Sydney CBD Light Rail

I strongly object to this majorly flawed and ill thought out project with virtually NO COMMUNITY CONSULTATION.

I strongly object to the South East Light Rail. i have major concerns about the total lack of community consultation and the total lack of local knowledge of planners. the impacts to the communities of Randwick, Kensington, Kingsford and the surrounding areas will be disastrous.

I do not have a car and rely on public transport including to travel to work in Westmead from Coogee. I was very excited to hear about the South East Sydney Light Rail proposal. However, there are a number of issues with the EIS that I would like to raise:

1. The EIS shows that High Cross Park as a park will disappear : The Park is where the trains will terminate and a terminus and associated rail lines will occupy much of the Park. The Park will also be the bus terminus and two sides will be carved out to serve dozens of buses and their passengers as they transfer to and from the rail. What little of the Park remains will be concreted to facilitate the transit pedestrian usage.

The majority of trees, many of which are on the Randwick Significant Tree register, will go. The lawns and garden beds will go. The only public green space in this built up part of Randwick will disappear. The peace and quiet will go.

High Cross Park is a Heritage Conservation area. The citation for this reads "High Cross Park has aesthetic significance as one of Randwick';s major urban areas". This part of the Randwick Ridge was "one of the first parts of the City to be developed, and was historically the most important". High Cross ''is widely recognised by the community as a central and identifying element of Randwick's historical landscape. High Cross Reserve was an early focal point for social gatherings in the village". [High Cross: Heritage Conservation Area - Council website]. I often take the 370 or M50 or 372 or 373 past this park and get much enjoyment of the beauty of the park. I would be sad to see the park as it is today lost.

Another problem with the siting of the terminus in High Cross Park is that Avoca Street will have many traffic jams with the trams automatically setting the lights to green every 3 minutes either way blocking traffic along Avoca St from Belmore Rd.


I would strongly recommend relocating the terminus closer to the hospital or, by rerouting the line, in some other location all together.

2. Local bus routes from Coogee and Maroubra will either cease (373, 376, M50) or terminate at the Park (377).
As someone without a car I appreciate a variety of bus routes taking me in all directions. I currently use the 373 to take me towards the different locations along and near Oxford St - such as Kings Cross, the Chauvel Cinema.
I use the M50 to go to the hospital and university, Central Station and to Drummoyne to visit a friend.
Often the 376 is a quick alternative to return from Eddie Avenue to the corner of Alison and Belmore Rd, Randwick (for a change to the 374 or X374 at Randwick) when the 374 does not appear, or drives past full at Eddie Avenue ( a frequent occurrence around 6pm or so).

Good public transport enhances our economic and social lives, it should link different business and cultural areas of the city so it is a more dynamic, safe and enjoyable place to live. We need to discourage the use of the private car when possible. Public transport needs to be frequent and there needs to be a variety of choices available to allow for quick movement from place to place. Not endless waiting and changing of different forms of transport. The Light Rail should complement the bus services that exist, not replace them.
Please reconsider the cessation of the 373, 376 and M50 bus routes.

3. The EIS shows no Rail stop outside the POW/Sydney Childrens' hospitals. Currently buses from and to many destinations stop right outside the hospital entrances. With the Rail this will not be the case. Patients, visitors and staff will have to make their way up/down High St, across Avoca Street to the Park.
I visit my Cardiologist in Prince of Wales Private Hospital (accessed via the Children's Hospital). Often I wait at the stop outside the Children's Hospital and indeed there are many people who would find it more difficult to work from a Terminus at High Cross Park: including older people, disabled people in wheel chairs, woman and children in prams and sick people with not much energy.
Please include a stop at the Children's Hospital

4. 700 mature trees will go - along Anzac Pde, Allison Rd and High Cross Park . This I find sad and possibly it is unnecessary.


5. The distance between the stops is much greater than the current bus stop disadvantaging the elderly, families (parents with prams) and the incapacitated. Furthermore there is inadequate or no parking at stops.
Please consider adding more stops.

Generally, I have concerns about the maximum capacity of light rail and while traffic congestion in the city has been raised as justification for light rail, consideration of a congestion charge to the CBD area might be a simpler means to addressing traffic congestion in central Sydney. It should be noted that currently buses are only a minority of vehicular movements in central Sydney.

Specifically for the Randwick / Kingsford part of the proposal, I have the following comments and concerns:
Route along Anzac Parade
& stabling facility at corner of Doncaster Avenue and Alison Road
Clearly, there will be impacts on commercial viability of shops on Anzac Parade (particularly in Kensington, compared to Kingsford which is more vibrant), for which providing additional (angle) parking in side streets can only partially compensate. The potential for adverse impact of vehicular traffic on Anzac Parade is also reduced
There is also the issue of tram coaches utilising the Kingsford branch of the line having to return to Anzac Parade north of its intersection with Alison Road and then utilise the Randwick branch of the line to access the stabling facility.
To address both these issues I suggest investigations be undertaken to the line branching at the intersection of the Doncaster Avenue and Alison Road (that is at the stabling facility) and running the Kingsford branch of the line on what is predominantly Racecourse land parallel to Doncaster Avenue (rear of properties on the southern side of Doncaster Avenue). Obviously, this revised route would provide direct access to the stabling facility for trams on the Kingsford branch.

The revised route would also reduce impacts on traffic flow and on the commercial viability of shops on Anzac Parade in Kensington. Currently there are 2 stops proposed in Kensington, the most northerly could be moved further north to that part of the line at the intersection of Alison Road and Anzac Parade which would provide better access for residents in the Moore Park area (being the western end of Dacey Avenue which forms part of the Alison Road and Anzac Parade and Alison Road intersection). The proposed Todman Avenue stop would also be moved northerly in the Racecourse land to the eastern end of Ascot Avenue, just following its' intersection with Doncaster Avenue. This would mean access be approximately 100 m south of Anzac Parade, but this is unlikely to have a significant impact on patron usage and is in keeping with tram stop locations for the inner west tram line. The number of conflicts with Racecourse vehicle access would be much less than that if the tram ran along Anzac Parade and the Racecourse would benefit from having two tram stops located at the east and west boundaries of their site, with the majority of vehicular traffic to their site utilising the gate on High Street, which benefits from traffic signals.

Route to Randwick -
Alignment along Wansey Road & Randwick terminus
In my view a minimum of one parking lane and one through traffic lane (most likely southbound) is essential. However, I would prefer that 3 lanes of road surface be provided, being one parking lane (adjacent to the residences) and south and northbound through traffic lanes be provided. To enable this, the small nature strip on the east side of Wansey Road (outside the residences) could be utilised for parking. I am aware of proposals for the light rail to be located at various locations on Racecourse land mainly parallel to Wansey Road, but appreciate the additional cost in these proposals and further reduction in Racecourse land. Obviously, there is the need to maintain cycleway access from Alison Road to the University of NSW.

One layout could be (from east) - existing footpath, parking, 2 through traffic lanes, 2 tracks of light rail on Wansey Road and then a pedestrian footpath & cycleway within the Racecourse boundary (to replace the existing which adjoins the Racecourse boundary) - which would be of lower cost than locating the light rail within the Racecourse land as well as opening up public access to part the Racecourse land via the footpath and cycleway. An alternative layout could be having the northbound traffic lane west of the light rail, this configuration reducing the conflict between traffic and light rail (as well as maintaining an alternative vehicular access to the Racecourse) and ensuring the light rail tracks are located further away the steep embankment at the boundary with the Racecourse land.

I support the provision of the terminus of the Randwick branch of the light rail at High Cross Park. While some concerns have been raised about the loss of trees and green space and the impact on the war memorial, High Cross Park provides the most efficient means for transfer between bus and rail. In my view, High Cross Park has limited open space amenity (and the existing trees are most likely towards the end of their life anyway) due to high traffic circulation on all three sides and with appropriate perimeter treatment (e.g. fencing water feature), the war memorial might better retain a sense of reflection, but be noticed by more people as they interchange, a parallel with the war memorial in Martin Place is apt, this being a completely paved space, passed by thousands each day, but memorial events are successfully held there, the largest being Anzac Day which is held at dawn. It should also be noted that Coogee Bay Road, is wide at the western (High Cross park) end, which will better facilitate the necessary turn back tracks required.

While a tram stop in High Street, at the hospital entrance opposite Clara Street would be beneficial to hospital visitors, I consider there would be unacceptable pedestrian /tram/ motor vehicle conflict in this location and I think that passengers for this destination will only be a minority of patrons (albeit a significant minority in the PM peak patient visiting period) and the walk back to the hospital is less than 100 metres. Indeed, the Prince of Wales hospitals should consider better defining the pedestrian entry from Avoca Street (approximately opposite Cuthill Street, and very close to the Randwick light rail terminus, as this would provide a more central pedestrian route to the various hospital wings than the current entry from High Street. I also keen to keep High Street open as a through traffic route, the impact of traffic displaced from High Street on Belmore Road would be beyond the capacity of this already congested area, which is a vibrant commercial hub.

Though not a resident of the Eastern Suburbs, I am a very frequent visitor - next week will be my tenth trip - and one who is never tired of extolling the beauty of the whole district. The trees which are threatened with destruction are among the most beautiful and elegant in the area, a fact that is no doubt partly related to their age. They embody a rich period of development within the suburb and their demise would be a very sad loss. Of course good public transport in Sydney is vital , and light rail is an excellent means of enhancing it, but, in the interests of the environment currently enjoyed by residents, I would urge you to spare Allison Road and its environs. I have close family members on Allison Road and other addresses in Randwick; I should like my grandchildren's surroundings to be as beautiful as those enjoyed by their parents and grandparents.

It seems hugely unnecessary and extremely sad that there is a proposal to remove these beautiful trees from along the racecourse in Randwick. I can't think of one good reason why this would seem an appropriate thing to do. The trees are beautiful, they bring life to an already too heavily industrial world. They provide us with oxygen, improve air quality and give our precious wildlife a home. I often stop with my toddler to admire the beauty of the leafy suburbs of Sydney. And as is instinctive of the human being she appreciates and understands the value of nature. Please don't take that away and turn our world grey.

DON'T LOOSE THOSE BEAUTIFUL ENVIRONMENT

South east light rail Concerns

During construction.

1) Exposed to extra heavy traffic congestion.
2) Exposed to extra noise and vibration on weekends and nights (as test was carry away from residential area)
3) Travelling on Anzac Pde east bound only 1 right turn will be permitted at Todman Avenue.
4) Loss of parking in front of house



Once completed
A) Tree removal
B) Loss of parking.
C) Additional noise
D) No right turn

Tree removal; will not only have visual impact, but all units facing street Anzac Pde will loose valuable shade provided by big Fig tree. Loosing this natural shade will increase extra sunshine in bedrooms facing northwest resulting increase of heat in dwelling and loosing privacy.

Loss of parking; Anzac Pde 68-70 is building of 12 units with limited parking at rear (4 parking spaces and 3 garages). Due to this parking shortage some residence of 68-70 Anzac will be experiencing hardship to find limited free street parking. Over 2 hour parking permit is require in most are around at extra cost to residence.

Additional noise: As Anzac Pde is quite noisy already, now heavy tram on rail will increase noise. Planed stop and traffic light on corner of Anzac Pde and Carlton Street will significantly affect area with increase noise.
Every time tram leaving stop using bell and every time on green lights car accelerating resulting higher noise and pollution.

No right turn; travelling city bound along Anzac Pde only one right turn will be permitted at Todman Avenue.(Current right turn in to Doncaster rd, Carlton and Abbotford street will be lost) This will increase extra congestion on Anzac Pde and Todman avenue traffic light right turn. As there will be NO right turn after Todman Avenue this will significantly inconvenience all residence of 68-70 Anzac Pde.

My objection the use of Devonshire Street. It is an important bicycle connection to the Bourke Street and Moore Park bicycle routes and should be maintained (or improved!) for cyclists and pedestrians accessing the Central heavy rail station entry and the sport fields at Moore Park.

While I support light rail, I object to the route in the proposed City and South East Light Rail project from Central through Surry Hills, along Devonshire Street to Moore Park West.

I have lived in Surry Hills for nearly 20 years and I use public transport for 99.9% of my transport needs - as do my 3 teenage children who travel daily by public transport to either Vaucluse or Lane Cove for school. As such, we are very familiar with the area, and the public transport system, and use all transport modes - bus, train, ferry, and light rail. If the proposed City and South East Light Rail project is built, we will inevitably become frequent users as it becomes integrated into the network - but we would like to see it built such that it is enhances our suburb of Surry Hills, rather than merely cutting through in an unnecessary mean fashion to expedite passengers to the SCG or UNSW or beyond.

The proposed route is not well thought out from the perspective of how Surry Hills functions, both commercially and socially, particularly at night. If you live in Surry Hills, you know that there are areas you go, and others you don't, particularly at night. Ward Park and some adjacent blocks are simply not the safest areas to be left on your own at night. I appreciate that recently the City of Sydney has suggested that by recreating and energising the nearby commercial street of Holt Street, that the area may change. But the fact remains that the predominate land user in the areas adjacent to the Devonshire Street route, and at the Ward Park stop in particular, is HousingNSW. Their mega housing blocks adjacent to Ward Park have long been part of our local community, and must remain so. However, for a public transport user, whether a local person or a visitor coming to Surry Hills for its restaurants and other activities, there needs to be a better route.

I support the subsurface route along Foveaux Street with stops, and then onward to a cut and cover of Moore Park West as the light rail heads to Anzac Parade. This would be a better solution for the suburb of Surry Hills, for the local people, the local businesses and the many visitors to the great restaurant culture that has developed in Surry Hills. And with a greater diversity of land ownership and housing types adjacent to Foveaux and Crown Streets, with its mix of private as well as public HousingNSW housing at more sustainable levels, there is room for future growth and development of the adjacent areas that will come to utilise and value the tram.

Accordingly, I ask the TfNSW to reconsider the route from Central through Surry Hills. There is a better way to go about this and I ask that TfNSW think beyond the common walking route used along Devonshire Street for the Sydney 2000 Olympics and the World Youth Day 2008, and think more broadly. The subsurface route along Foveaux Street is a better option for Surry Hills. While I understand that the City of Sydney has recently suggested that this route conflicts with underground infrastructure and historical archaeological features like the 1889 Bondi Ocean Outfall Sewer, I put it to TfNSW to move beyond this. If Rome can put a light rail/metro stop at the Roman Colosseum, it should not be too hard to imagine that Sydney could manage a tram stop at Foveaux Street.

High Cross Park, Randwick. I strongly object to any change of use to Hign Cross Park. It is a haven for residents, staff of various organisations and for many folk, just a green beautiful oasis for a quiet reflection. There are many units in the area, without gardens, so this park is used for their enjoyment. The Park is very speciial. A Victorian 1858 park, Mayor Simeon Pearce thought the vacant land had air of an english village and began to called the area High Cross. Simeon Peace and his fellow alderman proclaimed the Municipality of Randwick in March 1859.at High Cross Park. Mayor Pearce came from Randwick in Gloucester in England, and always held High Cross Randwick close to his heart - how wonderful and from that time, High Cross has been the heart of City of Randwick, and remains close to its residents and visitors alike. Hence the War Memorial and its delightful gardens.. HIGH CROSS PARK IS SACRED LAND. PLEASE LEAVE THE PARK AS IS.I thank you for your assistance.
CARS SPACES IN ALISON ROAD. P:lease do not take away car parking in Alison Road, Randwick, between Darley Road and Cowper Street. It would be dangerous not having a line of vehicles protecting persons from the roadway. Also parking is now a premium, especially on TAFE and UNSW days (King St).
I support the concept of light Rail.. Maurfeen Norbury.

I object to the light rail plan as it stands. Access to the hospitals will be much more difficult for staff and patients with no stop outside the POWH or Sydney Children's Hospital. It is a long way for disabled or elderly patients to walk from high cross park where the interchange will be located. Also, there is very little parking on the hospital site and introduction of the light rail will lead to a huge decrease in on street parking. Many parents attending the children's hospital travel some distance and need somewhere to park. There is already enormous congestion around high cross park in the mornings. Locating the light rail interchange there will only make this worse. Also, this part of Randwick is dominated by buildings. The loss of so many trees to accommodate the light rail will tip the balance further in that direction. I believe that having green space, or at least trees, in areas where there are large numbers of people is important for the well being of those people.

We support the overall goal of the project to provide reliable public transport for commuters and improve and expand public space and amenity. We do not, however, support the means you propose of achieving this. We believe that most the your goals could be achieved with a less costly and disruptive scheme, particularly to the South East suburbs.

The main issue that the CSELR seeks to address seems to be congestion in the CBD caused by buses, especially in George Street. The buses removed by the CSELR do not travel along George Street, as far as we know by checking the bus route maps. They mostly use Elizabeth Street. You say that you intend to make Elizabeth St the main N-S bus route with higher bus priority levels.

Alternative proposal for trial
We suggest that, prior to implementing the CSELR proposal, a one to two year trial is conducted with buses only instead of light rail in George St (except for commercial vehicles) from, say, Liverpool St or Rawson Place to, say Grosvenor or Bridge Sts, in peak hour. Outside peak hour, normal traffic could be resumed except for the pedestrian/bus only precinct in George St between Hunter and Bathurst St. Any decisions on light rail should be made after completion and assessment, and extensive community and passenger consultation, of such a trial.
This could be combined with a move to gas-powering all buses, and utilising more 'bendy' and double-decker buses. This proposal would reduce pollution, costs and be far less disruptive to the SE suburbs. It would also save hundreds of significant trees.

Consultation with community and stakeholder throughout the year.
As residents of Randwick, we have only recently become fully aware of the extent and potential impact of the project, and we know many other in the same position. We do not think that there has been enough time or information for affected residents to update themselves and respond. We therefore respectfully request that you lengthen the timeframe for information sessions and response to allow for proper and informed consultation.

Buses v CSELR
Your justification for the change from buses to light rail for the SE is that there are unreliable journey times and a confusing network of buses. What is your evidence for this? By what means did you ascertain this? Surveys of passengers? Complaints?

Loss of trees
We object to the loss of trees and wildlife habitat along the LR corridor, especially old and significant trees in High Cross Park (Cook pines and figs) and along the Allison Road and Anzac Pde corridors (especially along Wansey Road - palms, and figs in the Racecourse; figs along Allison Road; and figs in the UNSW grounds in Anzac Pde). The figs are important to the threatened grey-headed flying fox.

Parking
We object to the loss of parking in Randwick, and do not accept that there are sufficient spaces to take up the slack. The suburban streets in Randwick-Kensington-Kingsford are currently parked out by UNSW students, and your plan will exacerbate this, as will increased on-campus accommodation about to come on stream. UNSW should be persuaded to provide sufficient parking on campus for all their staff and students prior to any development that will exacerbate the current parking issues.

Traffic
You state that the CSELR will not have a significant impact on the performance of the broader road network. We believe the current route for the LR in the SE will cause traffic congestion at key points, especially the 5-way junction of High, Belmore and Avoca, the junction of Anzac And Allison, and wherever the LR crosses the road at Anzac Pde (2 places at UNSW) and Allison (at Doncaster Ave).
We also think that most of the car drivers will not move the LR. Apparently Infrastructure NSW said in October that "private road transport is - and will remain - the only viable option for most journeys in Sydney most of the time". This is so in the SE, where not all commuters are travelling to the CBD, but many are travelling across the SE to reach other destinations.

Pollution
You claim that LRVs are less polluting. Surely they just move the pollution elsewhere, to the source of the electricity which is, for the most part, coal fired power stations outside Sydney which are over producing carbon dioxide. Moving the bus fleet to all gas-powered vehicles, with more 'bendy' buses and double-deckers would be less polluting.

Community values and local economic benefits
You outline some community values you believe will be fulfilled by the CSELR. What is your evidence for your statements in relation to the SE suburbs? How will it enhance access to public spaces and community facilities? How will it enhance urban connectivity and liveability? How will it improve social sustainability?
How will it increase business activity in Randwick? Where is your evidence for the need for urban renewal and a UAP in Randwick?

We strongly support further investigation and ongoing and meaningful consultation with affected councils and local residents prior to any final decision.

In the document there is mention of the canopies that will protect the passengers from the weather. I would like to suggest that they provide proper protection from the weather (not just if the rain is falling straight down for example). The protection should extend to the bus stops and train stations so the passengers will be protected from the weather when they transfer from one form of transport to another.This may seem obvious but this has been overlooked in recent constructions (eg the new Chatswood and Macquarie University stations). This protection is particularly important at the Kingsford, Randwick, Central Station and Rawson Place stops.

Has any thought been given to extending the light rail down Parramatta Road? I've noticed when travelling on any bus that goes down Parramatta Road that about half the passengers get off the bus before it leaves Parramatta Road.

As a business owner at Nine Ways, Kingsford, I am concerned about the negative impact the construction phase will have on my business.

Are you able to tell me when you predict, pending approval, construction at Nine Ways will commence and how long the contruction phase will take to complete?

Also, are there any plans for compulsory takeovers of any of the existing commercial properties at Nine Ways to make way for the Light Rail?

Finally, are businesses being compensated for loss of business during the construction of the Light Rail.

Thank you

As a resident who lives just outside of the area where CBD and South East Light Rail (CSLER) patrons reside, I looked at the 100s of pages within the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and was unable to find benefits of the project in the short or long term.

If this project goes ahead, the CSLER would be terrible for Sydney because the benefits to every day commuters are negligible and the cost and disruption of the CSLER project and ongoing operations do not outweigh the benefits. The following facts are the basis for this feedback:

- The 90% of commuters who will board the CSLER at the Randwick and Kingsford terminus points will have longer and more complex commutes.
- Communities that are not along the CSLER route were not consulted in the development of these plans. As a result, the net increase in commute times, complication and delay of commutes by requiring a bus to CSLER transfer rather than a direct bus ride in to town have not been correctly considered. In addition, the change of the 9 ways roundabout into an intersection which limits the directions which traffic can flow will rescue the quality of life in the area.
- Commute times for those in private vehicles and buses are likely to be significantly extended post construction of the CSLER (this in addition to the obvious extended commute times during construction).
- The benefit of mitigating the proposed 4% increase in traffic within the CBD is too small to actually count the change as a benefit.
- The CSLER only increases passenger capacity by 33%, which is only required for special events.
- The proposed bus lane and private vehicle lanes in Kensington/Kingsford on Anzac parade are inconsistent between the various diagrams and unclear. Therefore, it is not possible to assess the environmental impact of the CSLER in this area.
- It is unclear whether the revised road usage on Anzac Parade will continue to allow for safe joint usage of the roads for cyclists and motor vehicles. As Anzac Parade is a common cyclist route, it is key that the roads remain safe for combined usage.
- The attraction to tourists around the Circular Quay terminus will be reduced because of the sound pollution from a tram service.
- The CSLER will be going to locations where there is currently bus transportation only. However, only 24% of the overall public transport users ride buses. Therefore, the population to utilise this service is not significant.

Based on the above detriments of the CSLER I trust that the proposal will be reconsidered find a solution where the positive outcomes actually outweigh the negative outcomes of this public transport proposal.

Kind Regards

Maroubra Resident

I'm writing in reference to the Sydney Light Rail proposal for Pedestrian passage between Bathurst and Hunter St. on George Street.

I am a resident of the Tower Building in Market Street having parking access via George St entrance between Dymocks and Myers.

As I am sure you are aware this development impacts on the access to the car parking driveway entrance to the garage of this building.

I have a number of concerns regarding access to the car parking station.

My concern is that to get from George Street to Park street and then turning left towards the eastern suburbs towards William Street, the section between George and Pitt st is blocked to cars and only taxis and busses are allowed that short section of Park St. This small closed section would impact greatly on getting through to desired locations.

if residents were given special permission to drive along George Street, I have interstate and overseas visitors coming to stay and they would also need to have permission to enter George street and the car parking entrance. One or two local parking permits per apartment would not be sufficient to take care of the access towards the car park for visitors.

If the development goes ahead and the streets between Bathurst and Hunter will be closed for traffic and pedestrians will be rushing across George Street, how will any motorist avoid pedestrians being knocked over by passing cars, busses, trams(light Rail) delivery vans etc. Would it become a dangerous scenario.

In principle I don't have any objection to the light rail project but it has to be user friendly to the environment and to local residents. I believe that city living is encouraged by the city of Sydney local government and there are many residential buildings at present and new developments have been approved and being approved. Please have consideration towards the present residents and make sure they are equally satisfied with this new proposed project.

Regards
ERIKA KENNEDY

Contact:0411 300 055

Long overdue we urgently need this service.Public transport in Sydney has been treated as a dumping ground for bad policies .We who use Public transport are treated like inferior beings who have to accept bad service and lack of investment.
The opal card needs to be speeded up.Sydney is the biggest and most important city in Australia.
Stop the disrespect to sydneysiders and tourists alike.
Lets have a first class Transport service we can be proud of!!

Whilst normally in favour of public spend on public transport, I strongly OPPOSE this proposal in its current form.

This is for a very simple reason - it does not provide any faster trips than the existing bus services. This proposal is proposing to spend large amounts of money and permanently disrupt traffic to the CBD, all to put a service in that will make public transport commuters no better off and other commuters worse off.

No matter which way you spin the message 34 mins from Kingsford to Circular Quay as outlined in the proposal brochure is actually SLOWER than the current bus service which takes 25-30 mins.

There is an alternative which is to do this properly, spend the additional money and build an UNDERGROUND HEAVY rail service from one of the CBD rail stations to Eastern Suburbs with stops at UNSW, Kingsford, Maroubra Junction and potentially La Perouse. That would mean significantly faster trips to the CBD for all concerned and no disruption to traffic. It would also mean no changing transport modes for commuters that need to get to different parts of the CBD. They could just get off the appropriate rail station such as central and change lines.

To give you an example of someone living in Kingsford travelling to CBD takes 25-30mins via bus, would take 34 mins via light rail (this proposal) but under my alternative this would be halved to approximately 15 mins without any disruption to traffic.

To give you an example of someone living in Maroubra travelling to CBD takes 40 mins via express bus. Under your proposal they cannot even make use of this service. Under my alternative they would be in the CBD within 20 mins.

I believe the south east light rail should be extended to at least maroubra junction as it has high density population and there are proposals to further build on the density of this area. This needs consideration to avoid frustrating many potential commuters in the future.