Sydney CBD Light Rail

I object to the substantial loss of parking along Alison Road. As an Alison Road resident without a garage it is already difficult for me & my family to find parking in the area. Also, it is difficult for visitors to find parking. Retaining parking on Alison Road will be especially important for my elderly mother who regularly makes visits by car. There must be another way to design the Light Rail alignment or route so that parking can be retained. Any traffic issues can be worked out through creative thinking & planning I imagine. Also, the Light Rail is supposed to be taking a substantial number of cars off the road, so traffic should be less of an issue.

I object to the location of the Randwick Interchange at High Cross Park. This is a beautiful park which is enjoyed by many hospital workers & patients so it deserves to be kept that way. I thought, when the Light Rail was proposed, that the stop was going to serve the hospital. So the stop should be at the hospital. It could have been designed so that the interchange would be underneath that new building development that is going up in the hospital near the top of High Street. The building could have been designed to accommodate an interchange on the ground or underground level. Further consultation working with the various stakeholders involved could lead to a better solution like this.

I object to the loss of a large number of trees, particularly in Randwick and around the racecourse on Alison Road and Wansey Road. These trees add value to my property. They provide shade and shelter from the hot afternoon sun, which is especially important since the days are only getting hotter. I do not want to have to spend more money on my electricity bill because I have to pump my air conditioning full blast on every hot & sunny day. The light rail should be redesigned so that it avoids any significant impacts to, and the removal of, so many large & healthy trees -especially around the racecourse.

The light rail should run wire free in Randwick like it will in George Street. Alison Road is flat, and there is already a lot of visual pollution from the electrical wires running overhead. Adding more wires will add to the visual clutter, making our residential viewpoints ugly.

I support the light rail because it aims to improve public transport. But I do not support these negative impacts that are associated with the current design in the EIS. These negative impacts such as loss of parking, loss of trees and loss of recreation areas need to be avoided. I wonder why Australia seems to lag behind the rest of the world in terms of intelligent planning. Improved public transport should not need to take away so much from the existing environment. It should be able to add to the existing amenities, without taking anything important away (such as trees and parking). Surely there are enough intelligent designers who can be employed to work out a better way of implementing this light rail so that will ensure more long-term benefits rather than so many drawbacks.

Thank you.

I wish to voice my opposition for the proposed design of the CSELR as described in the EIS. I do not agree with the proposal as stated in the document.

My high level concerns
1. No genuine community consultation
2. Devonshire street is not capable of being the spine of the SE Network / not sustainable
3. A vastly superior alternative route has been identified - Foveaux sub-surface
4. Unacceptable noise levels, and times through a densly populated suburb
5. Speed of the light rail vehicles
6. Construction impact on small businesses and residents
7. Dislocation of Surry Hills
8. Loss of Amenity
9. Acquisition of 69 homes
10. Traffic congestion
11. Loss of trees
12. Impact on parklands
13. Access to properties along the route - businesses, residents, elderly and disabled
14. Significant devalue on properties along the route with no compensation from the Government
15. Loss of car parking
16. Road closures during and post construction

In summary - a unique internationally renowned village becoming a major traffic corridor, with no net benefit

Business case - lacking in facts and data
The government has failed to provide a business case for the project as has been promised. Local engineers have developed an alternative cut and cover proposal for Foveaux St that delivers greater capacity to add another line, prevents traffic issues with major intersections, less residential impact, increased speed for light rail vehicles that will decrease travel times, less visual impact on the local area and no long term noise impact for residents.

The Government proposed route involves the demolition of 69 homes, impact on parklands and trees. It will also have the light rail having the right of way over 5 major roads and 17 minor roads. The light rail respects the existing traffic flow along the South East route until it does a bootleg from the Stadiums, under Anzac Parade/Moore Park, across the Ed, and then on grade across South Dowling, Bourke, Crown, Elizabeth and Chalmers Streets. A local engineer suggests that Foveaux Street is the most direct route.

The current plan details less buses and a reduction in current bus routes. The proposed light rail will not take the capacity and there are no plans for customers that utilise buses on the routes that will be stopped e.g. Foveaux St.

This route has short term construction issues as with any route selected but less impact longer term as it does not impede traffic or residential amenity. The Foveaux St route would also add a station in the centre of Surry Hills rather than one that is a 5 minute walk from Central station. The current route is not a sustainable route and I cannot offer my support. As a fallback I would request the Devonshire St route be a cut and cover. I do not however agree with the request for a second Surry Hills stop. The first is unnecessary due to the proximity of Central Station.
Transport for NSW should be required to demonstrate that these options were genuinely considered and provide comprehensive reasons as to why they were rejected. Transport for NSW should be required to provide a cost benefit analysis that compares light rail with other options such as more bus services. All documents used to determine the final route proposed by Transport for NSW including why other options were excluded, should be made public as a part of any approval, pointing out community concern that requests for associated documents under the Government Information (Public Access) Act have been refused. I also believe the proposed CSELR will reach capacity within a few years, precluding future expansions to other areas such as Maroubra and Botany. The final approved route must be able to expand services into the future.

Community consultation - complete lack of community consultation by all levels of government
There has been no community consultation apart from a resident-forced "information" session where the minister advised we had no choice but to accept the route and offered an A3 flyer as proof this was the best route. The community are not seen as stakeholders in relation to this project and have never been consulted. This is inappropriate.

Noise impacts on residents
Surry Hills is a quiet residential neighbourhood with occasional noise from traffic passing through, weekend visitors to the cafes/ shops on offer, and infrequent groups passing by to attend events at the SFS. The increased noise from these occurrences are explicable and do not last long, hence they feed the life of the suburb. The light rail proposal will see light rail vehicles passing every 2-3 minutes. This will see maximum noise of 75-83dB every time a vehicle passes. This is far in excess of the noises residents experience now.
The acceptable noise levels have also been changed by the state government to match those of heavy rail. This is hardly fair on residents and means there is no evening noise level where you would expect noise to ramp down. Residents are now expected to deal with "daytime" noise levels up until 10:00PM. The light rail is also expected to run until 1AM. This is unacceptable and stark difference to the current living conditions of resistants. We also understand the light rail vehicles may move all night to return to the opposite end of the line or for repairs. Again this is a very different prospect that is unfair to Surry Hills residents who enjoy a quiet suburban lifestyle despite being close to the city.
I also believe the noise levels measured by TfNSW were taken outside of a local pub. This is unacceptable as the premises in question has loud live music nights, salsa dancing and trivia nights with the windows open. This is not a fair representation of the usual amenity for locals.
Residents have also been advised they will be unable to install high, solid fences, double glazing, nor will there be any sound barriers. This is unacceptable, and TfNSW should bear this cost. Trains should also cease at 11:30PM. To reduce noise I also request trains be limited to 20KM per hour whilst traversing through this quiet, residential area, plus a continuous rail line to reduce noise at expansion joints and the maximum noise reducing beds be installed below the tracks.

With regard to construction noise I do not agree to 24 hour construction at any time. Surry Hills residents are already collateral damage for this project and should not be further subjected to round-the-clock construction.

Visual impact and loss of trees/ parklands
I am concerned with the large volume of trees that will removed along the route and in the parklands. There will also be a loss of parklands both following and during construction. Many people in the area either live in apartments or have very small yards. This loss of green space will hugely impact their living standards and wellbeing. All parklands should be replaced 1:1 with improvements.

There will be a large number of overhead cables introduced under the current plans. We request these cables (along with electrical cables) be placed underground to reduce the visual clutter and enable trees to be planted to replace those being cut down.

Residents in Surry Hills rely on parks and open space. Many properties have either a small or no yard, and require open space for health and fitness, for relaxation, for children to play, to exercise pets and for recreational sports.

Safety
Safety is a consideration in this built up area as; Devonshire Street has numerous licensed venues, there are 2 child care centres on Devonshire Street, a school on Bourke St, access required to the church for weddings/ services/ funerals, and 1,000 residents of Northcott building.

The safety issues need to be fully reviewed by independent consultants and the full reports made available. The trains must be restricted to a maximum of 20kmph through this section.

Parking
I an area where parking is at a premium, Surry Hills already has serious parking issues. The rail project looks to remove a further 155+ just on Devonshire Street alone. Whilst we wish to reduce reliance on cars, many residents do need them for work and family life. If the rail project is to proceed we request Resident/Commercial Only spaces in selected areas and temporary parking permits for the occasional visitors of residents and also for tradespeople. This allows those that have a genuine need to park in the area - residents and businesses - greater access to dedicated parking.

Traffic
The Devonshire route crosses a number of major arterial roads. It is planned that the trams will have uninterrupted priority at all crossings. Indications are that at peak times, when the roads are their busiest, there will be a 45m train every 2-3min in each direction. A simple calculation means that a train will cross the arterial road approximately every 90 seconds. The trains are stated to be doubled in length when there are events at the Sydney Cricket Grounds and Sydney Football Stadiums, thus reducing this gap. The number of vehicles that can then cross-junctions at South Dowling, Bourke, Crown, Elizabeth and Chalmers, will be significantly reduced and access between the city and the South severed! The frequency of trains should be limited to a minimum of 5 minutes to ensure a suitable gap to allow pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles to cross in safety. TfNSW has offered no resolution n to the traffic problems that will be caused by the light rail.

Loss of homes
This route see the loss of at least 69 homes with people unable to buy back in the area they have made their home. Many residents are elderly and will not cope with the stress of this type so late in their life. The value of other residences and commercial buildings along the route will also be devalued with some residents already finding they are unable to sell their home due to the stigma of being on a major transport corridor. If this project was to proceed those residents should be compensated for the loss of value.

Businesses
TfNSW claim they have spoken to all businesses along the route however this is not correct and many businesses claim they have never been consulted. TfNSW advertised figures show only 100 businesses along the entire route have been surveyed. There are over 60 along Devonshire St alone and the impact on these businesses will be immense with many not being able to survive the construction period alone. Cafes and restaurants will have difficult time as the streetscape and amenity will be changed permanently with customers not wishing to sit to "enjoy" a meal with noisy trains going past at 75-83dB. These businesses residents form the heart of Surry Hills and this will ruin the suburb.

I object on the following grounds:

* EIS full of conflicting numbers and assertions - how can the community form an opinion with conflicting information, assertions and claims?
* Major claims and assertions do not have any justification or evidence provided
* EIS does not reveal underlying assumptions used to create estimated journey times nor justify why times have been reduced since the April 2013 brochure
* LR capacity can never be increased due to shared carriageway (TNSW consultant 2012 report)
* EIS claims 9,000 max passenger capacity but states 20 trains/hour max frequency (20 x 300 = 6,000) on pg 28, Volume 5 TP10 sn 1.5.5.3
* Frequency can never be increased due to adverse impact on major intersections (South Dowling, Lang & Anzac, Elizabeth St, Crown St & Devonshire etc).
* Light rail ONLY cuts traffic congestion GROWTH by 1% compared to no light rail
* Bus capacity being cut is up to 3x the capacity of the LR service capacity.
* LR proposal states 220 buses eliminated from Central to CQ in am peak hours (as buses stopped at Rawson Place to transfer to the LR that is already carrying Randwick/Kingsford passengers). 220 bus capacity is over 13,000 passengers/hour. Forced to get on LR with max capacity of 6,000 if totally empty.
* Loss of over 1,000 parking places along the route for up to 24 hours a day.
* Forcing local and cross-region traffic to rat-run through local streets in Surry Hills, Kingsford & Kensington due to elimination of over 70% of right turns from Anzac Parade
* Reduced safety for local school children, especially primary age, who have been totally left out of impacts in EIS.
* Local schools NEVER consulted by project team, only Sydney Boys High & Sydney Girls High known of.
* EIS contains many conflicting and misleading statements, {such as location of cycleway in Wansey Rd said to be on west side in multiple sections and on the east side in other sections}.
* Forecast numbers for UNSW (some used for capacity modelling) claimed current students around 37,000 and future target growth to 50,000. Yet actual current students around 50,000 and targeted growth is to 90,000 (& mentioned in other sections of EIS.
* LR will be the slowest Light Rail in the world, Melbourne is around 17-18 kmh for its trips, CSELR projected journey time provides sub 16 kmh trip speed. Yet EIS constantly claims LR to be 'fast and efficient'.
* Deleting 135 all stops per peak hour bus services AS WELL AS all UNSW express buses (48 per hour currently) and all express buses from Central to SBHS & SGHS.
* Detailed parking space losses inaccurate, eg: claim of 173 spaces near Souths understate actual amount by over 80 car spaces - what else is understated.
* Loss of trees and tree counts severely understated (eg: mentions several trees to be removed from High Cross Park in one section, mentions 18 trees in total in High Cross Park, actual trees in/on High Cross Park >30) inaccuracies cause no confidence in assertions made
* EIS does not clearly state all road closures, right hand turn closures, road direction changes nor additional traffic light signalisation nor changes to traffic signal durations - in any one (or six even combined Technical papers). How can community possibly understand implications.

The noise levels measured by TfNSW along Devonshire Street were taken outside of a local pub. This is unacceptable as the premises in question have loud live music nights, salsa dancing and trivia nights with the windows open. This is not a fair representation of the usual amenity for locals. The other noise measurement was taken along Parkham Lane, which is a no through road and have very minimal traffic.

To Whom it May Concern,

I am concerned about the Light Rail Project - in particular the planned route up Devonshire Street.

- I believe the size and frequency of the carriages through the heart of Surry Hills will dramatically effect in a negative way the quiet serenity and community feel of the suburb.

I therefore suggest the Foveaux sub-surface route, or indeed a surface route up Foveaux as it is a much busier, wider street with businesses that will effect less domestic residents including the residents of Olivia Gardens.

- I am concerned about the residents of Devonshire Street and what the effect will be to the trees on Devonshire Street.

I again suggest Foveaux St as a superior option as it negates this problem as it is more of a business district with less trees and indeed residents.

- As stated I am concerned about the residents of Olivia Gardens having to be forced to sell (at less than market prices).

I again suggest Foveaux St as a superior option as it negates the need to demolish an entire residential apartment block.

- I am concerned about the effect the Devonshire St route will have on Bourke Street Bakery, particularly the outdoor dining area.

I again suggest Foveaux St as a superior option as it negates the need to effect a business that has become an icon of the suburb.

- I am concerned as to what effect the Devonshire St route will have on Ward Park as it is very popular with residents, and dog walkers alike.

I again suggest Foveaux St as a superior option as it negates the need to effect a park that is essential to the suburb.

- I question the planned route up Devonshire Street as it results in tunnelling under a section of Moore Park at considerable cost.

I again suggest Foveaux St as a superior option as it negates the need to tunnel under Moore Park at significant cost.

I also suggest that if tunnelling under Moore Park is deemed as a financially viable option, why not tunnel under Foveaux Street?

If tunnelling under Foveaux Street is deemed impossible from an engineering perspective, surely a surface route up Foveaux is less expensive to taxpayers than tunnelling under Moore Park.

I therefore would like to know the costs of either route.

Overall, I feel that the planned route up Devonshire Street needs to be reconsidered as enormous 45 metre trains heading up and down what was a quiet, peaceful street in the heart of Surry Hills approximately every 5 minutes a street will effectively destroy the quiet community feel of the suburb forever.

I again seriously urge you to consider Foveaux Street as another option due to the reasons stated above.

Thank you,

Sean Masters

I do not agree with the CSELR as stated in the CSELR EIS.

My primary concern is within the Surry Hills section. There has not been consultation with people effected in the area. This suburb has grown into one of the top listed suburbs for village living and this makes the suburb a spine for transport to outer lying area's.
The items need te be addressed as follows:
1. Why have the alternatives of Foveaux and Devonshire streets been overlooked. This is a major spine and will clog the city road. Let's face it we all use the car on the weekends and roads still need to be in place.

2. South Dowling - Is this going to be clogged up more.
3. How are residents in devonshire streets going to access, homes, move homes.
4. Safety vehicles, Ie devonshire street residents will be impacted.
5. Noice levels through a once quiet street will be impacted.
6. Business along the route.
7. Additional traffic congestion on side streets
8. Lack of parking

The impacts are immence for this suburb and we need a reliable service that will not be stopped on a regular basis for people accessing homes, business on devonshire and effectively closing down south dowling. The government has to seriously think of underground access as to not totally close off the streets of Sydney. We all still drive.........

I support option 1b, as this route has the least environmental impact on the surry hills area

It will allow a strong physical and vegetation screening process through the residential area.

Surry Hills needs to be more Green.

Construction work are very noisy, particularly so at night when acoustics promote the transmission of noise.

From a radio interview that the Minister gave, I understand that 24/7 construction is one of the options for the CBD and South East light rail. Where I live at Kensington and also in Randwick and Kingsford, any works of this type both south and east of the Anzac Parade and Alison Road intersection will most certainly have a materially detrimental impact on a substantial number of residents in the already densely populated locality.

The Randwick, Kensington and Kingsford streets that are within a kilometre or so radius of the construction works are densely populated and the construction noise from overnight construction would most certainly disrupt or prevent a very substantial number of residents' ability to sleep and to rest. Without the guarantee of respite from the construction works noise each night and on weekends, predictable great distress and harm to their health would be caused to a very large number of residents whose lives will already be significantly disadvantaged by the impact of the construction works. It is plainly an excessive price to demand from these residents that they tolerate and endure the substantial disruption to their lives of the construction works, as well as the unrelenting noise from overnight and weekend works.

Under no circumstances is it appropriate for the construction works to be undertaken or carried out overnight, or on a Saturday after 1pm or on a Sunday at all, because of the very obvious and real material injurious health consequences that this would cause to residents, both in terms of their physical and mental condition. In short, there is no economic case that justifies inflicting the large number of impacted residents with the additional distress of overnight and/or weekend construction works. Therefore, please note this submission as a strong objection to works before 7am and after 6pm Monday to Friday and on the weekend, other than Saturday 8am to 1pm.

I am writing to express my significant concerns about the south east light rail proposal.
While I strongly support the provision of higher capacity public transport services to the Moore Park sports and entertainment precinct, Randwick Race Course and the University of NSW, I believe there are major shortcomings in the proposed solution that should be addressed before any decision is made to proceed.
Some of my many concerns include:
- The terminus interchanges at both Randwick and Kingsford will have disastrous consequences, as I have described in more detail in points below.
- The Randwick terminus interchange proposed for High Cross Park will have catastrophic implications for traffic in this already-busy area. Avoca Street is already very busy through Randwick. The additional impact of trams getting priority in both directions every few minutes, as well as interchanging buses clogging up the area, and pedestrians alighting from the trams and needing to cross back over Avoca Street to go to the hospitals and Randwick shops, will turn Avoca Street into a car park for most of every day, which will then impact on the buses trying to reach the interchange.
- The Kingsford terminus will cause similar problems. The Anzac Parade/Gardeners Road/Rainbow Street/Bunnerong Road intersection (currently roundabout and signals) is already a nightmare, but with light rail barging through with priority every few minutes, and substantial numbers of interchanging buses in the area, it will become disastrous. I would highly recommend that the interchange should be located well away from an intersection as busy as this.
- My understanding is that the intention is to extend the light rail to Eastgardens at a later stage. This would be a good idea as it could form a suitable location for a terminus interchange - there is already a minor bus interchange there. It would also fit in well with major developments that are currently underway in the Eastgardens and Hillsdale areas. Maybe consideration should be given to extending to Eastgardens in the first stage, which would remove the need for the Kingsford interchange.
- The lack of provision of a stop anywhere near the hospital entrances in High Street is inexcusable and shows a total lack of understanding of requirements. It is a substantial walk from High Cross Park to the hospitals, including crossing a major road - especially for sick and elderly people who frequent the hospitals and associated outpatient facilities.
- The decision to include Wansey Road as part of the route is appalling. The light rail route should only be located on roads that already carry relatively high volumes of traffic. Wansey Road is a quiet street that is one of the nicest streets in the area (note that I do not live in Wansey Road, so I am not just thinking of myself here). A better solution would be to move the light rail route to go via Alison Road/Botany Street/High Street, or alternatively go through the Randwick Racecourse, well away from Wansey Road (after all, one of the primary objectives of the light rail should be to service the racecourse).
- Many very old significant trees are impacted by the current plan, that with minor changes could be avoided.
- Targeted use of tunnels in key locations could address most of the concerns that I have raised. While I understand that cost has been the primary factor in most decisions related to the light rail, this should be a `do-it-once-and-do-it-right' scenario - not a scrimp and achieve a sub-standard solution situation. In other parts of Sydney very substantial motorways are being planned with extensive tunnelling at astronomical cost. Tunnelling of small sections of this light rail proposal would be much simpler and cheaper, and yet is being rejected on the basis of cost - a very short-sighted decision, and one that is inequitable in comparison to motorways being built elsewhere.
- Narrow footpaths on busy sections of Anzac Parade is a major safety concern.
- The light rail as currently planned will introduce the need for huge numbers of people to change from bus to tram and in many cases to change yet again to bus or train etc. Not only will this introduce huge inconvenience and inefficiencies, but also substantial extra cost to passengers. The Opal Card only considers trips on the same mode of travel to be extensions of the same trip - so hence each bus and tram segment will be charged as a separate trip. This problem has not been resolved in more than 15 years of trying to establish a new ticketing system in Sydney, so is unlikely to be resolved for this light rail system.
- There will also be major negative impacts on the quality of bus services for people who travel beyond the extent of the light rail services.
- Has proper consideration been given to instead deploying a Bus Rapid Transit solution using the same dedicated corridor. This could be achieved at lower cost, would provide far greater flexibility, would reduce the impact on bus services to areas outside the extent of the light rail, and would prevent the need for the terminus interchanges. The proposal could also investigate the use of emerging automated bus platooning technologies to link up buses to achieve light rail level efficiencies in common sections of the routes.
- Has proper analysis been carried out to ensure that the light rail will be able to accommodate the passenger load for race days at Randwick Racecourse, for major sporting events in the Moore Park precinct, and for the daily commuting of students to and from UNSW?
- I would suggest that if the Urban Activation Precinct plans for the East and South-East (Randwick, Anzac Pde, etc) are likely to proceed, then it will be almost certain that a predominantly-underground heavy rail solution would be necessary to achieve the required capacity moving forward. This would mean that the light rail would become almost immediately obsolete.
- Has proper consideration been given to the provision of a proper bicycle path in the Anzac Parade corridor. This almost flat terrain lends itself perfectly for a bike path, that would remove some of the strain from motorised modes of travel.

My concerns are:
1. Safety Issues. Devonshire St is a major pedestrian thoroughfare for residents walking to Central Railway and
2. Loss of car parking with no plan to replace places lost.
3. No compensation for properties along the route affected other than the compulsory aquisition of Olivia Gardens.

In addition, I cannot see the value in having stops at Grosvenor St, QVB, World Square & Rawson Place. Elimination these stops will speed up journey times without compromising access to stations to any large degree.
The funds saved could go towards building the underground route up Devonshire or Foveaux Sts!

Dear NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure,

SUBMISSION: Sydney CBD and South East Light Rail Project


I support the overall goal of the project, however the current design would have significantly adverse impacts on Moore Park & Randwick's environment & heritage & this concerns me greatly.

I object to the removal of 760 trees, many of which are significant trees & iconic to Sydney.

The current design would involve the removal of a total of up to 760 trees (including 280 in Randwick and 160 along the Kensington/Kingsford corridor). Such tree removal would result in significant losses of heritage & amenity value for these areas & residents. The positive psychological benefits these trees currently provide would also be lost. Also, these trees are iconic to Sydney. Every effort should be made to retain them.

The loss of 760 trees, many of the Figs, is a significant & unacceptable loss of habitat for the endangered grey-headed flying fox & other native wildlife.

The Light rail design should be reviewed & adjusted to avoid the loss of existing mature, healthy trees, especially in the areas of Moore Park, High Cross Park, Alison Road/Randwick Racecourse, Anzac Parade/Alison Road & Wansey Road/Randwick Racecourse.

The removal of the heritage trees along Alison Road/Randwick Racecourse can & should be avoided with repositioning of the Light Rail alignment.

Wire-free running (as planned for the George Street alignment) should be applied wherever possible, to avoid impacts on tree canopies & wildlife.

Qualified arboricultural advice should be employed during design & construction & the most recent methods for assessing trees & impacts should be employed, not such superseded methods as SULE. Your references were no later than 2002.

I object to the location of the Randwick Interchange at High Cross Park.

High Cross Park marks the junction of early walking tracks used by the Indigenous population & the first European visitors. Today, the park hosts a number of important civic & community ceremonies & provides green recreation space.

An interchange at High Cross Park would render the park unrecognisable, resulting in adverse heritage impacts to the park, as well as its surrounding conservation area.

The interchange should instead be placed on High Street where it would ensure easier hospital access, especially for those less mobile passengers. This would conserve High Cross Park as the focal point for Randwick's historical development & continue to provide a quiet oasis for all to enjoy.

I object to the proposed light rail alignment on Wansey Road.

The proposed alignment would result in the removal of a large number of significant trees that positively contribute to the visual & landscape character in & around the racecourse, as well as amenity value for pedestrians.

This alignment should be redirected into Royal Randwick Racecourse land. This would maximise potential for significant tree retention. This would also reduce the impacts upon the adjacent residential properties. Furthermore, it would improve the experiences of light rail passengers, as they will be able to enjoy the visual amenity provided by the trees.

I object to the location of the proposed Randwick light rail vehicle stabling facility at 66A Doncaster Avenue.

A stabling facility located here would have a significant negative visual impact to the area.

The light rail stabling facility should instead be located at the south-eastern corner of Randwick Racecourse.

I object to the removal of significant trees in Tay Reserve - corner Alison Road & Anzac Parade.

The area has heritage significance, associated with its landscape & tree planting.

Alternative options for light rail track alignment should be explored to minimise impacts to Tay Reserve.

I object to an above ground substation at High Cross Park.

At 10 metres long, 8 metres wide & 3.5 metres high, substations would have a negative visual impact & occupy highly valued public space.

Possibilities for relocation & underground placement of substation should be investigated.

I object to any loss of trees for the purposes of establishing construction compounds at High Cross Park, Tay Reserve & Wansey Road.

I object to any reduction in footpath width or capacity

I object to the loss of 704 on-street parking spaces along Alison Road, Wansey Road, High Street & the broader Kensington-Kingsford precinct. Alternate light rail alignment should be investigated in order to minimise loss of parking.

I am also concerned about flooding & erosion impacts, particularly as a result of the proposed developments around Randwick Racecourse.

I strongly support further investigation for improved design through ongoing & meaningful consultation with the affected local councils, as well as other relevant stakeholders, including local residents. City councils represent & protect the interests of their residents. Therefore their design preferences should be respected.

Lastly, I stress that a very large number of these trees are iconic to Sydney & this is important not only to residents, but also to the perception of Sydney by visiting tourists. Every effort should be made to retain these trees.

Thank you for your time.
Dear NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure,

SUBMISSION: Sydney CBD and South East Light Rail Project


I support the overall goal of the project, however the current design would have significantly adverse impacts on Moore Park & Randwick's environment & heritage & this concerns me greatly.

I object to the removal of 760 trees, many of which are significant trees & iconic to Sydney.

The current design would involve the removal of a total of up to 760 trees (including 280 in Randwick and 160 along the Kensington/Kingsford corridor). Such tree removal would result in significant losses of heritage & amenity value for these areas & residents. The positive psychological benefits these trees currently provide would also be lost. Also, these trees are iconic to Sydney. Every effort should be made to retain them.

The loss of 760 trees, many of the Figs, is a significant & unacceptable loss of habitat for the endangered grey-headed flying fox & other native wildlife.

The Light rail design should be reviewed & adjusted to avoid the loss of existing mature, healthy trees, especially in the areas of Moore Park, High Cross Park, Alison Road/Randwick Racecourse, Anzac Parade/Alison Road & Wansey Road/Randwick Racecourse.

The removal of the heritage trees along Alison Road/Randwick Racecourse can & should be avoided with repositioning of the Light Rail alignment.

Wire-free running (as planned for the George Street alignment) should be applied wherever possible, to avoid impacts on tree canopies & wildlife.

Qualified arboricultural advice should be employed during design & construction & the most recent methods for assessing trees & impacts should be employed, not such superseded methods as SULE. Your references were no later than 2002.

I object to the location of the Randwick Interchange at High Cross Park.

High Cross Park marks the junction of early walking tracks used by the Indigenous population & the first European visitors. Today, the park hosts a number of important civic & community ceremonies & provides green recreation space.

An interchange at High Cross Park would render the park unrecognisable, resulting in adverse heritage impacts to the park, as well as its surrounding conservation area.

The interchange should instead be placed on High Street where it would ensure easier hospital access, especially for those less mobile passengers. This would conserve High Cross Park as the focal point for Randwick's historical development & continue to provide a quiet oasis for all to enjoy.

I object to the proposed light rail alignment on Wansey Road.

The proposed alignment would result in the removal of a large number of significant trees that positively contribute to the visual & landscape character in & around the racecourse, as well as amenity value for pedestrians.

This alignment should be redirected into Royal Randwick Racecourse land. This would maximise potential for significant tree retention. This would also reduce the impacts upon the adjacent residential properties. Furthermore, it would improve the experiences of light rail passengers, as they will be able to enjoy the visual amenity provided by the trees.

I object to the location of the proposed Randwick light rail vehicle stabling facility at 66A Doncaster Avenue.

A stabling facility located here would have a significant negative visual impact to the area.

The light rail stabling facility should instead be located at the south-eastern corner of Randwick Racecourse.

I object to the removal of significant trees in Tay Reserve - corner Alison Road & Anzac Parade.

The area has heritage significance, associated with its landscape & tree planting.

Alternative options for light rail track alignment should be explored to minimise impacts to Tay Reserve.

I object to an above ground substation at High Cross Park.

At 10 metres long, 8 metres wide & 3.5 metres high, substations would have a negative visual impact & occupy highly valued public space.

Possibilities for relocation & underground placement of substation should be investigated.

I object to any loss of trees for the purposes of establishing construction compounds at High Cross Park, Tay Reserve & Wansey Road.

I object to any reduction in footpath width or capacity

I object to the loss of 704 on-street parking spaces along Alison Road, Wansey Road, High Street & the broader Kensington-Kingsford precinct. Alternate light rail alignment should be investigated in order to minimise loss of parking.

I am also concerned about flooding & erosion impacts, particularly as a result of the proposed developments around Randwick Racecourse.

I strongly support further investigation for improved design through ongoing & meaningful consultation with the affected local councils, as well as other relevant stakeholders, including local residents. City councils represent & protect the interests of their residents. Therefore their design preferences should be respected.

Lastly, I stress that a very large number of these trees are iconic to Sydney & this is important not only to residents, but also to the perception of Sydney by visiting tourists. Every effort should be made to retain these trees.

Thank you for your time.

(name withheld by request)

I am writing to object to the routing and details of the Surry Hills leg of the tram route. The proposal of running such a large mass transit vehicle in such volumes/frequency is totally inappropriate for such a quiet, narrow street.

The above ground section of the route through Surry Hills will be massively disruptive to the local community. The additional large vehicle traffic and noise/vibration will ruin the quiet neighbourhood. The alternative to Devonshire St should be the partial underground routes being proposed as they avoid many of the worse aspects of the plan.

Devonshire is currently a local throroughfare only, with Cleveland, Albion and Foveaux cutting across the suburb for through traffic. Adding another cross suburb route will make it even harder to get from one side of the suburb to the other.

IF the plan does go ahead then there should be things done to limit the speed, noise, vibration, and provide noise screening for residents.

Please see the uploaded NIDA Submission.

see pdf

I want to know how this will help businesses down the Oxford St end of Surry Hills.

All the businesses down this end have made a great effort to promote Surry Hills as the precinct to be seen in. I am concerned you are siphoning off our student base and Southern Suburbs Cuostomers directly back to your constituencies.

Also I actually find monorails and all those small town ideas very last century. People walk and catch buses plus cycle. This is more the kind of thing you tend to see in developing countries who believe anything new and modern must be good!!

I support option 1b, as the works dont have huge environmental impact and allows strong physical and vegetation groundings through the area

I support option 1b, as it will ensure that the unique architectural masterpiece location at 625-629 South Dowling Street, Surry Hills (which is located on option 1c) won't be lost. Surry Hills and Sydney wont lose an iconic home.

· I support option 1b, as together with option 1a, they have the straightest run, therefore less curves and changes in route resulting in less noise and impacts.

· I support option 1b, as together with option 1a these two options will cause the least amount of impact to residents and will impact a Government owned car park. Why take a house when you can go through a car park.

· I support option 1b, as together with option 1a, they are the two most cost effective options. Option 1c is the most expensive option and as a tax payer, I would implore the State Government to consider the more cost effective options, which doesn't result in purchasing a home worth $8m and go through a State Government owned car park. Why spend an extra $8m when there are other plausible routes.

Overall, I approve of the light rail plan, but as a Surry Hills resident want to comment on a few elements in my particular area (Clisdell St / Devonshire St neighbourhood);

- I would hope that construction, when it reaches this (relatively small, residential street) would take place during normal hours for construction (between 7.30am and 5.30pm Monday to Friday and 7.30am to 3.30pm on Saturday);

- I would prefer that the LRT up Devonshire street operate on a schedule similar to the flights overhead, ie. not after midnight and not before 6am;

- I would ask that consideration be given to the impact of closing the intersection of Clisdell St and Devonshire St on the traffic down smaller lanes / streets like Butt, Brumby, Dawson & Belvoir Streets where they meet Elizabeth; Brumby in particular is just wide enough for two cars, but includes parking down one side, so effectively if two cars meet there one has to wait or reverse to make way for the other.

Also, as the sidewalks on Brumby are half-width (and have telephone poles) we already have pedestrians on the road - so I would strongly recommend either removing parking on Brumby St, or making it one-way from Elizabeth to Clisdell (the opposite direction to both Belvoir & Dawson) to limit this risk / bottleneck. (It would especially help Belvoir St. Theatre patrons in their scramble to find parking before a show, which is when they most often find a car or taxi heading the other direction on Brumby.)

- Finally, it was suggested at one of the information meetings that buses would replace the LRT in its off-hours, which I find concerning in that the Devonshire St neighbourhood is fairly quiet and residential, currently (cockatoos and parrots aside). The LRT is being pitched on how quiet it is compared to other transport, but this would become meaningless if we have diesel buses heaving themselves up the hill to Riley St from midnight to 5am!

Other than that, it sounds like a good plan overall to me, a great improvement to this end of Surry Hills; and hopefully a reduction to the number of buses on Elizabeth St through this neighbourhood would also make it even more pleasant. I quite like the pedestrian mall / outdoor cafe tables in Holt St, too - that could be quite lovely. Well done, whoever added that detail - and why not extend it as far as possible in that street...!

I am most concerned that the proposed route through Surry Hills involves the demolition of a large apartment block and several terrace houses between Bourke Street and South Dowling Street, and also involves the loss of part of Moore Park. both of these aspects are completely unacceptable. Until light rail closed in Sydney in 1959, the eastern suburbs were served by trams going up Oxford St to Taylor Square, along Flinders Street, and then along a special easement to Kensington and la Perouse. The best commercial and population route for the new light rail service continues to be Oxford Street. I propose that the route be changed in this regard.

I strongly support the proposed light rail system. It will allow user friendly and reliable access to some of Sydney's best sporting assets, universities, hospital's and possible growth suburbs. I also endorse objective 5 of the proposal to procure 100% of the electricity requirements from renewable sources. I have witnessed how sucessful the light rail system in Melbourne can be and this proposed project could not come soon enough.

This proposal has not been thought through. Reasons:
1. I travel from Kensington to Matraville to work. I will have to change from light rail to bus at Kingsford and will no longer be able to catch one bus to and from work. This will take more time and be most inconvenient. My journey will take longer. I see no benefit in this.
2. I am able bodied and easily able to move around but elderly folds or those with disabilities will have an extra set of obstacles to traverse to get to and from their destinations.
3. At the moment it is possible to travel on one bus from Eastgardens to Bondi Junction through Maroubra and Randwick. Each of these places have very good shopping centres. The bus also stops at Prince of Wales from both directions. This will be lost. Many elderly people use this service. What provision has been made to retain or upgrade this ease of movement?
4. I am able currently to get from Kensington to Bondi Junction on one bus. Bondi is a major Shopping Centre and has both Legal and Medical specialists so there are many people traveling to and from Bondi. What provision has been made for ease of access, shortened travel times and cost efficiency?
5. Cost of transport is sure to increase out of all proportion to both convenience and speed without any greater ease of access to and from destinations.
6. The light rail seems to be for UNSW, Racecourse and presumably POW hospital but only for patrons traveling from the city. What provision has been made for local residents if any?
7. There will be massive loss of trees along the route. This greenery is pleasant and healthful. You take this away and in return give us reduced convenience and greater cost. This is not beneficial and I object.
8. The current bus routes have been developed over time and are constantly subject to revision. They are generally well thought out and provide a good service. This proposal seems designed for a virtual world of non-public transport using commuters. Get the designers to travel around from the places I have mentioned and then explain how the proposal betters the speed, access of connection to many different places. It doesn't.
9. It will cost so much and gives so little in return - taking trees and smaller more comprehensive journeys away from those people who use public transport.
10. The scheme hasn't had the input of the regular uses of the routes affected taken into account nor have those users been included in the design process from the beginning. This input is more in the nature of cosmetic 'inclusion' .
11. The incredible dense high rise development of Kensington is apparently to be made viable by this light rail project. I object to a pleasant environment being turned into a high rise ghetto for transient UNSW students.

Just a few questions:
1.Why not extending the line further south to Maroubra/ Little Bay?
2. Base on the population growth and the development of the suburbs, is that possible in any near future(like 10-20 years later) that we need to build a heavy rail on this area?
3. Why not consider to build a subway (a underground railway) system from Central instead of the tram to fully avoid from traffic?
4 Is it a better way to introduce double-decker tram instead of single deck to increase the capacity of each ride?

Surry Hills was a divided community prior to the Eastern Distributor being built.Crown and Bourke Streets were awful and when the Eastern Distributor was built Surry Hills became a village again however the cost was loss of parts of Moore Park. Once again the light rail will be doing the same, dividing the suburb as well as taking more of Moore Park. Devonshire Street is quite a narrow tree lined street which does not seem to be suitable for 50 metre trams. Why was the route not up for community consultation as the minister stated at a meeting at Sydney boys High? THe loss of 69 apartments,loss of parking and so the list goes on.Trees are already being cut down in Devonshire Street. What is wrong with the alternative route under Foveaux Street? It does not divide the village and really the light rail is more for the residents of Randwick and Kensington not for Surry Hills. We are being railroaded into this project and the minister does not seem to care about our concerns. Please don't ruin our village,light rail is a great idea however 50 metre long trams is not light rail it is a train.