Redfern Station Upgrade - New Southern Concourse

Please refer to the Attachment

I urge NSW Department of Planning and Environment to NOT approve the proposed design for upgrading Redfern Station and to review in greater detail the benefits the alternative options offer in providing a solution that meets community needs.

The published TfNSW “Preferred Solution”…..

1. Minimises the concerns of the local community and residents. The critical stakeholders of Redfern station are many many more than the commuters surveyed and referred to as ‘customers’. And, while being surveyed, many of those commuters would have very superficial knowledge of the whole range of impacts of various options. They are almost certainly focussed entirely on what might suit their movement through the station best, without regard to the negative consequences of those choices. In giving survey responses, they did not have an opportunity to consider broader impacts. For example, few would have considered the impacts of high pedestrian volumes at the proposed Marian Street entrance.


2. Creates a very concerning pedestrian and traffic management issue in directing congestion into Marian and Little Eveleigh Streets. There is particular risk at Marian Street, where high volumes of people will be coming to and fro between the station and the ever-expanding commercial district at South Eveleigh and bus and metro connections from the southeast.

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. Does not provide any significantly better connectivity to the surrounding area as it claims to do. 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. Doesn’t include any feasible mitigation measures for noise and disruption impact on residents of buildings adjoining the construction zones, despite earlier representations made by TfNSW. At a Watertower building meeting held in June 2019 representatives from TfNSW suggested providing noise abatement barriers (walls) and double glazing.


5. Doesn’t include any feasible mitigation measures to counter ongoing noise, light and privacy impact, on The Watertower building in particular, despite the obvious, inevitable risks to Watertower residents in this regard. Some of these risks have been acknowledged in TfNSW’s Scoping Report/EIS, others – such as the impact of the station entrance/bridge structure on natural light and shadowing for north-facing apartments – has either been completely ignored or is not being made available to the public or those who may be impacted.

6. Makes no provision for current, much less future, parking needs around Rosehill, Marian and Cornwallis Streets. The proposed design removes about 12 parking spaces from Marian Street. I’m all for minimum use of cars and not encouraging car use but sometimes cars are a necessary evil. The spaces to be removed are currently heavily used, it is very difficult to find a free parking space anywhere in/around those streets during weekdays, and the area has already been impacted by the earlier loss of parking spaces on Gibbons Street to provide for buses.

Comments are in the attachment

As a resident of Marian Street I believe from a Watertower perspective, there are a number of impacts where the EIS is either silent, skirted and/or avoided important community concerns or slanted the statistical survey information inappropriately, as discussed below.

I urge NSW Department of Planning and Environment not to approve the proposed design in upgrading Redfern Station. Instead alternative options that alleviate most of the issues detailed 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 not address the safety concerns of re-formed 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.

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 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 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 you to reconsider the preffered option in the interest of both the local and commuter communities. This station upgrade has been decades in coming and there is no point providing a bandaid solution for one of our city's busiest rail transport hubs. We need to invest in our community, not degrade and erode its quality of life and commuter safety by not providing the best possible solution for the decades to come.

I have attached an extract of the EIS showing Options 5 and Option 6 for reference. Do the right thing by your constituency and reassess the current preferred option for a the best positive and lasting legacy for the foreseeable future on both the local and commuter communities.

I attach my comments about the Redfern station upgrade- New Southern Concourse..

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 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 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.

As a resident of Marian Street I believe from a Watertower perspective, there are a number of impacts where the EIS is either silent, skirted and/or avoided important community concerns or slanted the statistical survey information inappropriately, as discussed below.

I urge NSW Department of Planning and Environment not to approve the proposed design in upgrading Redfern Station. Instead alternative options that alleviate most of the issues detailed 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 not address the safety concerns of re-formed 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.

While I am excited that Redfern station is to be upgraded at last, I encourage NSW Department of Planning and Environment to NOT approve the design currently proposed, to revisit the greater benefits of alternative options and to address in greater detail the mitigations needed for the ongoing safety and living standards of the station’s community.

The TfNSW “Preferred Solution”…..

1. Minimises the concerns of the local community and residents. The critical stakeholders of Redfern station are many many more than the commuters surveyed and referred to as ‘customers’. And, while being surveyed, many of those commuters would have very superficial knowledge of the whole range of impacts of various options. They are almost certainly focussed entirely on what might suit their movement through the station best, without regard to the negative consequences of those choices. In giving survey responses, they did not have an opportunity to consider broader impacts. For example, few would have considered the impacts of high pedestrian volumes at the proposed Marian Street entrance.


2. Creates a very concerning pedestrian and traffic management issue in directing congestion into Marian and Little Eveleigh Streets. There is particular risk at Marian Street, where high volumes of people will be coming to and fro between the station and the ever-expanding commercial district at South Eveleigh and bus and metro connections from the southeast.

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. Does not provide any significantly better connectivity to the surrounding area as it claims to do. 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. Doesn’t include any feasible mitigation measures for noise and disruption impact on residents of buildings adjoining the construction zones, despite earlier representations made by TfNSW. At a Watertower building meeting held in June 2019 representatives from TfNSW suggested providing noise abatement barriers (walls) and double glazing.


5. Doesn’t include any feasible mitigation measures to counter ongoing noise, light and privacy impact, on The Watertower building in particular, despite the obvious, inevitable risks to Watertower residents in this regard. Some of these risks have been acknowledged in TfNSW’s Scoping Report/EIS, others – such as the impact of the station entrance/bridge structure on natural light and shadowing for north-facing apartments – has either been completely ignored or is not being made available to the public or those who may be impacted.

6. Makes no provision for current, much less future, parking needs around Rosehill, Marian and Cornwallis Streets. The proposed design removes about 12 parking spaces from Marian Street. I’m all for minimum use of cars and not encouraging car use but sometimes cars are a necessary evil. The spaces to be removed are currently heavily used, it is very difficult to find a free parking space anywhere in/around those streets during weekdays, and the area has already been impacted by the earlier loss of parking spaces on Gibbons Street to provide for buses.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed TfNSW design option for the new Redfern Station concourse.

I have attached a PDF of my submission
Kind Regards
J Rogers

I am in favour of the project at large, but I refer specifically to the comments on active transport connectivity on pages 11-27 and 11-28 of the EIS, namely:

"During consultation, some respondents suggested that creating ungated access across the rail corridor would achieve better connectivity within the local area, particularly for those who may not be station customers or do not have access to an Opal or credit card to tap on and off at either end of the concourse (which does not incur a charge).
Some stakeholder groups however requested installation of the Opal barriers to create a more formalised entrance and to deter customers from not tapping on for their fare ride. Tapping on and off to access the concourse to use the cross corridor access poses a social equity issue and mitigation measures to address this may include signage to inform users that an Opal card or contactless payments (e.g. American Express, Mastercard or Visa debit or credit card), would be required to access the concourse, however, once tapped off on the other side, charges would be reversed (i.e. no charge). Existing pedestrian routes would remain available for the small group of people who do not have an Opal card or contactless payments to use the concourse. A customer education campaign would be enacted to inform the community of the process and encourage use of the concourse."

Even with through-access free-of-charge there is still a social equity issue in excluding pedestrians who do not have an Opal card or credit card with sufficient funds to tap on. The perceived trade-off of reducing fare evasion seems an incredibly minor justification for this restriction that appears to favour privileged stakeholders at the expense of amenity for the community's most underprivileged. Public works should aim to make the city better for all residents, not just those who are in the good fortune of having $1.20 of electronic funds at hand.

The existence of alternative pedestrian connections is also irrelevant, we should not measure equity of access by mere existence of pedestrian routes, but by equal access to all pedestrian routes by all members of the community.

We must also not forget that it's actually rare for ticket barriers to restrict access to train platforms, let along pedestrian connections, across Sydney, with a minority of stations featuring such restrictions. Notable examples include Stanmore, Petersham, Summer Hill, Macarthur, Central south concourse (connecting Chalmers St to Railway Sq and the Goods Line) and Parramatta, all of which provide through access without requiring an Opal card. I suggest fare evasion be dealt with in another way that doesn't encroach on equitable access to pedestrian connections.

I support the accessibility improvements for the station and emphasise the need for lift access to underground Platforms 11 and 12. I am concerned that this bridge being gated, as the presentation mentioned that the bridge may not be open 24/7, reducing safety and accessible options for vulnerable people travelling home at night. I am also concerned that this transport upgrade blocks an opportunity to connect Sydney's cycling network - see how the attached City of Sydney Lawson St plans show no connection to Gibbons, and City of Sydney map shows no planned connection to Lawson St. With CBA and more large businesses about to open at South Eveleigh, building end-of-trip facilities, this causes major issue for people trying to access the major Wilson St and George St cycleway thoroughfares, as the lack of connection and one-way Gibbons St may force people to take the footpath and unsafe turns across traffic to access the Lawson St cycleway. Therefore the lack of bike access looks to cause conflict for people walking around this area. This area requires good masterplanning using the movement and place framework, and planning needs to be effectively thought through, rather than focussing on individual asset upgrades.

See attached PDF

We refer to the objection we previously lodged regarding the Redfern Southern Concourse proposal on June 2 2019. We are pleased that the current design incorporates the building at 125-127 Little Eveleigh Street but remain concerned that the current design does not significantly improve accessibility by positioning an entry on Little Eveleigh Street and creates a safety issue by creating inevitable pedestrian cyclist and car conflict in what is a very narrow street.

As residents of Little Eveleigh Street, we are disproportionately impacted by the proposal and the lengthy construction 2019 timeline and we ask that you give additional weight to residents’ concerns regarding construction planning and the design of the streetscape, as the street is our home.
While we understand there is an interim solution for parking in North Eveleigh, we are losing adjacent street parking and would like to know what is proposed for the future in relation to this?

Our main concerns as residents are:
• During construction: noise pollution- it is clear that there will be overnight works for long periods as well as the greater part of 9 months of noisy roadworks immediately adjacent to residences in Little Eveleigh Street. To the extent that these will be at levels which cause sleep disturbance whether it be weekday of weekend night, this will impact upon our health and ability to work and we will be seeking not only consultation but also alternative accommodation arrangements as appropriate given the lengthy period of construction. We would ask that noise monitoring stations be installed in at least 2 locations in the street to ensure that appropriate monitoring is undertaken during construction and where construction occurring overnight there be a person (not a recorded message) residents can contact during worktime 24/7. If Covid-19 work from home arrangements continue during the construction period, we would ask that there additional consideration be afforded to residents.
• During construction: air pollution- diesel particulate is a known carcinogen and we ask that work vehicles be prohibited from idling outside residences for extended periods as our bedrooms face onto the street. Diesel generators should be located away from residences. We would also ask that if there is excessive dust, the front of properties be cleaned periodically.
• During construction: vibration which is damaging to our property- we would ask that there be a report done prior to any work of this kind and any damage resulting from vibration during construction made good.
• Long term: light pollution: we ask that lighting be designed to be focused downward at street level so that it does not shine into windows of residences, but is still adequate from safety purposes.
• Long term: noise pollution: we ask that there be no seating installed in front of residences which would encourage late night gatherings/ conversations/smoking just outside our bedroom windows. We recognise there will be additional voices- this is fine so long as they are moving
• Long term- continued access including ability for removalists to load from street into house- we assume that the street will be a no parking zone – it is not clear from the EIS- and would ask that there be some permit system for removalists so residents can move in and out of their homes
• Long term – we look forward to be involved in the design of the street scape. We ask that street scaping and design direct pedestrian flow away from directly in front of residences on the southern side as the entry steps on the southern side of the street are a trip hazard, there needs to be a space for bins and residents should have unimpeded access to the street given the volumes of traffic predicted. This would also assist mitigate privacy concerns of residents.
• Long term- privacy – no CCTV cameras near residential entrances. Residents should be consulted on location prior to the placement of any CCTV on the street.
• Long term- drop off points- it is not clear whether there will be any drop off points for disabled access- to the extent there are they should be located at or before the station and not in front of residences where possible
• Long term – safety. We are concerned about the likely conflict between pedestrians cyclists and heavy vehicles on the street and railway worker traffic in particular which tears down the street late at night. The speed hump in the middle of the street does nothing to deter this and there is a sink hole on the other side of it which is a hazard for cyclists and pedestrians alike. Alternative traffic calming should be considered, particularly near the corner near 125-127 and toward the entrance to the Wilson Street cycleway.
• The EIS indicates that there will be adjustment to underground utilities. We would ask that the opportunity be taken to upgrade the existing internet infrastructure from 2 pair leading cables to NBN compliant cabling at the same time.

Obviously this concerns us greatly and we want to work constructively to optimise the end result.

I object to Design option 1 on the following grounds, and request that the options supported by the community (namely Options 5, 6H) be actioned instead. These community supported options reflect the needs and deliberations of people who live in and are invested in the community. The survey which apparently determined Design option 1 included/gave weight to the views of people who do not live in the community but who pass through perhaps twice daily during the working/academic week. The community is welcoming of both students and those working in commerce and other fields in the vicinity, and it is worth pointing out that their needs (in terms of movement and safety) can still be appropriately met through either Option 5 or 6H. Communities often feel that their views are overridden by Government planning decisions and this adds to mistrust and cynicism about Government actions - the Government is presented here with an outstanding opportunity to demonstrate good faith with the local community as well as meet the needs of those who traverse through it daily by reversing Design option 1 and supporting instead either option 5 or 6H. I urge that you do so. Regards.

On behalf of the University of Sydney, please refer attached submission Application No. SSI-10041

1. The current planned structure in Marian Street Redfern increases the dangers to pedestrians, bike riders and those with mobility issues by requiring them to share a long roadway with all kinds of traffic. It will be impossible to limit the traffic and present speed limits are almost never observed.
2. There is an alternative position for the exit into South Eveleigh which would give almost complete separation between vehicles and pedestrians etc. This was the original position of the bridge prior to its demolition 25 or so years ago.
3. The current proposed bridge does not give better connectivity to local institutions eg uni and hospitals, as stated. It virtually replicates the current access points on Lawson St. The alternative proposals which enter directly into South Eveleigh and Ivy Street behind The Foundry buildinggive much better connectivity, especialy to the new CBA headquarters (20,000 extra people) and Carriageworks, the major Sydney art precinct with thousands of theatre and other patrons wanting quick, direct access.
4. The current proposal MAXIMISES the additional noise and light, and MINIMISES the privacy that will be experienced by residents of Little Eveleigh Street and The Watertower. The alternative design proposed by these local residents would achieve the opposite by MINIMISING noise and light and MAXIMISING privacy.
5. Finally, I object in the strongest possible terms to Transport NSW"s assertions that their current proposal had majority public support when it was previously exhibited. For a start, they are extremely economical with the facts when they say it was the one chosen of 4 options. They initially exhibited only one option, this one, and sought input from rail passengers on it. Predictably, shown only one option, this one, passengers preferred it to the current situation with only one exit from all platforms except no 10. Only after considerable pressure from residents and others, including the Lord Mayor of Sydney and other Councillors, were the other three options which Transport had considered and rejected finally revealed. By then, most canvassing of opinions from rail passengers had ceased and was not repeated with all four options on the table. This negates all those favourable comments collected from rail passengers. Transport also did not count the large number of local residents who attended meetings and expressed their fervent objections the Transport's preferred option. Given that they could, and did, count opinions gathered in a 1 or 2 minute conversation with rail passengers, they both could and should have counted meeting participants. That they did not clearly demonstrates their intention to have their preferred option gain majority support. Given this I urge Planning to discount all statistical evidence offered by Transport in support of their preferred option, to decline approval for Transports current application, and to direct Transport go back to the drawing board and properly consult with rail passengers and Redfern, Darlington and other residents to design a solution to access and safety at Redfern Station that meets all needs. I urge Planning not to be swayed by aguments about timing and urgency. Transport has been promising and delaying this project for at least 8 years to my certain knowledge.

1. Will a bike shed be provided at the new southern concourse, rather than just bike racks ?
Pre covid19, the Lawson St bike shed was at overcapacity, and bikes were chained to fences. Can you please provide undercover bike parking.
2. Will the concourse development be "future proofed" to allow future removal of the pinch point through Redfern Platform 1&2? Currently 4 tracks converge into 2 (Illawarra Dive + Up/Down main)
3. It is not clear from the project documents, if there will be a bus interchange with the 301-3 bus services which currently terminate in Gibbons St.
Please provide direct access to the bus stop to the new concourse

Please refer to the attached document

I support the concept but not the chosen option.

It will provide ease of access to all platforms.
It will provide access across the railway corridor.
It will improve access for those commuting to South Eveleigh

However, there needs to be unimpeeded access across the new concourse. Opal readers can be instlled on approach to the platforms. When crowded, having dispersed opal readers is advantageous.

More information is required on what roads will be utilised during the construction phase. It is difficult to determine how the vehicles will move at critical points. Even Technical Report 3 did not provide that information.

What are the plans for Gibbons St Reserve. It is stated that it will be returned to its previous state. If you examine the photomontage in Appendix B, that does not apper to be the case, with the open space drastically reduced. This is the designated open space for the adjacent amd surrounding apartment blocks.
What are the plans for safecrossing of Gibbons and Regent Sts to access the bus stops on Regent St. Also, student movement from their acvommodation east of Gibbons St to the Uni, west of Gibbons St.