Redfern Station Upgrade - New Southern Concourse

I am adding an attachment to clarify my concerns.

Will the SYD Trains Train Crew Secure Staff Carpark behind Little Eveleigh St. / Redfern Platform 1 be retained⁉️

(Preferably this secure parking area, could &/or SHOULD actually be relocated to now vacant, yet secure land in SYD Yard) {once SYD Metro Central Stn Construction Activity is complete within SYD Yard}

Access to this secure parking facility would be provided / accessed by the present Regent St. Entry for ‘The SYD Yard Access Bridge’

By relocated this secure train crew parking area to a secure location within SYD Yard, it allows the area allocated for off street parking in the TfNSW land to increase parking no#’s for residents by another 15 - 20 parking spaces in the vacant land located directly behind Little Eveleigh St. Residences & Redfern Platform 1 (while still maintaining the access gateway in this area to the rail reserve) as many residents will lose there on street parking places with the redevelopment of this area as it becomes a more pedestrian focused area

I object to this project in its current form.
Cycling infrastructure and planning for this project is inadequate.

Currently, the main cycling route between Sydney City, Eastern Suburbs, Centennial Park and the Inner West & Western Suburbs is via Lawson, Little Eveleigh and Wilson Streets. This cycling route sees hundreds of Cyclists passing though little Eveleigh street and onto Lawson street as part of commuting, as well; as weekend leisure.
Converting Little Eveleigh street to a shared zone is wholly inadequate as this forces cyclists, pedestrians and local vehicle traffic to use the same narrow space with no dedicated cycle lanes or pedestrian management, which constitutes a reduction of infrastructure already in place.

This project would create thousands of new pedestrian movements between the proposed new southern concourse and Little Eveleigh, Wilson and Shepherd streets, increasing the risk of collisions and injuries to both Pedestrians and Cyclists.
Currently there is separation of Cycling and Pedestrian routes with cyclists issuing Little Eveleigh Street and Pedestrian / University foot traffic using Lawson and Abercrombie streets. Forcing both of these to use Little Eveleigh street creates an unacceptable hazard and will cause cycling bottlenecks and accidents between the end of the heavily used Wilson Street Cycleway and Lawson street.

If Little Eveleigh street is to be converted to Shared Zone, then dedicated separated cycleway should be constructed on Lawson, Abercrombie, Ivy or Shepherd streets to then join with the Wilson street Cycleway, once again creating separation between Cyclists and Pedestrians.

Please find attached EES response

Crown Lands has no comments for this proposal as no Crown land is affected.

I think the proposal is great, however, my suggestion is to increase the width of the new concourse so that it can cope with congestion based on my observations and what I have experienced at other major interchanges, including the northern end of Redfern Station. During peak hour, any attempt to walk down the stairs from the concourse can quickly become a choke point, which means passengers end up congesting the concourse, which then affects others entry/exit points. Having a wider concourse would be very helpful along with wider stairs if that is at all possible at the southern end of the platforms.

While a second concourse with direct access to the ATP and disabled access is long overdue I have a number of concerns with the current plans.
- No pedestrian and bike access between little Eveleigh St and Marion St, this concourse should also provide direct passage without going through the station
- Overflow concerns with danger between a busy commuter bike path on little eveleigh st and people exiting the station
- no direct link between the two concourses and to platform 11-12
With improvements in these areas the second concourse would have a large long term improvement to redfern

Please include bike lanes to/from the station and bike parking

Since the previous walkway at the Parramatta end of the platforms the congestion on the stairs has been extreme and often dangerous.
I used to walk to the University of Sydney each day via the back stairs and walkway when I was a student.
Reinstatement of the western exit will take many pedestrians from the narrow Lawson Street footpath.
The project will bring long required lifts to the platforms.
The new Marian Street entrance will link to all the platforms not just the one eastern platform.
The bicycle racks will be most welcome.
The toilets. landscaping and roadworks on both sides will enhance the area which has been underutilised.
I am familiar with the area through my employment by the former South Sydney City Council. The proposed works will complement some earlier improvements undertaken by the council.
The main advantage of the project is improved safety and access to the platforms.
Strongly supported.

The proposed upgrade to Redfern Station, while desperately needed and welcome, must be delivered in a way that delivers more benefits to the wider community.
Redfern Station and the rail line limit access between Redfern and Darlington. Any improvements to access between the two suburbs must benefit the wider community and not just paying train passengers.
The proposed design, as visible in the VR images on the transport.nsw.gov.au website, could be improved in the following ways to increase benefit delivered to the wider community.

1. Ticket barriers
The ticker barriers are immediately present at the Little Eveleigh Street and Marian Street entrances. Therefore, this project, the improved access between Redfern and Darlington, only benefit paying train passengers. Non-paying community members will use the concourse as it will provide a vastly superior path between Darlington and Redfern. This will put community members and transport police in conflict. The concourse must be freely accessible by the community without having to pass into a paid/ticketed area.
Understanding people can reverse their tap-on and pass through without charge, the ticket gates still impede easy access for people with luggage, prams, carrying shopping or pushing a bike. It also excludes the bridge for people without Opal cards.
St Peters and Rhodes stations come to mind as examples where pedestrian bridges across the rail line are not restricted by ticket barriers at their entrances.

2. Concourse width
The concourse width must be increased to future-proof the high volumes of traffic the concourse will experience. An increasingly dense population surrounding Redfern Station will use the concourse for the improved access it will provide. At peak times, this will cause conflict between people. In a COVID-19 environment, space between individuals is critical and must be maximised and planned into all future development.

3. Bike pathway
The pedestrianised Little Eveleigh Street and concourse must include a dedicated bike pathway. Cyclists travel with some speed along Wilson Street thanks to its world-class separated cycling infrastructure. When the Wilson Street cycleway ends at Little Eveleigh Street, cyclists and pedestrians will be in conflict. The Wilson Street separated cycleway must continue up Little Eveleigh Street to avoid these conflicts. Cyclists will also use the concourse as it will provide a vastly superior path between Darlington and Redfern. More consideration should be given to cycle access through the new bridge.

4. Marian Street entrance/concourse stairs
The Marian Street entrance has stairs up to the concourse. These stairs significantly reduce the amenity and usefulness of the bridge to people with mobility impairment, parents with prams, people with wheeled shopping bags and cyclists.
A single lift at the Marian Street entrance providing access to the concourse is not suitable and will form a bottleneck for certain groups within the community. In a COVID-19 environment, the small space of a lift is undesirable and should be avoided where possible.
A redesign of this entrance with a ramp up to the concourse is needed.

I strongly support this project and the improvements it will make to the station area. One comment I would like to add is regarding cycle infrastructure. The cycle racks at Marian St will be welcome addition to the station and with the added footbridge cyclists can enter the station at Little Eveleigh Street and walk across to the bike racks. Currently the lack of dedicated cycling infrastructure in front of the station and around the corner of Lawson and Gibbons St makes the pedestrian crossing at Lawson crowded for cyclists accessing the Redfern Station bike cage.
While the footbridge is a positive improvement for pedestrians and persons with low mobility there is the potential that the footbridge will be used as a shortcut for cyclists going from the shared path on Marian Street to Little Eveleigh off road cycleway. The lack of dedicated cycling infrastructure around the front of the station linking up the existing share path on Marian St and the low traffic on street cycling on Lawson Street provides little incentive for cyclists to avoid the footbridge. Currently the section of Gibbons Street between Redfern and Lawson St is not a categorized cycling path or considered a low traffic route. See the following Sydney Cycling map for references and route identifications. Please consider the changes in behaviour from this community group considering the existing issues in proximity to the station.

I am a resident at the Watertower. My unit is on the NW corner of the building which is on the leading edge impacted by the proposed concourse and new station entry. I fully understand and agree with the need for the station upgrades. Like many of the daily users and local residents in the area, it is preferred that a wholistic 'full station' masterplan proposal should be considered rather a piecemeal approach.

The Redfern Station HUB has become too vital and integral for any lesser consideration. We feel that the current approach is insufficient for this purpose. It is a 'band-aid' solution at best. There is a lost opportunity here that is being ignored here at the peril of future sustainable development. Sydney is littered with such lapses in judgment which are left for others to resolve at some future date at even greater expense.

That said... and anticipating the progression of the preferred proposal my comments are as follow:

Sight-line and vistas from the escalators/ lifts/ and concourse bridge need to be 'blinded' towards the Watertower and other adjoining residential areas. At the Watertower all units located on the 1st level of northern and western facades are at risk of losing all visual privacy. It is imperative that the design of ALL elements of the new station entry mitigate and eliminate the potential intrusion on the quality of life and privacy to these areas. This also includes LIGHT-POLLUTION from the station/ platforms/ escalators/ lifts/ bridges/ concourse/ and entry in the evenings. As an architect/ engineer by profession, this is certainly all achievable with GOOD QUALITY DESIGN.

NOISE-POLLUTION is also an issue of great concern to all residents in the immediate vicinity. We all understand what living adjacent to a busy rail station entails. What is key here is NOT to make the noise situation worst. Again, GOOD DESIGN can be used to eliminate this concern.
Modern technology should be used to 'ZONE' noise coming from the PA system so that it does not carry across large areas and spill into residential zones. Digital reader-boards should be used liberally at station entries and on the bridge/ and concourse to avoid NON-EMERGENCY related announcements. The new station upgrade would bring all this unwanted NOISE-POLLUTION even closer to the residential areas adjacent.

The potential of NOISE-POLLUTION impacts the quality of life and privacy of many and if not addressed at the onset with proper and considered GOOD DESIGN will detrimentally impact all residents opening the door to future litigation and anguish for everyone. The design under consideration should avoid ALL droning announcements at the new entrances (due to the proximity of existing residential areas), ALL announcements on the concourse/ bridge should also be avoided by the use of SILENT reader boards. ALL platform announcements should be updated and reviews by acoustic engineers in order to zone all NOISE to specific areas and away from residential spill beyond the platforms.

It is essential that the QUALITY of LIFE and reasonable QUIET ENJOYMENT of that life not be compromised for ANY of the surrounding residential areas. We are all neighbours after all.
I trust that all the comments that come through on this site will be given FULL CONSIDERATION and applied in one form or another to the final design. The upgrade can work if we all work together to consider the needs of all stakeholders.

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submission regarding Redfern Station Southern concourse.

I have three issues that I would like taken into consideration:-

1. Limiting vehicular traffic down Little Eveleigh Street.

The safety to the residents, and many proposed pedestrians/cyclists utilising Little Eveleigh Street will be heavily affected by how many cars are allowed down the road.

At current traffic levels, there are frequent aggressive interactions and “near-misses” between cyclists and pedestrians, and between cyclists and cars. These interactions will be significantly increased, despite the proposed shared zone, by the thousands of pedestrians predicted to utilise the new path.

It should be noted that Little Eveleigh Street is the easiest local road to allow a “quick u-turn” in the setting of multiple one-way roads and traffic lights in the area. This high incentive to use the street will be difficult to overcome by standard measures to discourage traffic.

Merely limiting “all-comers” traffic to a 10 km/h speed limit in a dream-like “shared zone” will not suffice, as the physical presence of a great many cars will unavoidably be a danger in the setting of so many pedestrians and cyclists. Furthermore, cyclists and motor vehicles are very unlikely to adhere to such a low speed limit in real life.

Limiting the road to residents’ vehicles, and utility vehicles, ONLY, would be the best approach. Either a physical barrier (bollards), or a camera noting number plates with fines would be the only way to effectively limit car numbers.

As an aside, it is our strong belief, despite the equivocal opinion in the “Technical Report-Social”, that the positioning of the Southern Concourse to deposit its traffic onto Little Eveleigh Street will substantially reduce the residential nature, and the land value to the home owners on the street. The local residents have voiced strong opposition to this location of the southern concourse, which has been effectively silenced in a loaded bureaucratic process.

Transport NSW should therefore, in fairness, do everything in their power to try to ameliorate the impact of their decision to the residents of the street. Limiting vehicular traffic would go some way to minimise the impact on the locals.

2. Consideration of increased noise and light pollution arising from the gate to the Transport NSW carpark

My husband and I own 166 Little Eveleigh Street, which is located directly opposite the gate to the Transport NSW parking lot. Should the gate remain, it will be utilised even more than at present, as 20 more local users, and all the people who usually park in the Transport NSW carpark near Marion Street will be added to the existing traffic. I submit that consideration should be given to noise mitigation of the entrance to the Transport NSW carpark, and also mitigation of light pollution involving the car park floodlights.

We have previously submitted a complaint to Transport NSW regarding the noise and light pollution caused by the newly installed electric gate. When not frequently oiled, the gate makes a very loud squealing noise when sliding open, and this noise, together with the noise of cars as they accelerate out of the gate, or idle outside the gate, wakes us up throughout the night (with a surprisingly high volume of traffic between 2 and 4 am). During periods when the gate is left open, the noise levels are far less intrusive.

In addition, multiple high intensity floodlights are used throughout the night, many of which shine directly into our bedroom window. Based on email discussion with others living around the carpark, we are not the only people impacted in this regard. In particular, the resident living immediately adjacent to the gate also suffers greatly from the noise pollution, and multiple other residents have complained about the light pollution.

These matters are easily rectified by Transport NSW, should they be interested in improving the amenity of the residents, by shielding the lights, and by using a quieter gating system (or none at all with a return to the use of a security guard).

3. Mitigation of the visual impact to the street

The decreased amenity to Little Eveleigh Street would be somewhat mitigated by the proposed garden buffers and landscaping to separate properties from pedestrians.

The plans for garden buffering should fully shield 166 Little Eveleigh Street, an end-terrace which faces not only Little Eveleigh Street, but also the large concrete area behind the Foundry, which is the pedestrian outlet of Little Eveleigh Street.

Our fear is that this decorative part of the proposal is “disposable”, and will, in due course, be dispensed with due to lack of funding in the later stages of the project.

The money for this mitigation strategy should therefore be sequestered early, and the project should be considered unfinished until the mitigation measures have been completed.

I was involved in the so called community consultation process and am shocked to see that our extensive submissions have not been heeded AT ALL! I am particularly concerned that the solution proposed will cause severe congestion at both the Marian St and Eveleigh St exits, and is short sighted and ill considered for the reasons cited below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I urge NSW Department of Planning and Environment to not approve the proposed design in upgrading Redfern Station. I instead alternative options that alleviate most of the issues below should be revisited to ensure that the substantial costs expended by the NSW State will result in a positive and lasting legacy for the foreseeable future.
1. TfNSW 'Preferred 'solution.
This was based on survey information mainly gathered from commuters who were mostly university students, others travelling to work/school, corporate and government representatives. Accordingly these statistics did not provide an appropriate balance to account for the broader local community and residents' input who in a simple count were the minority. We dispute these results as not at all validating the real community concerns.

2. Pedestrian Traffic Management.
One of the stated aims of the new concourse is to reduce congestion on the station-this is welcomed. However the option proposed and touted as 'preferred' does not address the safety concerns of reformed congestion resulting from the spilling out of thousands of commuters from the station into the very narrow and unsafe parts of Marian and Little Everleigh streets.
The presented proposal in the May 2020 Redfern North Everleigh Precinct Renewal-New Southern Concourse visually depicts the East side of Marian St entrance to the station where the road is at least 3 lanes wide, where the projected pedestrian traffic is not currently high and unknown moving forward. However it does not visually depict the west side (cnr Cornwallis and Marian Sts) where there is projected to be up to 20,000 plus people per day in peak hour pedestrian traffic being funnelled through an approximately 5 metre wide road accessing the South Everleigh business precinct. The EIS does not include any feasible safety mitigation measures to account for congestion of people and traffic converging in this constricted location.

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

3. Connectivity to Surrounding Area
TfNSW has deemed that the key benefit is providing better connectivity with the surrounding areas. This clain is counterfactual Connectivity to North Everleigh is not improved by the TfNSW design solution. The existing train entrance/exits on Lawson St are a mere 50-60 meters from the proposed new entry on Little Everleigh St and connectivity to South Everleigh is in fact further away than the current entrance/exit from Platform 10. Connectin Mraian St to Little Everleigh St via the newly proposed concourse has no quantum benefits.
Both alternative community group designs (H design and Option 5) depicted in the TfNSW Scoping Report clearly provided much improved and logical connectivity to all precincts. Again when presented this was deemed as not the preferred option without being substantiated.

4. Noise and Disruption Impact on Watertower residents during construction.
There are no feasible mitigation measures in the EIS to counter the inevitable noise, disruption and traffic risk to residents during the construction phase of nearly 2 years. Barrier walls and double glazing suggested by TfNSW are grossly inadequate measures.

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

6. Privacy
There is no presented solution to counter the inevitable privacy issues emanating from the proposed new station entrance impacting on Watertower residents apartments, as it is apparent that the height of the public concourse is obviously high above ground level. We need to know if commuters will be able to see into ground level apartments?

7.Natural Light
The impact of the station entrance/bridge structure on the natural light and shadow lines for North Facing apartments has not been made available to the public and is not addressed by the EIS!

8. Street Parking
16 street car parking spaces around the Watertower will be permanently removed. Where so you suggest we find alternative parking?

If this concourse is to be built - and I think it should be - THEN DO IT RIGHT!

The "community consultation" part of this project has been, from what I've seen and experienced, for appearances only. I am not confident that my comments here will be considered seriously, however I am making a submission largely for when an ACCC investigation (or worse, a coronial inquest investigating fatal accidents that occur due to safety oversights in design) is eventually conducted into this sham process so that they can read this submission and know that people did speak up about it and were continually ignored.

Because it has not actually commences, I do hold faint hope that helpful changes will be made to the design and process of the concourse construction; my secondary rationale for lodging this submission.

PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
One of the stated aims of the new concourse is to reduce congestion on the station - this is great. However the option proposed and touted as ‘preferred’ (by whom?) does address the safety concerns of reformed congestion resulting from the spilling out of thousands of commuters from the station into the very narrow and unsafe parts of Marian and Little Eveleigh streets.

The presented proposal in the (May 2020) Redfern North Eveleigh Precinct Renewal – New Southern Concourse visually depicts the east side of Marian street entrance to the station where the road is at least 3 lanes wide, where the projected pedestrian traffic is not currently high and unknown moving forward. However it does not visually depict the west side (cnr Cornwallis & Marian St) where there is projected to be up 20,000+ people per day in peak hour pedestrian traffic being funnelled through an approximately 5 metre wide (1 lane) road accessing the South Eveleigh business precinct (Australian Technology Park). The EIS does not include any feasible safety mitigation measures to account for congestion of people, vehicles, bicycles and service vehicles converging in this constricted location. My own residence overlooks part of this one-lane section. Even without the new concourse, during peak periods this area is already crowded and difficult to navigate. Better to bypass it completely.

The safe and practical solution is to design the entrance to the lift concourse south of the Cornwallis/Marian Street corner so the 20,000 people exit directly into the South Eveleigh precinct. This seems completely achievable from a design perspective. And from a logical perspective, the reason the concourse is being built is to make the station more accessible: the bulk of people accessing this station exit are travelling to South Eveleigh precinct. Both alternative community group designs (“H” design and Option 5) depicted in the TfNSW’s Scoping Report incorporating this solution were presented by the ReConnect Redfern action group but TfNSW has deemed this as not preferred on the basis of unsubstantiated objections.

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

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

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

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

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

Street Parking -- 16 street car parking spaces around The Watertower will be permanently removed. Other than finding parking elsewhere, there is no suggestion of any replacement parking spaces. From a personal impact perspective, my unit does not have a car spot and I use a resident parking permit to park on the street outside the building. Where will I park according to the proposed development?

CYCLING ACCESS
Cycling in this local area as a means of transportation is huge and growing. Takeaway delivery services alone mean there are cyclists aplenty (dangerously) using the Gibbons street road/footpath overpass as a way to traverse the train-line. Cycle commuter numbers are growing exponentially. More bicycle parking is needed in this newest addition to the station upgrade. In addition, Redfern train station is a known pedestrian, motorist, and cycle bottleneck. The proposed solution fails to ease or even accomodate this reality. Non-train-commuting pedestrians ARE going to use the concourse to cross the train line. So are cyclists. Hundeds, to thousands of them per day eventually. They will choke the lift and walkways, simply because, even as a substandard solution, it is equivalent to braving the Gibbons footpath (and people aren't going to wade through the masses of people outside the southern concourse just to go round and enter another choke-point. I guarantee the current oversight of this issue will create more safety and congestion concerns for the concourse. A wide overpass that links to the Wilson Street cycleway, and preferably, that does not rely on lifts, is worth prioritising as part of this development, or perhaps as an adjunct project further West of the station (e.g., linking carriage works with the back of the locomotive workshops.

Heritage: Project fails heritage test
The assessment criteria from the Department of Planning, Infrastructure and Energy require Transport for NSW to estimate the heritage impact of the Project. The EIS undertakes this in chapter 14 and in the accompanying Technical Report No.5.
These documents from the Project proponent reveal an unanswerable heritage case against the Project.
This is important as the heritage value of this precinct is already at a tipping point with the intrusion of high-rise development, especially on the eastern perimeter. It makes it all the more important to protect the as-yet-unimpaired station and the neighbouring Darlington heritage conservation area in general and little Eveleigh Street in particular. The transformation of this street into a highly trafficked, de facto arcade would lead to pressures to change its nature from residential to commercial thereby ruining its heritage values.
But it is to the station itself that this submission will now turn.
The unique heritage value of the site
There is no doubt that the Redfern Railway Station as a whole represents a unique and irreplaceable heritage asset for the people not only on new South Wales but of the whole nation. Here is the core of the statement of significance in the State Heritage Register:
Redfern Station houses a large collection of buildings at the one station demonstrating its evolution as a public transport hub. This includes phases associated with the construction and establishment of the station from 1884, and later expansions in 1912 and 1925, up until the present. These buildings include the Overhead Booking Office building, a rare example of a Queen Anne architectural type, and a landscape focal point as the remainder of the station is located within a cutting. Buildings on Platform 1 are also associated with the initial and early phases of the original station. Platforms 4 to 10 contain a collection of standard design buildings that show the design detail (and evolution of that design over a short period) that was used across the rail network, but uniquely here are located in one suburban station.
The continued expansion of Redfern in the early nineteenth and twentieth century shows the evolving nature of the station as it expanded to keep up with local demand and growth of the railway network. This includes the construction of the Eastern Suburbs Railway. The change to the station highlights the importance of Redfern as a hub for rail commuters, including for commuters who live in the local area. Despite this, the station retains its general layout plan with the focus on the northern entrances and platform structures contrasted with the openness of the southern platforms. The station’s location within the cutting also serves to separate the platforms from the main road network, while also drawing the observer to views along the railway, reinforcing the connection with the Eveleigh Rail Yards. [Section 5.2.17 of Technical report 5 – Non-Aboriginal heritage.]
If the Project was to proceed, this invaluable piece of our history would be overwhelmed by the development. The heritage case against the Project is explicit in the EIS itself.
For a detailed view of the heritage particularities of this site see Technical Report 5, figure 87, page 70.
The aesthetic and heritage integrity of the Redfern Railway Station precinct would be ruined
The heritage considerations weigh heavily against the Project based on the evidence in the EIS. See in particular:
• Chapter 14 ‘Non-Aboriginal heritage’ (Section 4, ‘Impact assessment’, pages 16-23) and
the more detailed Technical Report 5 (especially Section 9.2.1 ‘Impact to heritage significance…’ pp 137-164.
The EIS admits that the Project would have significantly adverse effects on the heritage value of the Redfern Railway Station precinct – even to the extent of ‘totally altering’ it.
The EIS, furthermore, admits that measures aimed at ameliorating these ruinous impacts would not alter this judgment. (Technical Report 5, iv & EIS, 14.31))
The EIS reports find that aesthetically the Project would have a ‘major adverse’ impact on this heritage precinct. (EIS 14.24)
The definition of ‘major adverse effect’ is:
• Major adverse - An adverse change to key historic building elements that contribute to the heritage value such that the resource is totally altered. An adverse comprehensive change to its setting. (Technical Report 5, page 10)
Overall, and in terms of historical significance, the Project would constitute a ‘moderate adverse’ impact on its heritage value. (14.24)
Lest the proponents want to rely on the use of ‘moderate’ to extenuate their onslaught on the heritage value by their Project, it is worth reiterating exactly what a ‘moderate adverse’ judgment amounts to. Here is the EIS’s own definition:
• Moderate adverse - An adverse change to many key historic building elements, such that the resource is significantly modified. An adverse change to the setting of an historic building, such that it is significantly modified.
The Technical Report notes that these judgments have been ‘moderated’ by taking into account what it describes as ‘the beneficial effects’ of the Project. (Technical Report 5, page 10)
Of course, the proponent suggests a list of management initiatives in an attempt to ameliorate the significant adverse impacts, but the EIS admits they will have no appreciable effect in mitigating the damage: ‘In aiming to satisfy and solve these issues, the impacts to heritage items are inevitable.’ (Technical Report 5, iv)
Yes, there have been ‘intrusive’ developments at Redfern Station in recent decades but they are minor as the Technical Report notes at page 56 and do not have an overall adverse impact:
Despite obvious infrastructure upgrades to facilitate customer increases and accessibility improvements to the public rail network, where redevelopment has occurred, i.e. Gibbons Street Entrance, this has allowed for the retention of the station internal layout with limited and more importantly reversible changes. The historical structures and layout of the station remain intact demonstrating a unique opportunity for the people of NSW to appreciate the evolution of suburban rail travel in the centre of Sydney.

The impact on the heritage vale of the wider neighbourhood is also adverse
Redfern Station is nestled into a wider heritage listed precinct which includes Eveleigh Railway Workshops and Little Eveleigh Street. Here, for reference is the conclusion on the heritage considerations in the EIS (Chapter 14, pages 24 and 31):
Following the implementation of the management measure above, there would be residual impacts from the Project including:
• the Project would result in a major adverse impact to the aesthetic significance of Redfern Station Railway Group
• the Project would result in a moderate adverse impact to the historic and rarity values of the Redfern Station Railway Group (including the relocation of the Platform 1 Office Building which would have a moderate adverse impact on the station’s intact collection of railway buildings, which has been identified as a rare element)
• the Project would have a minor adverse impact on both the aesthetic and technical values of the Eveleigh Railway Workshops
• the proposed works to 125-127 Little Eveleigh Street have the potential for minor adverse impact on the Darlington Heritage Conservation Area.
Note this adverse judgment takes into account measures meant to ameliorate the overall impact of this development (EIS 14.31).
Conclusion
Heritage is our past in material form. Its preservation helps in understanding our present by showing where we came from. Redfern Station and the associated Eveleigh Railway Workshops and the surrounding 19th century streetscapes are a unique ensemble of our industrial and residential past.
That this precinct has survived to this date is remarkable. There has been much destruction of such reminders of our past in Sydney and that makes what remains so much more valuable. Already residential and office towers are encroaching on and tending to overshadow this precinct making its preservation still more urgent. To expend huge sums to ruin the heart of this precinct rather than concentrate on its preservation and new sympathetic uses would be a missed opportunity, to say the least.
There is an opportunity to create a heritage corridor from Macdonaldtown to Central Railway stations that would delight current and future generations. Let’s not squander it by ruining Redfern Railway Station and what remains of its heritage setting.
Transport for New South Wales needs to come up with a more innovative way to provide access to the platforms at Redfern for the elderly, disabled, people with luggage and all those with mobility issues.
As residents of Little Eveleigh St, living opposite the proposed new entrance, my wife and I will be subjected to unbearable noise, dust and vibration during construction, then on-going noise and visual pollution once the new entrance opens. Little Eveleigh Street residents will be unable to have delivery vehicles and trades park in the street at all. Garbage and recycling trucks will be sharing this narrow street with thousands of Sydney University student, cyclist and through traffic – a recipe for disaster.
Jack Carnegie
134 Little Eveleigh St Redfern.

Please see the attached correspondence.