North West Rail Link - Stations, Rail Infrastructure & Systems

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

It will be a bad mistake if the tunnels on the NWRL are made smaller than the tunnels on the Epping-Chatswood line, as this will make it impossible to correct this bad mistake. Public acceptance of the single deck trains has not been proven, and many commuters may prefer to keep using their cars, in preference to standing a long time in a crowded train. Also the attached file gives my recommended extension of the NWRL as a Second Harbour crossing, which will become necessary soon after the NWRL is completed.

Dear Sir/Madam,

The Beecroft Sports Club welcomes the opportunity to respond to the NWRL Environmental Impact Statement Stage 2.

Please find attached a joint submission on behalf of the Netball, Football and Cricket divisions.

Sincerely,
Mitchell Burger
President
Beecroft Sports Club
e: [email protected]
p: +61 414 344 235

See attached.

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?


Regards,
Peter McCaffrey

17 Robert Rd,
Cherrybrook.
N.S.W. 2126

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.

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.

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.


Reasons:

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.

Please forward this, including attachments, to the architects.

I am a young local who has been interested in this project for many years, and I'm not affiliated with Castle Towers, or anyone.

Cherrybrook station.
-The power pylon base is currently screened by bushes. Something similar to this could be used in the completed station, making sure that the pylon and screening works well with the station design.
-Bus routes need to avoid Castle Hill road, and use back routes to maximise catchment.

Cheltenham oval.
New sports facilities (to hide the service facility) would benefit from having colours, textures and shapes that fit in with the surrounding environment, and are compliment the area's old fashioned-ish architecture.

Castle hill station
-Internal architecture
The nearby Castle towers shopping centre (a prominent Castle Hill location) features very recognisable skylights, arches and metal structures. It would add a lot of local character to the station if the platform roof made reference to this, please see the attachment "Castlehill(towers)station".

-Tunnel to the station
An area in castle towers currently used as toilets could be perfect for pedestrian access to the station directly from the shopping centre. See the first attachment for details.

-External architecture
Bus structures near to the station show characteristics shared by many bus shelters in the area. Colouration in particular should be noted. See attachment "castlehill(towers)station"
Something to mark out the edge of the road intersection near the station could improve the feeling of safety for pedestrians.
-The service facility could make use of the slope for screening. The top could be used as a new area of park, behind a reconstructed war memorial area.

-Busses
It is proposed in the EIS to amalgamate the two bus stations into one. The Hills Shire council recently completed changes to the roads in this area, any modifications would need to be careful not to return the area to its previous state of traffic problems.
The new bus stop is proposed to be on Old northern rd. The bus stop on old castle hill rd is close to the castle towers shopping centre, and easy to access from it. The one way road arrangement makes crossing the road quite easy, and this is a high pedestrian area. Keeping arrangements similar to the current ones may be worth considering.

-Effects on parking
The castle towers carpark (which will probably cease to be free once the station opens) already becomes full on busy days. Adding to this the likelihood of park-and-riders, and the future expansion of Castle Towers, there will be a lot of pressure on this carpark.
*Perhaps purchasing some or all of the carpark for the use of commuters is worth considering.
*Provision of new carparking space should be discussed with the local council and management of Castle Towers, as part of their expansion, so plenty of parking is provided for both railway users, and shoppers. A new parking structure for the centre may be beneficial.
*The use of excessive parking fees should be avoided (for the first few hours at least.)

Showground station
-The hills Centre
The hills centre is an important landmark in the area, and also the area's largest performing arts centre. If possible, avoiding the demolition of this would be beneficial. The performing arts use, as well as the design of the building fit in well, and compliment the Showground. Similarly, the council building also compliments the Showground, providing space around the building where events (such as the Australia day celebration) can take place. These buildings reinforce the Showground as a place of entertainment and an important civic location within the shire.
Other uses, such as retail or residential, would not have this effect, and may experience conflict with the Showground, e.g, noise from festivals/animals. There would be less of a sense of completeness to the precinct. Smaller retail use around the station would not have such an impact.
*The station platform could be constructed slightly further south to avoid the need to demolish the hills centre. (See attachment "Showgroundstation")
*The spoil handling points could also be moved further south, with possible use of Carrington rd as a haul road.
*Space around the council building could be used for storage, parking, etc.
*The proposed roads could be modified to accommodate the retained Hills centre. (see attachment)
-If it is not possible to retain the centre, a new performing arts hall with similar facilities and overall aesthetic, could be built slightly to the west.

-Station architecture
The external architecture of the station could be made to resemble one of the pavilions, and/or reference the hills centre and Council building, to fit in.
The internal architecture could make reference to the internal appearance and textures of the hills centre and council building. Careful use of similar aesthetics could give this station an excellent sense of local identity.

Murals.
-Murals could be considered in underground stations, portraying parts of the local area, to enhance local identity.


Cudgegong station
The northwest railway will go to about 3km away from the Richmond line, but does not connect to it. Transport links from the Cudgegong Rd station to Schofeilds station could make the rail line far more useful, if it could be used for trips to and from western Sydney.
-Bus routes that link Schofeilds station and Cudgegong Rd would be beneficial.
-A bike path that links Schofields and Cudgegong Rd would also be beneficial, for buses may be intermittent at times, yet the distance is too far to walk.
-Assuming this rail line will appear on the Cityrail/Sydneytrain map, (like the tram line does), the buses and the bike path should also be marked, to promote awareness and usage.

Thank you.
Thomas Walder

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.


Regards

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.

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

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.