Redfern Station Upgrade - New Southern Concourse

Please see attached submission from Greens MPs Jenny Leong and Abigail Boyd

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.
Conclusion
Overall the prepared solution has severe impacts on Watertower residents (as outlined above) and is not acceptable. Both alternative community group designs (“H” design and Option 5) depicted in the TfNSW’s Scoping Report need to be reconsidered.
Regards
Russell Green

Attached please find the submission from REDWatch.

To whom it may concern,

I reside at #124 Little Eveleigh St., i.e. directly across from the new proposed entrance in Little Eveleigh St

As a resident of the street I have numerous objections/concerns/comments re. the Project which I hope you can take into consideration in fine-tuning the plan.

They are all relating to Little Eveleigh St and are as follows:

*Vehicular Access-During Project Construction
I am currently renovating my terrace and can anticipate requiring access for drop-offs and deliveries daylight hours throughout the period of construction. Any contemplated closure of the road ought to be kept to a minimum—one side of the road at a time—and wherever possible be done only at night, and residential deliveries in fairness need to be given some priority despite construction.

*Vehicular Access-Post Project Construction
Strangely, no vehicles or passenger drop off zones are indicated nor accommodated in artist's impression. Bizarre. How are disabled passengers meant to access this new entrance? Nor are there any spots indicated for drop offs or deliveries in the street. Why is this? How is it even conceived that drop offs/deliveries will safely occur for sake of pedestrians and vehicles dropping off disabled passengers, especially if the current rate (not to mention excessive speed especially with advent of battery powered bicycles) of flow for bicyclists is permitted to continue. Is one option under consideration to reroute bicyclists altogether? Is sufficient consideration being given to safe flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. It seems not. Again, the artists impression seems not at all reflective an understanding of the current or future flow of completing interests in the street. Suggest you hire a specialist to actually study existing traffic volume and flow patterns hand in hand with whatever your projections ar. Really problematic the way you've sketched out versus the reality of the bike flow. Concentrate and solve the myriad problems that are in store that have direct bearing on safety of all concerned¯ bearing in mind that the flow—disabled and otherwise—will only increase.

*Safety
Little Eveleigh St is currently a busy thoroughfare with one dedicated one way only bike lane. Bicyclists going the other direction are currently directed to use the same path as vehicles. Frequently there are accidents and standoffs between incoming and outgoing bicyclists. High speed are attained with advent of battery powered bicycles. Serious consideration needs to be given to how the flow of traffic and increased flow of pedestrians can possibly and safely take place given continued flow of garbage trucks, delivery trucks and vans, vehicles dropping passengers, bicyclists (in two directions) , pedestrians (in two directions) both disabled and non disabled. This is a significant challenge and the artists impression gives the impression that you are giving matters of safety very short shrift. This is of significant concern, and gives the impression that you are not seriously looking after safety concerns in a dedicated way this far. When will this occur and were get a chance to see a truly realistic and considered proposal verse this sanitized fantasy version in the artists impressions.

* Surface
The drawing indicates resurfacing to take place. The drainage in the street is very poor to North side and needs to be addressed prior to this being done. As part of the new development, should/can some consideration be given to taking down the tree on nw side of street at #122 which has seriously outgrown its current position and is bursting through the footpath creating uneven and unsafe walkway for wheelchairs and pedestrians alike and dropping copious quantities of marble like seeds as well as leaves throughout the year, creating and unsafe environment for wheelchairs, foot traffic, and bicycles most especially when wet.

*Parking for residents
Relocated parking for little eveleigh st. Will this be residential permit parking only? Is that possible? Otherwise, can we expect 1P Parking as it is currently? Given how inconvenienced residents we will be for parking, could therebe gated access to the relocated parking lot for 20 cars for the residents of Little Eveleigh St considering we're altogether losing our parking altogether. Safe lighting and yet non-intrusive lighting needs to be taken into account.

*Parking-Disabled
Will there be any disabled parking in the street? Where are the nearest proposed disabled parking spots? Will one or more be included in the relocation of parking in Little Eveleigh St? I have Multiple Sclerosis, so this is a real concern. We currently have one spot in the street so I would hope at least one would be included in the proposed relocation.

*Lighting
Consideration needs to be paid to the residents in the street in the choice of lighting. Many bedrooms and living rooms front onto the streets and lighting needs to be sympathetic to their proximity. Colour temperature, brightness, and direction they point in—these all need to be carefully considered so that we do not of a sudden find ourselves living in a parking lot or stadium like environment.

*Planning considerations
One hopes that the City of Sydney will consider re-zoning Little Eveleigh terraces within a certain proximity for mixed use (at our election) considering the station entrance is such immediate proximity to some of the residential terraces. Could significantly improve the neighborhood/streetscape.
I look forward seeing more detailed proposals and hope that take into account my own concerns as well as those of the other residents of Little Eveleigh St —those who are most familiar with the street and patterns of traffic and pedestrian flow as is.

Kind Regards,

Christopher Dow
#124 Little Eveleigh St
(Directly across from new station entrance)

PLEASE Consider the safety of pedestrians at the pinch point where most people will walk past The Watertower to enter the South Eveleigh precinct.
It would be far safer and easier to make the station entrance much closer to the precinct itself and not where the plans suggest it should be.
Finally, the community has been consulted but at no stage has the community be listened to. At least take some of our requests and concerns about the new upgrade into consideration. We want the upgrade but let's make it great not just convenient.
Thank you.

Objection attached

I am writing to provide comment on the Redfern Station Upgrade- New Southern Concourse. I live in the neighbourhood, in Darlington, and am a supporter of the project, but would like to provide comment on one feature in the current plan: the new 'kiss and ride' zone relocated to Lawson Street (as pictured in the plan dated May 2020). I am concerned that this new 'kiss and ride' will make it difficult for commuters coming from West of the station to drop off as it appears this drop off zone is only on the West-bound traffic lane. I suggest that an additional 'kiss and ride' be added to the opposite side of the street, so that commuters coming from West of the station can be dropped off. Alternatively, a clear 'kiss and ride' could be created at the end of Wilson Street (at the intersection with Ivy).

Regards,

Firstly I would like to add my support for the project in general. Redfern Station has required an upgrade to become fully accessible for many years and the consultation and design process seem to have resulted in a positive outcome for everyone.

However, as a resident living in the LGA and a daily commuter through the area, I would like to raise my concern about the treatment of Little Eveleigh Street and the proposed interaction of cyclists and pedestrians.

I, like many other people, use this bike lane everyday for my commute and have previously used the station to travel to and from university. The number of pedestrians (especially during semester) and cyclists (year round) is incredibly high during peak hour, and often at least moderate at other times.

There is a common misconception in the urban design sector that walking and riding are able to happily co-mingle in a dense urban environment. In reality however, the two modes of transport are often at odds with each other. If the urban environment looks like a footpath, bikes are often forced into dangerous and frustrating interactions with pedestrians, and vice versa.

In Appendix Document C - Urban Design report, figures 36-47, the design recognises the fact that at both ends of the street major cycle infrastructure exists, or is being developed, and suggests a link is established by using “Reduced stippling” in the paving pattern. Despite only being indicative, Figures 37-39 illustrate how dense the street is expected to be with pedestrians but only represents two cyclists, of which one is dismounted. It seems a regressive design move to take away a well used and integral transport route through this part of Sydney and replace it with a “cycle-suggested lane.”

Additionally, the City of Sydney ‘Street Design Coordination’ document referenced as a design guide in the Urban Design report (pg 39), refers to shared zones as “often destinations for food, drink, retail and culture where public art, unique furniture design, lighting and landscaping create visual interest.” This is not a design principle aligned with a major cycle, pedestrian and mass-transport space.

Rather than cutting off this important part of Inner Sydney’s bike network, could the project safely seperate pedestrians and cyclists, at a minimum with painted bike lanes, but ideally with a small traffic divider ‘bump’?

Thank you for your consideration of my submission,

Kind regards,

Redfern Station Upgrade - New Southern Concourse
SSI 10041

I support the concept of a southern concourse but NOT the design chosen.

Comment:
Access to facilities and residences on the west side is only slightly increased. It would have been significantly more advantageous to link the concourse directly to Wilson St.
As it is, residents of Little Eveleigh St. will loose their amenity and parking. Having a temporary car park at the end of the street may not be a minor inconvenience.
For those designs where the route passed behind the residences of Little Eveleigh St, effective and satisfactory screening could be achieved with minimal impact and cost.
Safety concerns could be alleviated with lighting and cameras.

I would also espouse that Options 2, 3 and 4 included design features that would be rejected immediately by the community, thus then supporting the TfNSW's preferred Option 1.

The carrot dangled implies that with Option 1, a second crossing of the railway corridor is a distinct possibility with the redevelopment of the Redfern North Eveleigh Precinct. However, in assessing the communities alternative concourse proposals, a more southern concourse falls into the "too hard" basket.

Support:
It will ease the congestion experienced during peak periods.
It will allow uninhibited access
It will be a major boon to all those working in South Eveleigh.
Such a shame that this didn't occur for platforms 11 and 12.

It is interesting to note that only since the extensive development Technology Park that plans were activated for a southern concourse. Residents and resident groups had been requesting improved disabled access and a southern crossing of the railway corridor for years.

Concerns:
It is important that there is free access across the concourse, east to west, not requiring the use of a credit or Opal card.

The concourse needs to be wide enough to allow cyclists to walk their bikes across/to a lift without impeding pedestrians. The proposed bike route across the overbridge at Lawson St is being optimistically planned for a very restricted space.

A significant number of commuters cross both Gibbons and Regent Sts to access the bus stops there. Due to the fact that the lifts are at the southern end of the platform, it is likely that more commuters heading to Regent St, will weave or dash through traffic on both Gibbons and Regent Sts to access the bus stops.
Also, there is an increased density of student accommodation on the east side of Gibbons St, with more planned. These students will take the most dirext route to Uni; straight across the concourse after they bolt across Gibbons St.

Underestimation of the impact of traffic congestion. Limited information is presented, and given the myriad of one way streets, it is difficult to determine how the routes will be used.
Technical Report 3: Trafgic, trnsport and access Fig. 3
I might also add that there is a car share location on Marian St east of Gibbons St.

The improved access to Gibbons St appears to involve a large construction, only noticed in Appendix B: Stakeholder and Community Engagement. No information provided.
The artists impression is also totally misleading, as it implies that the 14 storey development proposed by TfNSW is open, accessible public space with trees.
The area of the Gibbons St Reserve has been significantly reduced for the (?) bus shelter, and better access at the junction with Marian St. Why isn't TfNSW land used for this?
Gibbons St Reserve is the designated open space for the affordable housing at 11 Gibbons St and the surrounding residential apartmemt buildings.

Conclusion:
A southern concourse with lifts and stairs is a much needed and awaited addition to Redfern Station.
I just regret the chance to really improve connectivity with the area was not maximised.

Please see attached

Please find Heritage Council response to Redfern Railway Station Group New Southern Concourse - EIS