headed "Will I hear noise and feel vibration when trains are running in the tunnels?" that:
"Transport for NSW does not expect that you will
hear noise and feel vibration as trains pass through
the tunnels. This is because of the engineering design
of tracks to reduce noise and vibration."

In the recent construction of the Epping Chatswood Rail Link tunnels, subsequent work needed to be done to replace mats and relay track to abate noise. Additionally, in October 2008, measures had to be taken after construction, due to excessive sound levels experienced by passengers in the trains. Reference Wikipedia. This noise has the potential to regenerate to surrounding properties, as explained in the Operatoinal Noise Update issued by Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation in June 2006.

I request to be informed of the engineering design being adopted to abate noise and vibration under my property at 86 Hannah Street Beecroft, NSW 2119, and the measures being adopted to ensure the ongoing integrity of the tunnels and tracks to ensure the abatement of noise and vibration over the long term operation of trains in these tunnels.

I further request to be informed of the independence and objectivity of the selected contractor to Transport for NSW and the North West Rail Link project in the carrying out the operational noise assessment in the Environmental Impact Statement for Stations, Rail Infrastructure and Systems, including the:
(i) governance process ensuring the integrity of process and measurement, and
(ii) availability and accessibility to the public of these operational noise assessments.

2. Community Consultation Process
I was very pleased to learn of the Community Consultation Process strategy adopted to inform residents and interested parties of the North West Rail Link project, and commend the Project Director for undertaking such an intensive program in the interests of clear, transparent and informative communication.

However, my personal experience on 10 November 2012, was extremely disappointing due to the rudeness and non-productive behaviour of Tim Cressy, Project Manager, supported by the equivalent arrogance and dismissive behaviour of Richard Heggie.

What should have been a positive and reassuring experience for affected property owners and potential future customers was an appalling display of practises resembling those of China's approach to infrastructure development, as portrayed in the media.

This information and feedback is provided to you in the event of any future Community Consultation process strategies to be performed, that the people hosting the sessions have some training in how to respond to affected parties.

3. Ongoing operational impact and future tunnel maintenance commitments
A great deal of effort and energy has been invested in advising affected parties of the issues to be expected during construction of the North West Rail link tunnels. However, there has not been an equivalent level of information and advice, based on real experience from other rail tunnel projects regarding the:
(i) impact of operations on tunnel integrity,
(ii) commitment to an ongoing maintenance plan to ensure the longevity, safety and integrity of the rail tunnels, and
(iii) the component projects within the maintenance plan and the frequency of their completion to ensure the longevity, safety and integrity of the rail tunnels.

I request to be informed of the program and frequency of maintenance works planned to ensure the ongoing abatement of noise and vibration under my property at 86 Hannah Street Beecroft, NSW 2119 over the long term operation of trains in these tunnels.

I further request to be informed, in the event of an outsourced maintainer being selected to carry out the maintenance program on the North West Rail Link tunnels, of the:
(i) governance process ensuring the provision of regular maintenance services to the owner of the North West Rail link rail tunnels, and
(ii) availability and accessibility to the public of the maintenance service level agreements.

Yours sincerely

Urda Herbst
CHERRYBROOK , New South Wales

1. The combination of John Road and Robert Road is not a suitable route to be used as the major vehicular approach to Cherrybrook Station.
2. Robert Road is a quiet and in places very narrow suburban residential street with the driveways of more than 100 houses running off it - as well a further 100 plus houses in the various cul-de-sacs accessible only via Robert Road and Dalkeith Road.
3. Robert Road is not constructed to withstand constant use by heavy vehicles.
4. Residents of Robert Road rely on on-street parking for visitors' cars as many residents have limited parking on their properties.
5. John Road is the current route of 632 buses to Pennant Hills Station and 642 buses to the City via M2. Most of the function of the 642 route will be duplicated by the NWRL. The increasingly unpredictable road travel time will compare unfavourably to a known rail timetable and will result in passengers effectively abandoning the 642 service if it is continued.
6. Regular traffic congestion in John Road has been the subject of intense dissatisfaction for several thousand residents of surrounding streets due to Hornsby Council's incompetent management of traffic flow in County Drive.
7. Future residential development of Dural and Galston will result in increased reliance on the NWRL and Cherrybrook Station. If John Road remains as the main vehicular approach to Cherrybrook Station it is certain that within a short time, traffic jamming will cause significant problems to the thousands of residents living in the cul-de-sacs on either side of the road. Past experience shows that their resentment will be deep and ongoing towards the developer and the Government responsible for making such a foolish decision.
8. Both County Drive and Castle Hill Road have been constructed to a standard which allows long-term heavy vehicle use.
9. From the past 6 years' experience using this intersection in peak times and the past few months' close observation, I can confirm the left turn from County Drive onto Castle Hill Road (travelling east) has consistently low use during peak traffic times.
10. Congestion at the right turn from County Drive onto Castle Hill Road (travelling west) can be relieved by proper management of County Drive as a major four lane connector road (as it was designed) during peak times - and by proper management of the County Drive/Treetops Rd corner.
11. Traffic congestion is currently not significant in peak traffic times on Castle Hill Road between County Drive and Edward Bennett Drive.
12. The only viable vehicular access to Cherrybrook Station from Dural and the North-West is south along County Drive then east along Castle Hill Road to a new slip road entrance into the station from Castle Hill Road.
13. Most Route 642 services will terminate at Cherrybrook Station in future rather than provide a duplicated service to the City.
14. Route 642 services which continue to exist should be diverted from John Road/Franklin Road/Neale Avenue/Edward Bennett Drive onto Castle Hill Road.
15. Route 632 services to Pennant Hills Station should continue to use the existing route, with passengers who wish to access Cherrybrook Station alighting on John Road or Edward Bennett Drive to walk the short distance to the station. If they are strongly opposed to walking they can change to the 642 service at an earlier stop.
16. Justifications given by NWRL representatives at community information sessions for the need to use John Road and Robert Road to access Cherrybrook Station have been implausible and based on erroneous information. If the plan for local traffic movement is not amended immediately there will be traffic chaos in the surrounding streets forever as a legacy of the failure to properly consider this seemingly minor aspect of the NWRL project.
Glen Hunter
BAULKHAM HILLS , New South Wales
North West Rail Link
submission by Hunter Transport Consulting Pty Ltd
3 December 2012

The NSW Government is to be congratulated on it's initiative to deliver rail transport to the North West however a fundamental flaw has been made in planning to build it as an isolated link and to go back to the operation of single-deck rolling stock.

The decision by the NSW government to deliberately limit the height of the NWRL tunnels to prohibit operation of double deck trains will go down in history as a misjudgement on the scale of the choice by the colonies to build train tracks to different gauges.

The claim that single-deck trains, with fewer seats, can somehow carry more passengers than double-deck trains is not properly justified by the EIS and is not borne out by European practice.

By way of example, RATP (The Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiens or `Autonomous Transit Operator of Paris') is currently increasing capacity on Line A of the Paris RER by replacing single-deck M184 trains (432 seats, total capacity 1,684 passengers) with double-deck M109 trains (948 seats, total capacity 2,600 passengers).

The NSW Government should exercise extreme caution in adopting an approach that is the exact opposite of that being taken by a leading European transit operator.

In Sydney terms the best analysis of why double-deck trains carry more passengers was provided by Alex Wardrop in Appendix C of the 2010 Christie Report. His conclusions included:

"What all this illustrates is that single deck trains, with their significantly lower seating capacities, cannot meet the transportation duties expected of Sydney suburban trains which need to carry passengers long distances".

The so-called Three-Tier system contradicts itself in terms of segregation of rolling stock. Single deck trains better suited to short inner city Metro-style journeys will run from Rouse Hill, a predominantly dormitory outer suburb, taking commuters on a long distance commute to Macquarie Park and Chatswood, whilst double deck trains supposedly no longer suitable for short distance journeys will collect passengers off the NWRL and take them for the last few kilometres all stations to the City.

The decision to institute the NWRL as an isolated shuttle train prior to the second Harbour crossing on the grounds that the North Shore line is at capacity has been contradicted by the recent statement by Minister for Transport Hon Gladys Berejiklian that "We will be increasing the number of services from the North Shore to the City to 24 an hour; currently we are getting about 17 or 18 across, so that will increase substantially by the time the (NWRL) line is open."

(SMH 2/10/2012)

Therefore this proves that there is already capacity to run 6 new trains per hour from the NWRL direct to the City, i.e. a train every 10 minutes, which would be adequate capacity until the second Harbour crossing was built. (Additional trains could terminate at Chatswood to provide a 5 minute peak service from the North West).

It also needs to be remembered that the limitation on line capacity across the Harbour Bridge only occurs at the height of the peak, for a period of a little over 60 minutes. Outside of that time there is ample capacity for trains from the NWRL to run through to the City. The decision to build a shuttle service will result in passengers travelling during the off-peak, at night and on weekends being forced to change from one train to another for no benefit whatsoever.

The operation of the NWRL as a shuttle train to Chatswood will significantly reduce the attractiveness of not only the NWRL but also the existing line it replaces through Macquarie and North Ryde. Passengers from stations north of Epping will have to change trains twice to reach destinations such as St Leonards, North Sydney and Wynyard. The slow travel times already faced by passengers from the North West (because of the historical decision to go under rather than over the Lane Cove River) will be exacerbated by the forced change of train at Chatswood.

For many residents of the North West, even west of Castle Hill, buses will remain the fastest way to the City and will certainly be more convenient under the planned NWRL shuttle because of an almost door-to-door service by bus without changing, compared to a 3 mode bus-train-train journey via the NWRL.

Whilst it is commendable that the EIS recognises the need for a second Harbour rail crossing it is a high risk strategy to base the only possibility of a direct train service from the North West to the City on the construction of this new line, particularly whilst ever the Government persists with an exorbitantly expensive and impractical deep level option under the harbour.

The more cost-effective and obvious solution is to reinstate the rail tracks which were removed from the eastern side of the bridge in the 1950's and bring the NWRL into Wynyard in the first stage, and further south under the city as funds permit, however this is still an expensive project that may well be deferred further into the future, leaving the NWRL as a white elephant shuttle in the long term.

Lastly, planning for the North West rail line seems to assume that the line will not be opened until the entire route is constructed. As this is an expensive and long term project such an approach denies rail transport to the Hills District for much longer than necessary. It would be quite feasible to open the line in stages from Epping, even one or two stations at a time, using temporary turn back arrangements and a temporary maintenance system via a connection at the Chatswood end.

In conclusion the following changes to the EIS are recommended:

1. The NWRL tunnels should be built to a diameter suitable for Sydney's double-deck rolling stock;

2. Services from the NWRL should operate directly through to the City from the opening of the line, using spare peak hour paths identified by the Minister's statement (SMH 2/10/2012) and the ample capacity available outside of peak hours.

3. The NWRL should be opened in stages, one or two stations at a time, to bring forward the availability of at least a partial rail service to the North West.

Glen E Hunter
Hunter Transport Consulting Pty Ltd
3 Chadworth Place
Phone: +61 2 9686 6556
Fax: +61 2 9688 7556
Mobile: +61 411 106 556
mailto:[email protected]


Project Details

Application Number
Assessment Type
State Significant Infrastructure
Development Type
Rail transport facilities
Local Government Areas
Executive Director

Contact Planner

Belinda Scott