Sydney CBD Light Rail

As a long term resident of Surry Hills and a strong supporter of public transport, I am horrified by the proposal to put trams along one of the narrowest streets in Surry Hills to connect Central railway with the Eastern Suburbs. This is a road that is not a thoroughfare, as it dead ends at Bourke St, and is vital for access to a number of residential streets connected to busy Cleveland St. They will be horrendous flow on effects for local residents and it is hard to imagine how trams could run in both directions with cars on such a narrow road. I completely reject the government's assertions that Surry Hills people need a tram stop that close to Central and believe that a cut and cover option under Foveaux St is the only sensible approach.
I believe trams are a great idea but why wouldn't you use the current bus routes for the trams? The buses and cars happily co-exist on Foveaux and Albion streets & people are used to the routes. The roads are much wider and better able to cope with the addition of trams. Why would you destroy a little residential street in a heritage neighbourhood for no good reason? Why remove access to people's homes for the sake of a tram on such a small road? No ambulance access? No police access? No fire engine access? Not to mention how would anyone be able to move house without any road access to their home?
Why demolish people's homes when the cut and cover option could be used with no destruction and lower cost according to publically available estimates. If you are not going to dig up Devonshire St and relocate the underground electricity, phone lines, gas and water, then every time there is a problem with those, the trams will have to stop. This is highly short sighted. Saving money this way to justify not using a cut and cover tunnel is short sighted.
Why spend huge amounts of money re-routing traffic, which will be essential as there are so many roads that run off Devonshire St that currently rely on access via Devonshire St, when the tram could run on roads that go where it needs to go?
Why have an extra traffic light change every 2-3min on both South Dowling St and Anzac Parade, when the existing traffic lights and road crossings could be used? This is most certainly going to increase the already terrible traffic along both of these streets that everyone has to cope with at the moment.
Why increase travel time to the city for all the buses currently jam packed every morning with residents of the Redfern, Waterloo, etc (301, 302, 3093)? The traffic on Crown St heading into the city in the mornings is already bad and it will be infinitely worse if the lights at Devonshire St go red every 2min, and stay reds long enough for a 5 carriage tram to get through?
How will the 355 continue to operate? This bus route uses Devonshire St and Bourke St to get to Bondi?
How will the businesses on Cleveland St be without the public transport that is currently bringing people to their restaurants, shops, etc?

I also just realised that the "artist" impression of the tunnel in Moore Park shows that he pedestrian access to the park from the Devonshire st area will be removed. Can you make sure that pedestrian access ot the park is not restricted due to the light rail?
Oh I know how about using a proper cut and cover through Surry Hills so you don't have to build ugly viaduct over the Eastern distributor?

As a long time resident of Surry Hills and the inner city, I am very supportive of a light rail network throughout the city. The convenience, frequency and speed of travel will make most places I would normally drive to much more accessible. Also, as a parent of young children, having reliable and safe transport to currently inaccessible nearby suburbs is a great step forward.

The proposed route through Devonshire St and Moore Park, however, I feel misses the point and will not adequately address the transport issues the inner city has.

1. My understanding of the current proposal is to allow better access to the University of NSW and the stadium precinct.
a. Current transport to both these areas, from the CBD and Central station is plentiful. For most commuters, walking to the SCG/football stadium is very easy. To build light rail to Kensington and the stadium does not require to be routed via Devonshire St and Moore Park
2. An integrated transport approach to the light rail network is needed. Commuters, especially for events at the SCG/football stadium, will drive if they cannot access frequent and reliable services out of Central. Getting to the stadiums from Central is the easy part, waiting for ages for a train or bus service home from Central is the hard part.
3. The proposed route does not alleviate the problems with transport to and from the CBD to Surry Hills, Redfern, Green Square, and Waterloo. Unreliable travel times and frequency of buses is a major issue, especially at peak times, however, the proposed route will have a negligible effect on these issues. Ongoing development in Green Square and Waterloo has put added pressure on bus services, however, the light rail will not address this.
a. For most Surry Hills residents, getting to the CBD will not be enhanced with the presence of light rail, because they won't be near enough to it and will continue to rely on the buses.
4. Tearing up Devonshire St and Moore Park is unfathomable, when there are many large thoroughfares through the suburb that could adequately accommodate a light rail. Devonshire St is a pleasant and accessible road, is too narrow for light rail, and a key artery through the suburb for residents and visitors on foot. Much has been made of the village atmosphere of Surry Hills and the light rail through Devonshire will destroy that.
a. Additionally, the beautiful parklands of Moore Park are used by residents and visitors for recreational activities. Again, putting a light rail through this is vandalism. Our inner city children lack open back yards, and Moore Park is one of the few nearby places for impromptu ball games and bike riding. Many organised sports also take place in Moore Park, as well as being the main sports grounds for the Sydney Boys' and Girls' High Schools.

Suggestion:
Major roads such as Oxford and Flinders Streets are ideal for accommodating a light rail. Importantly they will also provide better access to other businesses along the route, as well as to many more residents that need access to and from the CBD. Another alternative is Albion or Foveaux Streets.

Bus services from Green Square, Waterloo and Redfern will need to remain frequent, as the light rail does not address those areas.

I am very supportive of the expansion of light rail across Sydney and travel to Sydney regularly from Canberra. I sincerely hope that light rail will one day extend from the current planned termini to Coogee, at least to Maroubra along Anzac Parade, along Parramatta Road, along Victoria Road and to Newtown at some point in the not too distant future.

I wish to make the following suggestions about the current planned project:

1. Construct the Randwick Racecourse platforms to be extended platforms to be the same length as Central Station and Moore Park. The press has pointed out that the Sydney racing scene is about to go big and very quickly. Hence, longer platforms with greater capacity would surely be a benefit. Especially given that a turn back road for Randwick Racecourse is already part of the design.

2. Grade separate the Anzac Parade/Alison Road intersection. This junction is very busy during peak and shoulder peak periods. Grade separation here would save the light rail vehicles precious minutes which would make travel on this mode that much more attractive.

3. Do not run buses parallel to the light rail route. This would duplicate services and defeat the purpose of building the light rail. Currently, there is the M50, M10, X/373, X/376, L/394, 392, 397, 396. I sincerely hope these buses are terminated at Kingsford or Randwick to encourage all passengers to use the tram. Continuing to run these buses into the city would only discourage people from using the tram.

4. Speed of trams in the pedestrian zone. I appreciate that pedestrians will be now much closer to the trams than would have if this stretch of George Street was not to be pedestrianised. However, I do object that trams are to travel so slowly at 20km/h. This could easily be lifted to 40 km/h without anyone being in danger. Remember, pedestrians will be getting an additional traffic lane's worth of walking space on each side of the tram tracks. This should be plenty.

5. Planning should be undertaken to scope for a future extension of the line to Coogee and/or Maroubra Junction. These are logical extensions and should be considered as construction of this current project is underway. The Coogee extension should not be difficult as the vast majority of the previous tram Right-Of-Way is still there (i.e. the corridor that comes off St Pauls Street and runs parallel to Carr Street to the north, and Havelock Avenue). Whilst the Maroubra extension should be even easier with the wide median strip down all the way to Little Bay).

I thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide my suggestions and hope the project is successful.

Henry To.

QUESTION 1.
I certainly agree with the concept of light rail but I also believe that, unless a line is constructed through Green Square in the very near future, existing public transport will not be able to cope at all especially during peak times.

Being a regular user of the M20, 301, 302 and 303 buses, I can already see how dire the present situation has become.
I believe that this following option is feasible and am wondering if it has it been considered by the State Government because it is not included in the brochure "Surry Hills and Darlinghurst Sydney light rail route options considered"?

Basically it would mean the light rail route would bypass all but one block of Devonshire Street (& then it would only be used for the outward journeys,) but would also run through the middle of Green Square (once it is finished.)

The route involves a long, virtually straight and almost level viaduct with only two curves. Thus travel over this section would be faster than if the route took the entire length of Devonshire Street.

From the city: leaving Chalmers Street, the route would go left into Devonshire Street, right into Elizabeth Street & continue along Elizabeth Street turning left just before McEvoy Street and then along a viaduct above resumed land to the vacant Water Board site. The viaduct would continue above the edge of the Water Board land, cross above Bourke Street, above the park on the corner of Lachlan Street and continue above this road, crossing South Dowling Street as it continues above Lachlan Street until it forks above the Anzac Parade and Alison Road intersection.

There would be a left fork to come down on the existing bus roadway to continue to the Sydney Cricket Ground, etc.
There would also be a right fork at this intersection which would surface on the existing Randwick bound bus roadway near Doncaster Avenue.

The Randwick line would then continue as projected.

The Kingsford line would then cross Alison Road into Doncaster Avenue for about three metres, turning right into Abbotford Street (using the old tram way in the middle of the road) & left into Anzac Parade. A left turn next to Abbotford Street would bring the trams into their stabling yards.

The inward journey would be as above until Elizabeth Street, then turning left into Redfern Street, right into Chalmers Street & continuing along Chalmers Street to Central Station.

I believe this proposal has these advantages:-
1. It would be a much less expensive option.
2. It would remove the need for any home units between Bourke Street and the Eastern Distributor to be resumed.
3. It would avoid any loss of the Moore Park Playing Fields.
4. It would provide a light rail link through Green Square.
5. There would be no additional traffic congestion at the intersection of Anzac Parade & Alison Road. In fact there would be a lot less as many of the buses currently using this area would no longer be needed once Light Rail is introduced.

The disadvantages are:-
1. Some properties between Elizabeth and Young Streets would have to be demolished (but far fewer than under the existing plan.)
2. Travel times would be increased (but only marginally.)


QUESTION 2.
With fewer buses being needed once Light Rail starts operating, would it not be more feasible to convert the Randwick Bus Depot into stabling yards for these trams?

Some of the current Randwick Depot buses could replace the ones, which will then be due to be retired or will then be coming to the end of their working life, with the remainder being kept in storage until needed. The cost of this alternative stabling system would surely be less than the proposed plans outlines in the E.I.S.

I am very exciting to see the George st pedestrian plan and light rail expansion. We do not see visionary, public transport infrastructure such as this often enough in Australia. I look forward to it being completed, enhancing the many times I visit the beautiful city. It is good to see infrastructure that facilitates people moving around without their cars, we need more of this in our cities and regionally connecting cities and towns.
Go Sydney!

Given that Surry Hills is part of the 'City of Villages' and many of the streets and properties are either Heritage listed or Heritage Street scapes. The proposed Light Rail running from Central along Devnshire St (then under ground to Moore Park West) - should NOT have overhead cables. These should be underground to minimise the impact on the environment. Removing trees to accommodate cables and wires, regardless of any agrument put forward, is NOT acceptable. The trees are largely what gives the streets in Surry Hills their character. New plantings may sound like a solution, but you cannot replace years of growth with perfectly aligned rows of new trees , just to accommodate over head wires. Do it right and you get it right.

I have noted several changes to be made during the course of light rail construction in the documents

Firstly, I have noted that the Kingsford Roundabout will be removed to make way for traffic lights. Considering the history of the roundabout to Kingsford (it has been there since at least 1945), I think there should be more of an effort to incorporate the roundabout into the design, whether by tunneling under the intersection by cut and cover and rebuilding the roundabout above (which would also significantly reduce the impact of light rail on the intersection's efficiency), or turning the Gardeners Road - Bunnerong Road intersection into a roundabout, which was originally part of the roundabout until the 1980s when the intersection was reconfigured, and may help in keeping the historic association between Kingsford and a large roundabout.

Secondly, I have noted that the preliminary Kingsford bus interchange provides for a cross platform interchange for most services except for all Bunnerong Road services, which will be served by a bus stop across the road from the interchange. A significant number of passengers use these services, especially the high density areas of Matraville and Hillsdale, who already have less bus services compared to Anzac Parade for the number of passengers served. Considering the buses will no longer go to the city, I propose that 391/392 buses be diverted down Botany Street so that they can access the interchange.

Thirdly, I would like better access to the Randwick hospitals, by means of an extra stop somewhere near the entrances. It seems strange how sick children and other patients will be forced to walk hundreds of metres to the main hospital buildings.

Fourth, I think the intersection of Anzac Parade, Alison Road and the light rail tracks should be grade separated. The intersection seems to be at capacity during AM and PM peaks and I think the addition of the light rail at this intersection may cause significant congestion.

Fifth, I believe the government should consider onramps towards the city on Southern Cross Drive at Gardeners Road. It seems that something like this would reduce traffic on Anzac Parade (traffic coming from Bunnerong Road would be given a faster trip via Southern Cross Drive), thus making the operation of the light rail smoother. It would also help with the operation of the intersection at Kingsford, as the intersection favours traffic from Bunnerong Road continuing onto Gardeners Road and vice versa.

Otherwise, I fully support this project and wish the people behind it the best.

Best Regards,

Brendan Terrett

My concern with the plan, is the lack of any discussion or analysis of the issue of seating capacity.

It is claimed - without any basis - that trams are more comfortable than buses. Evidence for this ? It is claimed that that the 45 metre articulated trams will carry 80 seated and 220 standing passengers. This is the same as 2 cars of a Sydney double deck train. The difference is that - at peak loading on the train of 130% of seating capacity, about 75% of the train passengers have a seat and 25% are standing. On the proposed tram, these proportions are reversed. The various sections of the EIS make somewhat contradictory assertions about bus loadings. At one place, it is claimed that the average bus loading for AM services to the CBD is 36 passengers for non-express services and 55 for express services. This indicates that, similar to the trains, most passengers from further out get a seat, and the people standing are mostly those who board the buses close to the CBD, and are therefore not standing very long.

This is a major issue for customer comfort and convenience, and should be properly addressed and the costs and benefits discussed, instead of just being ignored. Journeys from Randwick and Kingsford take about 35 minutes to the northern CBD, the tram is likely to reduce this by a trivial one minute saving. Although the time reliability (variance) of the trip may be improved, this is little consolation for the prospect of standing in a packed tram for over half an hour twice a day. There is also a non-trivial economic impact. I read work documents ( like long EIS's ) on public transport, and I can't do that while standing on a packed tram with someone else's armpit in my face. That's an hour a day of somewhat productive time that I lose. This is a non-trivial economic impact. The fact that the tram will have air-conditioning, and some buses might not, is not much of a trade-off for this.

The Government thinks that people who currently drive cars to the CBD, will feel that trams are better than buses and might switch to public transport. But when they realise, that about 75% of bus users and train users get a seat, and only 25% of trams users get a seat, they are not likely to switch. It doesn't make trams look better than buses, thats for sure. Do you really think people will give up the comfort of their cars for the almost certainty of STANDING on a lurching tram for 35 minutes twice a day ? Delusional.

Now, some people actually enjoy standing for prolonged periods on public transport. And many do not. I can walk for hours but standing still, I get pain after about 15 minutes. I can easily stand on public transport for 10-15 minutes, and often do, particularly in the PM, but for a longer period, it is major turnoff. I'll take my 75% chance of getting a seat on a bus or train, but a 25% chance of getting a seat on a tram is utterly unattractive to me as a transport option. And I say this as a carless person.

This crowding issue will be a factor even for weekend and off-peak discretionary journeys, not just standard weekday peak commuters. Claimed benefits of "system legibility" for casual users really don't make up for the tedium and discomfort of daily users standing for 35 minutes twice a day, compared to sitting on a (supposedly) less comfortable bus.

Booz and Co refer several times to possible disbenefits for commuters from south of Randwick and Kingsford, who are likely to be forced to change from buses to trams. They describe this as changing from a one-seat journey to a two-seat journey. This is deceptive and misleading, as for most tram users it is likely to be a no-seat journey.

The EIS is really defective as it does not disclose or discuss this issue at all, which is a major commuter issue, although it mentions a whole lot of pointless politcal correctness crap instead.

It is stated several times in the executive summary, that the tram service should "improve the customer experience". There seems to be very little actual evidence for this, and no attempt to balance the benefits ( lower variance in travel time ), with the dis-benefits - a huge cut in seating capacity compared to current bus service.

A proper EIS should disclose this issue, not avoid it, and if the claim that trams are more comfortable can be substantiated, then that case should actually be presented.

Spacing of stops along George St is poor. There is no stop anywhere near King street. the stop south of market street should be relocated to between market and king street, to improve stop spacing.

In technical paper 1, part B, page 117, the figure 3-11 makes no sense.

According to this figure, the largest number of boardings is at the Surry Hills stop. This seems totally implausible. Are the vertical bars on this chart mis-labelled ? It seems to me, this very tall bar on the chart refers to passengers boarding at Central and headed towards UNSW ?

A light rail connection to UNSW and POWH will be really helpful for staff and students. For 20 years I've had to drive 20km from home to the university because public transport was so difficult. (drive to Riverwood station, train to Central, bus to UNSW). I finished work between 10 and 11 pm, when buses didn't run back to central often (if at all) and female travelling alone at that time every night not without concerns. I hope the rail will run in evenings, even if not frequent; as long as it runs to timetable that would be fine.

With the changes that I have seen to the buses would it not be sensble to extend the trams so that they finish further down Coogee Bay Road potentially at the beach in coogee. The road from high cross park down the hill is very wide so i would imagine that there would be enough space. It would be usefiul if the end of coogee bay road by the beach was pedestrianised like George st in the city as this would make it more family friendly with just trams going down it.

As both a climate change researcher and a financially-constrained resident of Randwick, I am well aware of the need for UNSW and Randwick TAFE students and staff to have to access to several options for convenient, environmentally friendly public transport.

This is an outstanding and long overdue proposal.
It shows that the government is committed to improving the public transport system in Sydney.

The route to Moore Park from the city is flawed, and will be a disaster for the city and Surry Hills.
The route should be:- Phillip St at Circular Quay into Elizabeth St past all the existing Eastern Suburbs bus stops along Hyde Park, left into Liverpool St then into Oxford St, up to Taylor Square, then right into Flinders St, south to Anzac Parade and then onto Randwick etc.
This will service the greatest number of people '24/7' with minimal disruption to the city, cheaper and quicker to build, and in conjunction with a revised bus plan allow the City Council to have a real pedestrian Mall in George St, not one cluttered with a tram system and other service vehicles.

The route is a disaster waiting to happen for Sydney City and Surry Hills. George St is too narrow for these vehicles and other local authorised traffic as well between Hunter St and Town Hall. The destruction of Surry Hills is pending criminal activity. The route should be Phillip St at Alfred St at the Quay into Elizabeth St into Liverpool St into Oxford St into Flinders St then south to Anzac Parade onto Randwick and Kingsford. Simple, sensible, wide streets that can handle the infrastructure. No demolition of homes or relocation of people. Few if any trees to cut down. No tunnelling under Moore Park and Anzac Parade. The government's plan is madness.

I am in total agreement with a light rail project for CBD and South East area. Light rail is the way to go and we see leadership for light rail from many countries around the world. Bordeaux, France has particularly impressed me and its tram system doesn't rely on overhead cables but power generated through the tracks. The light rail project will help ease congestion in the Eastern suburbs and CBD as well as modernising our public transport system.

I am very pleased to see this development begin. I think it will be extremely useful in reducing current public transport congestion which exists on buses, especially in the Kensington area, as buses are normally full before they arrive in the AM peak.

I have no doubt it will be used extensively by residents and uni students.

I am all in favour of this project. It should plan for the possiblity of including Bondi Junction and Centennial Park to the network so that people can easily enjoy Centennial Park - perhaps splitting off after the Moore Park stop

I think it's a great idea! Sydney needs more public transport!

I Support to Ligh Rail service.

As a resident who lives with 100 metres of the proposed line I have a few concerns.

1. Parking
The loss of so many parking spots in Devonshire St will put pressure on parking in the local area. As highligted in the EIS the main problem is commuters who drive to the area and park for extended periods of time. I rarely see parking inspectors in the area. I continually see people parking for greater than the limit of 2 hours, who regularly come out, check for tyre marks then go back to their place of work.

The only way to combat this will be to implement parking meters ( with resident exemptions) in the whole area to force commuters to consider alternative forms of transport, ie the Light Rail. If parking is free as it is now, with little chance of being fined, people will not use other modes of transport. If there is a cost imposed for parking then, train/tram becomes a cheaper option for them.


2. Noise/Vibration

This may be a concern. I have lived in Melbourne and find the constant "Ding" of the tram bells very annoying. The EIS does state that this will be limited to emergency warnings only. This does need to be monitored. There also needs to be a method for residents to report excessive noise from the Trams.

Consideration needs to be given to using low vibration/noise tracks along the entire length of Devonshire St. The EIS only talks about the use of this special track outside a Recording Studio only.

Underground Underground Underground.

Other countries manage to take a long term view. Please remember that this infrastructure will last for potentially hundreds of years if done properly. An underground system will last maybe forever.

People are prepared to the extra for something like this that will last forever and benefit so many.

Underground allows for better pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle (public and private buses etc). Underground will allow faster travel for those utilising buses etc.

Why would we want to install an new form of transport only to take away the efficacy of others.

I cannot imagine what our city or country would be like if our previous governments didn't plan for the future or try to do the very best they could.

Please leave the surface for people to enjoy to walk and sit and play in the most densely populated and visited part of the country. George Street as a boulevard would be super.

I am also feeling very sorry for the residents in Surry Hills whose lovely homes and tree instead streets will be destroyed because of this project. This is doubly disappointing because there are options.

I am positive that people want underground transport systems both rail light or heavy and roads. I also feel that most people would be happy to pay extra to have things done properly and because the extra amortised over hundreds of years makes it excellent value.

Thanks heaps
parris

To whom it may concern,

Construction and operation of a light rail service from Circular Quay to Kingsford and Randwick via Surry Hills sounds like a good plan but should not create new transport problems for residents who rely on existing and effective bus routes. There are two issues addressed in this submission: (1) journey times, and (2) accessibility.

(1) Journey times

The existing X73 and X74 bus routes from Coogee to the CBD take 26-27 minutes (all bus route estimates provided by the NSW TransportInfo website). Experience shows that, when the time required to walk to/from the bus stop and waiting for the bus is added (about 18 minutes), the typical current commuting time in the morning is 45 minutes, and slightly longer in the evenings.

There have been reports that, once the light rail is in operation, most of the Coogee-based bus routes will travel only as far as the proposed Randwick interchange, with commuters to the city then required to switch to a light rail service. The Sydney Light Rail website estimates that the Randwick Interchange to Wynyard journey will take 26 minutes. Added to this must be the 13 minute bus journey from Coogee beach to Randwick, which makes for a 39 minute journey. The time required to walk to and from the bus and light rail and wait for connections must be added to this journey (18 minutes). A conservative estimate for the total commuting time in this scenario is therefore 57 minutes.

If the express bus services from Coogee are abolished and commuters therefore required to use two transport modes, the commuting time will increase by 13 minutes, or 27 per cent.

Though it is less clear if bus services to and from Clovelly beach will be affected by the light rail proposal, please note that, if they are affected, the issues raised above should also apply to the X40, X39 and 339 bus routes. In this case, the 339 route is included as the main commuter route because the X40 and X39 routes are very unreliable.

It is recommended that the State Government implement the light rail service but continue to provide the existing express bus services to and from the Coogee and Clovelly areas (339, X39, X40, X73, X74).

(2) Accessibility

Commuting is, for most people, an experience to be endured rather than enjoyed. The best way to get through the experience is to find a comfortable spot and read a book or listen to music while letting the bus driver take care of the business of driving to your destination. A requirement to switch transport modes adds effort and time to journeys when compared with direct routes.

These issues are particularly important for people with reduced mobility, such as pregnant women, fathers with strollers and the elderly. There have been reports that, once the light rail is in operation, most of the Coogee-based bus routes will travel only as far as the proposed Randwick interchange, with commuters to the city then required to switch to a light rail service. If this happens, people with reduced mobility will be discouraged from using the service and are likely to either drive their car more often (which will negate the congestion-reducing benefits of the light rail system) or stop using the service (harming the quality of life for these people).

Though it is less clear if bus services to and from Clovelly beach will be affected by the light rail proposal, please note that, if they are affected, the issues raised above should also apply to the X40, X39 and 339 bus routes. In this case, the 339 route is included as the main commuter route because the X40 and X39 routes are very unreliable.

It is recommended that the State Government implement the light rail service but continue to provide the existing express bus services to and from the Coogee and Clovelly areas (339, X39, X40, X73, X74).

Thank you for your consideration of this submission,

Jonathan.