Sydney CBD Light Rail

As a resident in Surry Hills the following is unacceptable in regards to the light rail:
- The Loss of over 150 parking spaces.
Parking is already near impossible in Surry Hills and as a rate payer who also pays an annual fee for resident parking, the loss of 150 spaces adds a great deal of pressure on residents. As it is, it can take upwards of 45 minutes to find a parking spot after work. Stop trying to force cars out of the suburb!! I am a location sound recordist who carries over $100,000 worth of equipment in my car each day and working in News, public transport is not an option.
- The Danger of trams for pedestrians
Surry Hills is a densely populated area with a lot of elderly residents lot of foot traffic. Trams are large and there are going to be pedestrian incidents.

16 December 2013

CBD and South East Light Rail Project (CSELR)

I strongly support light rail as a public transport solution for Sydney. Light rail is a viable way of addressing increasing traffic congestion issues in Sydney, and is an alternative to private cars and pollution emitting buses.

While I agree with the idea of proposing light rail for south east Sydney, I do not with the CSLER as per the CSELP EIS.

My submission focuses on concerns arising from the suggested route of the South East light rail project and on some of the consequential planning proposed.

Specific concerns with the CSELP EIS:
1. The EIS is based exclusively on a Devonshire Street route through Surry Hills. No alternative routes, such as the subsurface Foveaux Street route proposed by residents, have been genuinely considered.
2. The community's request for information under the Freedom of Information Act has been rejected. This raises transparency concerns and might imply that the EIS could be concealing information that relates to alternative proposals.

Specific concerns with the proposed Devonshire Street surface route:
CHANGES DURING CONSTRUCTION
1. Devonshire Street will be closed during construction. This will redirect cyclists up the much steeper Cooper St and will interrupt the east-west cyclist route down Devonshire Street.
2. Traffic will be re-opened between Cooper St and Riley St. This will mean the loss of a park and pedestrian space and significantly higher levels of traffic adjacent to the outdoor playground of SDN Children's Education and Care Centre. With bicycle traffic also diverted to Cooper St, cyclists will be further competing with motorists for road space.
3. Construction noise is expected to be between 100-120dBa
4. 140 trees will be removed.

SIZE, SPEED, NOISE, FREQUENCY
1. 29 metre light rail vehicles will be travelling through residential areas with narrow streets at 40-45km. Speed should therefore be reduced to 20 kilometres per hour.
2. Noise and vibration levels should be within EPA guidelines.
3. Operational times must be limited to 05.30 - 23.30.
4. Since Devonshire St is densely populated and a number of residents in Northcott Housing Estate have impaired mobility, the frequency of light rail vehicles should be limited to a minimum of 5 minutes gap in both directions to allow children, the elderly, cyclists and citizens with impaired mobility safe crossing.

AMENITY
1. Access to all stops should cater to residents with reduced or limited mobility.
2. There should be no cables along Devonshire St
3. All power wires should be underground to allow for trees. The recent collapse of trees in Devonshire emphasizes the need to run all power wires below ground.

CONSULTATION
There must be ongoing and transparent consultation with the community on the route, design and construction of the light rail project.

Much of the CSELR EIS treats Surry Hills as a transport junction, rather than as a living community with a diverse population. As a consequence, I strongly support the adoption of the community proposed subsurface route (either down Foveaux or Devonshire St).

Yours sincerely

Chris Baker

I believe the level of community consultation has not been sufficient and I believe there are inaccuracies and inconsistencies which may cause irreversible detriment to the flow of traffic and congestion to the area.
The current EIS does not clearly outline all road closures, right hand turn closures, road direction changes nor additional traffic light signalisation nor changes to traffic signal durations in the technical papers provided.
The impact of this will be forcing local and cross-region traffic to use local streets as rat runs and the reduction of parking will increase the pressure on spaces in streets around the rail stops. This is at crisis point already near the hospital campus, TAFE and UNSW and a cut of another 1000 spaces will result in mayhem.
The light rail's capacity can never be increased due to shared carriageways and frequency can never be increased due to adverse impact on major intersections (South Dowling, Lang/Cleveland & Anzac Parade, Elizabeth St, Crown & Devonshire sts).
There is a lack of clarity around the length of journeys.
Bus capacity proposed to be cut is up to three times the capacity of the LR service capacity. This means peak hour congestion will intensify.
If this region is to continue growing a heavy rail option should be considered, not a light rail that doesn't meet peak hour demand and has no capacity for growth.

I welcome the opportunity to comment on the EIS for the CBD and South East Rail Project.

My submission is in two sections. The first addresses issues in relation to Surry Hills and the second part details some of my concerns about the entire proposal for the CSLER as it currently exists.

Initially, I was supportive of the idea of a light rail service travelling from the south east of Sydney through to the CBD but having seen the EIS and the extent of negative impacts the project would impose on Sydney I am now firmly opposed to the project going ahead. If permitted to proceed in its current form it would impose an extraordinary range and degree of negative impacts on resident amenity and businesses in adjacent areas, it will not satisfy long term travel demand between the CBD and the South East, it will permanently destroy hundreds of trees and a number of important parkland areas and it will create a permanent eyesore on the Sydney landscape.

I. Surry Hills EIS Concerns

As a long-term Surry Hills resident who lives in close proximity to the route of the proposed light rail near Devonshire Street I am very concerned about the numerous detrimental impacts this proposed development would inflict on my daily life, on general resident amenity, on local businesses and the entire character of this area. Reading the section of the EIS that pertains to Surry Hills has heightened my concern about these impacts and the inability of the EIS to adequately address or ameliorate them.


1. Parking

The EIS states that Surry Hills would lose well over 100 car parking spaces. There is no plan in the EIS to replace these lost parking spaces with nearby car parking centres or other parking amenities. Parking in Surry Hills is a major issue for residents due to the limited spaces available, the type of architecture which prevents on-site parking and the density of population in the area. For example, within Precinct 18 where I live it has previously been assessed that there are 340 resident parking spaces that are also available for time-limited parking by the public under the council's resident parking scheme. Within Precinct 18 council has issued 336 resident parking permits so there are only 4 spaces that are not used for residents' cars. To remove more than 4 spaces will not meet current demand. On-site parking is unavailable in most residences and as many dwellings are heritage terrace houses, this will remain the case permanently. Where will the 340 cars that are currently used by residents in Precinct 18 be parked? - a) during the construction period and b) most importantly after the light rail was installed?

The EIS's response to this problem is vague and inadequate.

There is mention in Section 13.3.2 of consolidating City of Sydney Council residential permit precincts to allow resident permit-holders to search further afield when nearby streets are occupied. However these further-away areas are also operating at full capacity. The EIS does not address this basic point which renders this proposal unworkable.

Apart from this fact, to propose that residents should park even further away then they currently do imposes completely inappropriate impacts on resident amenity on a permanent and daily basis - constant inconvenience, increased traffic congestion- driving around searching for non-existent parking spaces, inability to unload shopping and other common needs. In addition, there are large number of children in this area and it makes it virtually impossible to manage their needs without nearby parking. In addition, a matter of great concern is safety. Surry Hills is a dangerous area. If residents are forced to park further away from their homes the risks of assault and alcohol and drug fuelled threats are greatly increased. This is a significant safety concern for residents as some of us have already experienced these problems when parking has been unavailable close by.

The EIS also suggests that resident exemptions are provided in nearby spaces where they are not currently exempt.

There are very few parking spaces that are not currently exempt as redsidents well know from previous dealings with the City of Sydney in its parking reviews. The EIS does not state how many spaces would be restored or give any estimate of the real impact of parking spaces lost if this proposlal went ahead and how the current number of residential cars with permits would be accommodated.

Given there are only just enough spaces to cover existent cars in the area, it is crucial that this problem be addressed. The current measures proposed in the EIS to provide parking are impracticable. This problem must be urgently and specifically addressed.


2. Noise

Surry Hills is one of the most densely populated areas in Australia. Hundreds of residents would be unduly affected on a daily basis if this proposal were to proceed. The proposed Light Rail route along Devonshire Street would impose unacceptable noise and sleep disturbance impacts on this densely populated residential area in terms of operational noise, tram bells echoing through the area, increased pedestrian noise, traffic congestion on Crown Street, more people being attracted into the area and these impacts would be unrelenting as the EIS implies that the operation hours of the tram would be 7 days per week for 18 hours per day. The acoustics of this area mean that noise bounces of buildings echoing into nearby streets, particularly at night when these parts of Devonshire and Crown Streets are very quiet.

The Eastern part of Devonshire Street and the section of Crown Street between Arthur and Devonshire Streets are currently very quiet and peaceful after about 5pm. The EIS underestimates the comparative increase in noise that would result if a tram line was installed and this increase may well significantly exceed EPA requirements.

In addition, and most importantly, the light rail would attract a lot more people to the area to patronise local bars and restaurants greatly increasing general noise in the area. As stated, the quietness of the above mentioned areas and their acoustic properties mean that any sounds made during the evening echo around the buildings. Conversations in the street are clearly audible in nearby residences even when voices are not raised. People would leave the proposed Ward Park tram stop and walk round the corner to patronise premises in Crown Street walking past scores of residences greatly increasing noise from current levels. Likewise when the hundreds of people who patronise the Clock and Dolphin Hotels and other estabilshments near Foveaux Street are ejected at 10 - 12pm large crowds of people would walk down Crown Street to the light rail stop near Ward Park creating massive noise and sleep disturbance impacts on scores of residences. This is a major concern for Crown, Riley and Devonshire Street residents. The EIS does not even address this problem. It must be addressed. I believe that these noise impacts would be so far in excess of the current acoustic environment in the area between 5pm and 1am that they would also exceed EPA regulations and this impact should be thoroughly investigated..

The above mentioned noise impacts are not acknowledged or addressed in the EIS.

3. Increased Social Problems

The light rail would attract more people to Surry Hills which would create problems with alcohol-fuelled violence, vandalism, resident safety and greatly increased noise problems. The acoustic properties of this area mean that noise bounces off surrounding buildings and echoes loudly into residences. Once people leave the tram they would be the problem of residents (as we have already discovered in disputes with local businesses who eject patrons at closing time, take no more responsibility for them once they are off the premises and are then inflicted on the local resident community). The EIS does not address this most significant impact that the proposed CSLER would permanently inflict on Surry Hills and its residents. It must - as this is a crucial concern and the whole character, safety and liveability of the suburb would be permanently affected. I cannot see how this impact can mitigated except by choosing a different route for the tram from Devonshire Street to a street which is already commercial, less densely populated, with greater width and different acoustic properties.

4. Congestion

If the CSELR were approved pedestrian numbers would be greatly increased in the area creating stress, noise, congestion, unpleasant environment, vandalism and sleep disturbance until late at night. The EIS does not address this impact or propose any means of ameliorating it.

5. Traffic Congestion

The road and traffic changes outlined in the EIS would greatly increase traffic congestion in the area. In particular in Crown and Devonshire Streets. Traffic will be halted frequently at the corner of Crown and Devonshire Streets to allow trams to pass which will greatly increase traffic problems in Crown Street as well as pollution, noise, stress and impose negative impact on the character, peacefulness and general amenity of the area.

6. Removal of Pubic Park Space

I am strongly opposed to the removal of park space at Wimbo Park, Ward Park and at the corner of Elizabeth and Devonshire Streets. This will irrevocably alter the attractive character of the area, create an eyesore and reduce resident amenity. I regularly use Wimbo park. It is a beautiful, quiet, historic park and should not be removed.

7. Removal of Trees

The EIS states that it would be necessary to remove approximately 760 trees with well over 100 trees removed in Surry Hills. This will create an ugly eyesore and irrevocably change the character and attractiveness of this and other areas. I am strongly opposed to this.

8. Change of Character of Area

The above mentioned impacts concerning noise, parking, congestion, increased visitors to the area, removal of parkland and trees would fundamentally change the quiet, peaceful and attractive character that currently exists in this part of Surry Hills forever. If a light rail was permitted along Devonshire Street it would split Surry Hills and remove its village feel.

9. Safety

The tram would pose significant safety risks to pedestrians due to the narrowness of Devonshire Street, in particular children, disabled people and drug and alcohol affected people, who are numerous in Surry Hills. The school on Bourke Street services numerous local children and a tram line would pose an unacceptable safety risk to them both during construction and when operating.

10. Current Public Transport in this part of Surry Hills is excellent with numerous bus services and trains due to its proximity to Central Station. 13.9.2 states that The CSELR proposal would bring to the area a reliable form of public transport it currently lacks. This unsubstantiated statement ignores the above existent services. Light rail is not needed and is not the most efficient option to respond to growing demand for transport.

11. Hours of Operation/Noise

It has been predicted that noise levels will exceed average and maximum noise trigger levels under the Rail Infrastructure Noise Guideline (RING) Environment Protection Authority.

In addition I am concerned that it seems the hours of operation are projected to be between 5am and 1am. This would impose unacceptable impacts on nearby residents causing unrelenting noise disturbance 18 hours per day and ongoing sleep disturbance 7 days per week.

The EIS also indicates that light rail movements will continue between 1am and 5am for maintenance, potentially with one movement every six minutes. This is unacceptable. 24 hours of noise and sleep disturbance is fundamentally incompatible with resident amenity in such a densely populated area.

12. Speed of Light Rail Vehicles

Light rail along Devonshire Street is proposed to travel at 40 km/h uphill and 45 km/h downhill. This is too fast for this inner city village and would create significant impacts. The faster the vehicles, the greater the noise impacts and noise is expected to exceed RING triggers both in the day and at night through Surry Hills. It is unreasonable to expect that residents will be able to live with this 18hours per day, 7 days per week.

13. Permanent Loss of Moore Park Land

The proposed CSELR would result in the loss of valuable green space including -

- The entry portal in Moore park West
- The substation in Moore Park West, south of the entry portal
- The entry portal in Moore Park East
- The station in Moore Park East
- The light rail track along Moore park east both north and south of Lang Road.

I am strongly opposed to Moore Park parkland being removed. The EIS does not specify how much land would be lost.

14. Overhead Wires

The EIS states that the topography of Devonshire Street is unsuitable for wire free technology but it provides no evidence to support this claim. Overhead wires would create another new and permanent ugly eyesore and require more trees to be affected.

15. Impacts during Construction

The numerous negative impacts on local residents and businesses during construction are unacceptable in term of noise, vibration, dust, congestion, sleep disturbance, lack of parking and daily inconvenience. The current proposed route through narrow Devonshire Street is very close to hundreds of residences and it is hard to see how these impacts would conform with EPA requirements.

Many businesses will be forced to close.

The above- mentioned negative impacts are too numerous and significant for the proposed CSELR be acceptable or practicable for this part of Surry Hills.


Alternatives should be sought to the proposed Devonshire Street CSELR Route

There has been overwhelming opposition by Surry Hills residents and businesses to the proposed routing of the light rail up Devonshire Street.

This is one of the most densely populated parts of Surry Hills and the impacts of tram noise, tram bells, increased traffic congestion, loss of parklands, trees, fundamental change in the character and attractiveness of the area, pedestrian congestion and increased problems with violence, vandalism and alcohol and noise problems associated with increased numbers of people being attracted to the area remain a major concern. Alternative proposals for the tram to be routed through less densely populated commercial areas like Oxford Street, Campbell Street and Foveaux Street have been rejected, as has the proposal to build an underground tunnel under Fouveaux Street which would ameliorate the numerous negative impacts mentioned above. I urge the State government to spend the small amount of additional money (1.6 b) required to build the light rail under Fouveaux Street or along Oxford Street which is in need of revitalisation. Surry Hills residents have put in a lot of time and effort into coming up with varied solutions to the unconscionable multiple impacts that the Devonshire Route of the proposed CSLER would impose if permitted. None of these ideas have been incorporated into the EIS. Transport for NSW must demonstrate that these options were genuinely considered and provide comprehensive information as to why they were rejected. They should also present the community with other options that do not involve the extraordinary degree and range of negative impacts that the current Devonshire Street proposal would impose on the area, its residents and businesses. Many of the proposals and impacts outlined for Surry Hills in the EIS contravene local planning laws and State requirements.


II.


The CSELR is not needed and is not the most efficient option to respond to growing needs for public transport.

The Light Rail initially sounded like it could be a good proposal but now that more details of its impacts have been provided I strongly feel that it's negative impacts are so significant that this project should not be permitted to proceed. I am now of the opinion that this particular light rail project is inappropriate for the area it would encompass. It will not achieve the EIS's aims of improving reliability and efficiency of travel to, from and within the CBD and suburbs to the South East. Instead it will mean that many travelling form the South East, East and the Inner West will be forced to take two public transport journeys on bus and tram instead of one, making travel more time-consuming, expensive and inconvenient. It would increase traffic congestion in a number of areas of the CBD and general traffic and pedestrian congestion in the areas it traverses, not just during construction, but permanently and it would inflict numerous negative impacts on resident and business amenity, as discussed above.

It will force numerous thriving businesses to close during construction.

It wil not improve the overall amenity of most public spaces in the areas it traverses. Instead, it will permanently degrade resident amenity as demonstrated by the above-mentioned impacts in Surry Hills, for example, increasing congestion, noise, parking problems and removing and altering parks, trees and green spaces.

It will not satisfy long term travel demand between the CBD and South East as the capacity of the tram line is limited, unlike other modes of public transport, as reported in a number of recent newspaper articles. The areas serviced already have excellent public transport and the light rail is reduplicating these services in a less efficient way. Light rail should be considered for other areas in Sydney that do not have adequate public transport.

Transport for NSW should be required to provide a cost benefit analysis that compares light rail with other options such as more bus services. Bus services are flexible and will not impose the multiple negative impacts that the Light Rail will impose.

By replacing over 200 buses with a PPP service the government will effectively privatise what is currently public transport and reduce jobs in the long term. People from outside the CBD will be forced to change from bus to tram in order to deliver a ready-made profit for the private operator at the expense of public convenience.

There has been wide spread concern and opposition to this project from businesses and residents throughout the CBD, Surry Hills and the South East regarding the impact of this proposed project on their amenity and livelihoods. This project, in its current form must not be permitted to proceed. I am now of the opinion that this proposed project is a waste of taxpayer's money. The impacts on resident amenity, business viability and the character of the areas affected outlined in the EIS are are too detrimental, numerous, non-cost effective and widely opposed to be acceptable and the EIS does little to address these problems due to the scale of impacts and the substantial long-term problems the CSELR would create if approved.

I acknowledge LR is a significant investment in public transport infrastructure however I am concerned about the following aspects of the Light Rail proposal:
1. It being used an excuse to justify increased development (UAP's) in Randwick
2.LOss of existing bus services to Randwick residents
3. Longer travel times on light Rail than existing bus services and significantly longer travel times for users of current bus network who will be required to interchange
4. No stop at POW Hospital
5. Destruction of heritage protected High Cross park
6. Substantial loss of parking spaces and detrimental effect on local businesses
7. Higher cost
8. No dedicated pedestrian or cycleway constructed with the route.
9. Every journey to the city will be via central railway - this will take too long and commuters will not use but look for alternatives

I welcome the opportunity to comment on the EIS for the CBD and South East Rail Project.

In my submission I address issues in relation to Surry Hills and also my concerns about the entire proposal for the CSLER as it currently exists.

Initially, I was supportive of the idea of a light rail service travelling from the south east of Sydney through to the CBD but having seen the EIS and the extent of negative impacts the project would impose on Sydney I am now firmly opposed to the project going ahead. If permitted to proceed in its current form it would impose an extraordinary range and degree of negative impacts on resident amenity and businesses in adjacent areas, it will not satisfy long term travel demand between the CBD and the South East, it will permanently destroy hundreds of trees and a number of important parkland areas and it will create a permanent eyesore on the Sydney landscape.

I. Surry Hills EIS Concerns

As a Surry Hills resident who lives in close proximity to the route of the proposed light rail near Devonshire Street I am very concerned about the numerous detrimental impacts this proposed development would inflict on resident amenity, on local businesses and the entire character of this area. Reading the section of the EIS that pertains to Surry Hills has heightened my concern about these impacts and the inability of the EIS to adequately address or ameliorate them.


1. Parking

The EIS states that Surry Hills would lose well over 100 car parking spaces. There is no plan in the EIS to replace these lost parking spaces with nearby car parking centres or other parking amenities. Parking in Surry Hills is a major issue for residents due to the limited spaces available, the type of architecture which prevents on-site parking and the density of population in the area. For example, within Precinct 18 where I live it has previously been assessed that there are 340 resident parking spaces that are also available for time-limited parking by the public under the council's resident parking scheme. Within Precinct 18 council has issued 336 resident parking permits so there are only 4 spaces that are not used for residents' cars. To remove more than 4 spaces will not meet current demand. On-site parking is unavailable in most residences and as many dwellings are heritage terrace houses, this will remain the case permanently. Where will the 340 cars that are currently used by residents in Precinct 18 be parked? - a) during the construction period and b) most importantly after the light rail was installed?

The EIS's response to this problem is vague and inadequate.

There is mention in Section 13.3.2 of consolidating City of Sydney Council residential permit precincts to allow resident permit-holders to search further afield when nearby streets are occupied. However these further-away areas are also operating at full capacity. The EIS does not address this basic point which renders this proposal unworkable.

Apart from this fact, to propose that residents should park even further away then they currently do imposes completely inappropriate impacts on resident amenity on a permanent and daily basis - constant inconvenience, increased traffic congestion- driving around searching for non-existent parking spaces, inability to unload shopping and other common needs. In addition, there are large number of children in this area and it makes it virtually impossible to manage their needs without nearby parking. In addition, a matter of great concern is safety. Surry Hills is a dangerous area. If residents are forced to park further away from their homes the risks of assault and alcohol and drug fuelled threats are greatly increased. This is a significant safety concern for residents as some of us have already experienced these problems when parking has been unavailable close by.

The EIS also suggests that resident exemptions are provided in nearby spaces where they are not currently exempt.

There are very few parking spaces that are not currently exempt as residents well know from previous dealings with the City of Sydney in its parking reviews. The EIS does not state how many spaces would be restored or give any estimate of the real impact of parking spaces lost if this proposlal went ahead and how the current number of residential cars with permits would be accommodated.

Given there are only just enough spaces to cover existent cars in the area, it is crucial that this problem be addressed. The current measures proposed in the EIS to provide parking are impracticable. This problem must be urgently and specifically addressed.


2. Noise

Surry Hills is one of the most densely populated areas in Australia. Hundreds of residents would be unduly affected on a daily basis if this proposal were to proceed. The proposed Light Rail route along Devonshire Street would impose unacceptable noise and sleep disturbance impacts on this densely populated residential area in terms of operational noise, tram bells echoing through the area, increased pedestrian noise, traffic congestion on Crown Street, more people being attracted into the area and these impacts would be unrelenting as the EIS implies that the operation hours of the tram would be 7 days per week for 18 hours per day. The acoustics of this area mean that noise bounces of buildings echoing into nearby streets, particularly at night when these parts of Devonshire and Crown Streets are very quiet.

The Eastern part of Devonshire Street and the section of Crown Street between Arthur and Devonshire Streets are currently very quiet and peaceful after about 5pm. The EIS underestimates the comparative increase in noise that would result if a tram line was installed and this increase may well significantly exceed EPA requirements.

In addition, and most importantly, the light rail would attract a lot more people to the area to patronise local bars and restaurants greatly increasing general noise in the area. As stated, the quietness of the above-mentioned areas and their acoustic properties mean that any sounds made during the evening echo around the buildings. Conversations in the street are clearly audible in nearby residences even when voices are not raised. People would leave the proposed Ward Park tram stop and walk round the corner to patronise premises in Crown Street walking past scores of residences greatly increasing noise from current levels. Likewise when the hundreds of people who patronise the Clock and Dolphin Hotels and other estabilshments near Foveaux Street are ejected at 10 - 12pm large crowds of people would walk down Crown Street to the light rail stop near Ward Park creating massive noise and sleep disturbance impacts on scores of residences. This is a major concern for Crown, Riley and Devonshire Street residents. The EIS does not even address this problem. It must be addressed. I believe that these noise impacts would be so far in excess of the current acoustic environment in the area between 5pm and 1am that they would also exceed EPA regulations and this impact should be thoroughly investigated..

The above mentioned noise impacts are not acknowledged or addressed in the EIS.

3. Increased Social Problems

The light rail would attract more people to Surry Hills which would create problems with alcohol-fuelled violence, vandalism, resident safety and greatly increased noise problems. The acoustic properties of this area mean that noise bounces off surrounding buildings and echoes loudly into residences. Once people leave the tram they would be the problem of residents (as we have already discovered in disputes with local businesses who eject patrons at closing time, take no more responsibility for them once they are off the premises and are then inflicted on the local resident community). The EIS does not address this most significant impact that the proposed CSLER would permanently inflict on Surry Hills and its residents. It must - as this is a crucial concern and the whole character, safety and liveability of the suburb would be permanently affected. I cannot see how this impact can mitigated except by choosing a different route for the tram from Devonshire Street to a street which is already commercial, less densely populated, with greater width and different acoustic properties.

4. Pedestrian Congestion

If the CSELR were approved pedestrian numbers would be greatly increased in the area creating stress, noise, congestion, unpleasant environment, vandalism and sleep disturbance until late at night. The EIS does not address this impact or propose any means of ameliorating it.

5. Traffic Congestion

The road and traffic changes outlined in the EIS would greatly increase traffic congestion in the area. In particular in Crown and Devonshire Streets. Traffic will be halted frequently at the corner of Crown and Devonshire Streets to allow trams to pass which will greatly increase traffic problems in Crown Street as well as pollution, noise, stress and impose negative impact on the character, peacefulness and general amenity of the area.

6. Removal of Pubic Park Space

I am strongly opposed to the removal of park space at Wimbo Park, Ward Park and at the corner of Elizabeth and Devonshire Streets. This will irrevocably alter the attractive character of the area, create an eyesore and reduce resident amenity. We regularly use Wimbo park. It is a beautiful, quiet, historic park and should not be removed.

7. Removal of Trees

The EIS states that it would be necessary to remove approximately 760 trees with well over 100 trees removed in Surry Hills. This will create an ugly eyesore and irrevocably change the character and attractiveness of this and other areas. I am strongly opposed to this.

8. Change of Character of Area

The above mentioned impacts concerning noise, parking, congestion, increased visitors to the area, removal of parkland and trees would fundamentally change the quiet, peaceful and attractive character that currently exists in this part of Surry Hills forever. If a light rail was permitted along Devonshire Street it would split Surry Hills and remove its village feel.

9. Safety

The tram would pose significant safety risks to pedestrians due to the narrowness of Devonshire Street, in particular children, disabled people and drug and alcohol affected people, who are numerous in Surry Hills. The school on Bourke Street services numerous local children and a tram line would pose an unacceptable safety risk to them both during construction and when operating.

10. Current Public Transport in this part of Surry Hills is excellent with numerous bus services and trains due to its proximity to Central Station. 13.9.2 states that The CSELR proposal would bring to the area a reliable form of public transport it currently lacks. This unsubstantiated statement ignores the above existent services. Light rail is not needed and is not the most efficient option to respond to growing demand for transport.

11. Hours of Operation/Noise

It has been predicted that noise levels will exceed average and maximum noise trigger levels under the Rail Infrastructure Noise Guideline (RING) Environment Protection Authority.

In addition I am concerned that it seems the hours of operation are projected to be between 5am and 1am. This would impose unacceptable impacts on nearby residents causing unrelenting noise disturbance 18 hours per day and ongoing sleep disturbance 7 days per week.

The EIS also indicates that light rail movements will continue between 1am and 5am for maintenance, potentially with one movement every six minutes. This is unacceptable. 24 hours of noise and sleep disturbance is fundamentally incompatible with resident amenity in such a densely populated area.

12. Speed of Light Rail Vehicles

Light rail along Devonshire Street is proposed to travel at 40 km/h uphill and 45 km/h downhill. This is too fast for this inner city village and would create significant impacts. The faster the vehicles, the greater the noise impacts and noise is expected to exceed RING triggers both in the day and at night through Surry Hills. It is unreasonable to expect that residents will be able to live with this 18hours per day, 7 days per week.

13. Permanent Loss of Moore Park Land

The proposed CSELR would result in the loss of valuable green space including -

- The entry portal in Moore park West
- The substation in Moore Park West, south of the entry portal
- The entry portal in Moore Park East
- The station in Moore Park East
- The light rail track along Moore park east both north and south of Lang Road.

I am strongly opposed to Moore Park parkland being removed. The EIS does not specify how much land would be lost.

14. Overhead Wires

The EIS states that the topography of Devonshire Street is unsuitable for wire free technology but it provides no evidence to support this claim. Overhead wires would create another new and permanent ugly eyesore and require more trees to be affected.

15. Impacts during Construction

The numerous negative impacts on local residents and businesses during construction are unacceptable in term of noise, vibration, dust, congestion, sleep disturbance, lack of parking and daily inconvenience. The current proposed route through narrow Devonshire Street is very close to hundreds of residences and it is hard to see how these impacts would conform with EPA requirements.

Many businesses will be forced to close.

The above- mentioned negative impacts are too numerous and significant for the proposed CSELR be acceptable or practicable for this part of Surry Hills.


Alternatives should be sought to the proposed Devonshire Street CSELR Route

There has been overwhelming opposition by Surry Hills residents and businesses to the proposed routing of the light rail up Devonshire Street.

This is one of the most densely populated parts of Surry Hills and the impacts of tram noise, tram bells, increased traffic congestion, loss of parklands, trees, fundamental change in the character and attractiveness of the area, pedestrian congestion and increased problems with violence, vandalism and alcohol and noise problems associated with increased numbers of people being attracted to the area remain a major concern. Alternative proposals for the tram to be routed through less densely populated commercial areas like Oxford Street, Campbell Street and Foveaux Street have been rejected, as has the proposal to build an underground tunnel under Fouveaux Street which would ameliorate the numerous negative impacts mentioned above. I urge the State government to spend the small amount of additional money required to build the light rail under Fouveaux Street or along Oxford Street which is in need of revitalisation. Surry Hills residents have put in a lot of time and effort into coming up with varied solutions to the unconscionable multiple impacts that the Devonshire Route of the proposed CSLER would impose if permitted. None of these ideas have been incorporated into the EIS. Transport for NSW must demonstrate that these options were genuinely considered and provide comprehensive information as to why they were rejected. They should also present the community with other options that do not involve the extraordinary degree and range of negative impacts that the current Devonshire Street proposal would impose on the area, its residents and businesses. Many of the proposals and impacts outlined for Surry Hills in the EIS contravene local planning laws and State requirements.


II.


The CSELR is not needed and is not the most efficient option to respond to growing needs for public transport.

The Light Rail initially sounded like it could be a good proposal but now that more details of its impacts have been provided I strongly feel that it's negative impacts are so significant that this project should not be permitted to proceed. It will not achieve the EIS's aims of improving reliability and efficiency of travel to, from and within the CBD and suburbs to the South East. Instead it will mean that many travelling form the South East, East and the Inner West will be forced to take two public transport journeys on bus and tram instead of one, making travel more time-consuming, expensive and inconvenient. It would increase traffic congestion in a number of areas of the CBD and general traffic and pedestrian congestion in the areas it traverses, not just during construction, but permanently and it would inflict numerous negative impacts on resident and business amenity, as discussed above.

It will force numerous thriving businesses to close during construction.

It wil not improve the overall amenity of most public spaces in the areas it traverses. Instead, it will permanently degrade resident amenity as demonstrated by the above-mentioned impacts in Surry Hills, for example, increasing congestion, noise, parking problems and removing and altering parks, trees and green spaces.

It will not satisfy long term travel demand between the CBD and South East as the capacity of the tram line is limited, unlike other modes of public transport, as reported in a number of recent newspaper articles. The areas serviced already have excellent public transport and the light rail is reduplicating these services in a less efficient way.

Transport for NSW should be required to provide a cost benefit analysis that compares light rail with other options such as more bus services. Bus services are flexible and will not impose the multiple negative impacts that the Light Rail will impose.

People from outside the CBD will be forced to change from bus to tram in order to deliver a ready-made profit for the private operator at the expense of public convenience.

There has been wide spread concern and opposition to this project from businesses and residents throughout the CBD, Surry Hills and the South East regarding the impact of this proposed project on their amenity and livelihoods. This project, in its current form must not be permitted to proceed. It is a waste of taxpayer's money. The impacts on resident amenity, business viability and the character of the areas affected outlined in the EIS are are too detrimental, numerous, and widely opposed to be acceptable and the EIS does little to address these problems due to the scale of impacts and the substantial long-term problems the CSELR would create if approved.

We are concerned that the light rail will stop at both Kingsford and Randwick, and wish to propose an extension to either Maroubra Junction or Maroubra Beach to better service the entire area. We would also propose an extension to Eastgardens in Pagewood. Such extensions would reduce the need for connecting buses to light rail for a number of people, as well as providing hub interchanges with more space, thus reducing congestion around these interchanges. With an ageing population, the need to change modes of transport becomes much harder, and this would be exacerbated for people with disabilities.
We are also concerned about the proposed changes to High Cross Park, which would be substantially reduced in size. A bus and light train interchange in this area would also greatly increase congestion in what is already a highly congested intersection.

As a resident of Surry Hills for 61 years, I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Study issued by your office.
I wish to express my serious concern in regard to the effect this transport line will have in regard to parking, especially along streets that intersect with Devonshire Street, Surry Hills.

1. To begin with I make reference to section 13.3.2

`closure of a number of local road intersections with Devonshire Street, including: Buckingham Street, Holt Street, Waterloo Street, High Holborn Street and Clisdell Street `

This of concern for a number of reasons. Firstly as it restricts the movement of essential services such as ambulances, fire engines and police to name just a few. Secondly, both essential services as well as local residents are going to be forced to use prescribed routes which both lengthen our journeys and limit greatly the `possibilities' open to moving in and out and across this area of the suburb.
This seems a solution that obviously gives preference and right of way to the CSELR over that of the local residents and visitors to the area.

`Removal of all on-street parking on both sides of Devonshire Street'

This is going to have a devastating effect on local residents who even today struggle to find parking spaces at the end of a working day. This sector of Surry Hills has become quite a cosmopolitan hub for restaurants and cafes let alone the growth in popularity that the local pubs have generated. WE HAVE NO PARKING NOW! WHAT IS IT GOING TO BE LIKE WHEN AT LEAST 155 PARKING SPACES GO!
The removal of parking spaces on Devonshire Street only means that those who use these spaces will seek intersecting streets to park in. This already happens now especially between Thursday - Saturday evenings after 6:00pm. THIS LEADS ME TO QUESTION YOUR RESEARCH SERIOUSLY.

`The Cooper Street connection to Riley Street would be reinstated to provide access for local residents. `

Are you serious?????? This is a `quiet space' used by local residents and creates a genuine `calmness' to a street that was once a `short cut' for traffic skirting from Elizabeth Street to Riley Street and on to Crown Street.
As well as this there is an existing Child Care Centre on this intersection - how safe will it remain once cars wiz up the hill from Elizabeth Street and beyond???

2. Devonshire Street

`Kerb adjustments would be required at Adelaide Place, Steel Street and Little Riley Street to provide light vehicle access to minor lanes without encroaching on the light rail alignment. `

What will this entail???? It concerns me that it will encourage traffic to use these streets to an even greater degree than they are used at present. Your study ignores that the intersecting streets harbour `residents' with children as well as senior citizens. ONCE AGAIN THE LIGHT RAIL RECEIVES PRECEDENCE OVER THE SAFETY OF LOCAL CITIZENS WHO LIVE IN THE INTERSECTING STREETS.

3. Light rail stop access and egress

`Reduce capacity of Devonshire Street for vehicular traffic and give priority to east-west movements of LRVs and pedestrians, and investigate the need for a surface treatment to discourage cyclists.'

THIS STATEMENT SAYS IT ALL. THIS IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT IN REGARD TO THE DEVONSHIRE ROUTE!
Do you really believe that the volume of traffic will reduce?????? Do you really believe that cyclists will avoid Devonshire Street?????? No way! What you are proposing is chaos and congestion, let alone the frustration of the many residents who need to use Devonshire Street. This proposal reeks of danger and serious accidents! You need to rethink this matter seriously.

`Signalise Devonshire Street and Marlborough Street to provide customers with safe, direct access to light rail platforms.'

What effect will the signalising of Devonshire Street have on the flow of cars generally. We are talking about a generally short street which in essence will be subject to 3 sets of traffic lights. You are taking a residential area and proposing to turn it into a transport corridor at the expense of residents and passing traffic. The lights at the corner of Crown and Devonshire on any Thursday or Friday afternoon grid lock traffic as it is. This proposal will bring it to a complete standstill all the way down to Elizabeth Street!

`Ongoing consultation would be undertake with owners of properties with direct access onto the CSELR corridor to determine specific access arrangements.'

This proposal lacks substance, what are the details of this `consultation'? What possible solution could be offered for those with driveways butting on to Devonshire Street in the light of your design? This is just not possible.

4. Operational impacts on parking and kerbside access

`The CSELR proposal requires the removal of all existing on-street parking along Devonshire Street to accommodate the proposed light rail tracks and a single eastbound traffic lane.'

`All 128 general parking spaces would be removed along Devonshire Street.'

To begin with your numbers are all wrong! You are really proposing to remove at least 155 car spots.
Do you actually have any concept or understanding of the genuine impact this will have on local residents. WE STUGGLE TO FIND PARKING AT THE MOMENT, WHAT WILL IT BE LIKE ONCE ALL PARKING ON DEVONSHIRE STREET IS GONE????
You assume that most of the spots are taken up by casual visitors to the area but in reality the spots are full each night of the week and overnight. One must question the type of research carried out!

`As outlined in section 13.9, the loss of parking spaces from Devonshire Street would likely have the greatest impact to businesses.'

WRONG AGAIN! I take offence at the words `would likely have' the reality is that the loss of parking spaces from Devonshire Street would definitely have the greatest impact of RESIDENTS! Get your facts right!!!!!

`Adoption of appropriate parking management measures to balance supply and demand would be considered.'

`Consolidate City of Sydney Council residential permit precincts to allow resident permit-holders to search further afield when nearby streets are occupied.'

What management measures????? Consolidating permit precincts is not a solution. In practice all it results in is having to park one's car even further away from one's house than we do at present. Which in reality means we will have to walk at least 15-30 minutes or even more, who can tell, to get back to our house once we park our car. In your estimation it would be appropriate to park one's car in Redfern even though we live in Surry Hills, after all it will all be one precinct!
While on the matter of parking permits. The current system is totally inefficient and inadequate. Purchasing a parking permit does not to any degree guarantee parking. Try parking a car off Devonshire Street any Thursday, Friday or Saturday evening and see if your parking permit makes any difference. If the council parking permits were a commercial venture the company issuing them would be taken before Fair Trading for selling a product `that does not work or meet with its purpose of manufacture'.

`Expand use of pay-parking (with standard resident exemptions) to encourage turnover and discourage commuting.'

This does not limit the number of cars that park in the area at present so how is this going to make a difference in the future. Once again poor research, your assumption are strictly hypothetical not based on the real situation that exists. By the way, one could be excused for viewing this recommendation as simply a `money making venture' favouring the government!

`Provide resident exemptions in nearby spaces where they are not currently exempt.
Transport for NSW would work through implementation of these measures to manage kerbside activity with the City of Sydney.'

What `nearby spaces' exist that are `not currently exempt'? What is the volume? It is so easy to say `would work through implementation' but what are the facts? Your document generally lacks consistency and a genuine grip on reality!

To sum up, I feel that the EIS has seriously misrepresented the effects the light rail route through Devonshire Street will have. Essentially the effects will be devastating, not only during the construction period but for the life of the light rail.

I look forward to your serious considerations of these matters and a review of the proposal to use Devonshire Street as a convenient corridor. GET IT RIGHT!

Vincent Brincat

I think this is a great infrastructure for all residents and also the staff, students and patients who visit UNSW and Prince of Wales hospital.

It will most definitely drive business in and around the areas that are connected to the light rail. It also gives an alternate transport to that of buses which is the only public transport we have currently in the eastern suburbs while most other areas have two choices of either trains, buses, light rail and ferries.

The Director
Development Assessment Systems & Approvals
Infrastructure Projects Branch
NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001



SUBMISSION - CBD AND SOUTH EAST LIGHT RAIL - APPLICATION NO SSI 6042

In November 2013 the NSW government's transport planning agency, Transport for NSW (TfNSW), released an environmental impact statement (EIS) regarding a proposed CBD and South East Light Rail project, referred to as the CSELR. The exhibition of the EIS was announced by the Department of Planning and Infrastucture in the Sydney press of 13 November 2013. This submission is in response to that EIS. In this submission, the light rail vehicles are referred to as LRVs.

I support the proposal, with the following qualifications;

CHANGING SYDNEY'S CAR CULTURE

The opening of the CSELR will represent a significant change in the way Sydney streets are used, particularly in the way that various vehicle types react with each other and with pedestrians. It offers an opportunity to create a new heirarchy for all users of the public street. Sydney can capitalise on this opportunity, to restore a degree of fairness in the relationships between motorists, public transport users, and pedestrians.

After fifty years of relatively cheap motor cars, Sydney has developed a "car culture". For more than fifty years the government roads agencies have devoted themselves to making the use of motor vehicles ever more convenient, faster, and safer. This has often been at the expense of other road users. Pedestrians today are habitually wary of crossing any street. All their lives they have been warned that it is dangerous. Projects like the proposed $11billion WestConnex motorway will again reinforce car travel as the easiest, logical, means of travel. Regretably, the car culture is to be further cultivated by the new federal goverment which has declared explicitly that it will fund new roads but not urban rail projects. The community's curious preoccupation with the loss of car parking associated with the CSELR project may also be a symptom of this culture.

The CSELR introduces a new paradigm into the way people will move about the inner suburbs. It also introduces a new dynamic into the way vehicles and drivers must interact. The CSELR will operate largely on public streets, whereas the existing light rail line is mostly segregated from general traffic. The existing line sets a very poor precedent for a new public understanding of light rail, given that it travels slowly, is accompanied "on-street" by continuous flashing amber lights and bell-ringing, and has no priority when it does happen to interact with general motor traffic.

It is important then that the rules governing the way the CSELR interacts with general traffic be established in such a way as to maximise the broadest possible benefits from this new player on Sydney streets. This will not occur naturally. It will need to be imposed. Some of this new regime may have to be imposed by government, but every opportunity should be taken to apply conditions to the approval of this project which will ensure that LRVs, with their very high occupancy levels, are given due recognition by the motoring public, including priority at traffic signals.

Perhaps it should be a condition of approval for CSELR that intensive motorist education campaigns be conducted on how to interact with LRVs, and procedures put in place to ensure the adequate funding of both the campaigns and motorist compliance.

CATENERY-FREE POWER SUPPLY

I note that catenery-free power supply to the LRVs is under active consideration for the section between Circular Quay and Town Hall. I am opposed to this mode of power supply if it is being employed solely on the ground of visual amenity. My understanding is that, historically, this mode of power delivery has been significantly more expensive than conventional overhead catenery wire, in capital cost, running cost, and maintenance cost. I acknowledge that rapid advances are being made in catenery-free design and that by the time CSELR is opened, these cost penalties may have been significantly reduced.

WYNYARD STATION CONNECTION

A tramway easement should be preserved now, between George Street at Martin Place, and the former underground tram platforms at Wynyard railway station, via Wynyard Street. Such an easement would provide for a future connection between the George Street tracks and North Sydney and beyond, using the Sydney Harbour Bridge.


PASSENGER AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES

Particular attention must be paid to the provision of weather protection, wayfinding, other-mode public transport information, and personal facilities such as seating and public toilets, at each of the major LRV stops. This applies particularly to Rawson Place, which will be a newly created interchange and public transport hub, with a potentially much higher number of pedestrian movements than at other stops, especially in peak hours.

MOORE PARK TUNNEL

I support the use of a tunnel under Moore Park rather than a viaduct over it. It would minimise the further alienation of Sydney's diminishing parkland. It would also enable the continued use of the existing sporting fields by the many hundreds of students at the adjacent Sydney High Schools.

MOORE PARK STOP

The light rail tracks emerge from the Moore Park tunnel at a level some metres below grade. Every effort should be made to use this difference in elevation to provide direct access to the island platform from a point adjacent to the top of the tunnel portal, instead of the "up-across-and-down" configuration of the current plans.

RACECOURSE STABLING FACILITY - AIR RIGHTS

Consideration should be given to incorporating provision for a future air-rights development over the LRV stabling depot. The Centennial Parklands Trust has grandiose schemes for future development within the parklands, which are located immediately opposite the depot. An air-rights platform over the stabling yard could prove useful as a location for future park support or other park-related services, thus reducing the pressure to construct ever more buildings in the parklands proper.

PROPOSED HIGH STREET RANDWICK STOP

The current plans do not include a stop in High Street Randwick, between the UNSW stop in Wansey Road and the terminus in High Cross Park. I understand this is to maintain the carrying capacity of High Street for general traffic.

I propose an additional stop at the eastern end of High Street, just west of Avoca Street. It would -

1 - save passengers' time and effort by giving them more direct access to the Prince of Wales Hospital and the Belmore Road shopping centre,

2 - be located on a level section of road, avoiding the problems associated with wheelchair loading from stops on sloping ground,

3 - avoid interferring with bus services, most of which turn at Clara Street,

4 - minimise frustration for on-board passengers, who otherwise must wait for the tram to cross Avoca Street, then walk backward to their destination. Being a light-controlled intersection, many LRVs will have to stop at this location anyway, facing a red light,

5 - benefit from drive-over platforms if necessary, as used in Melbourne, to facilitate both general traffic and emergency vehicle movements.

6 - reduce the pedestrian circulation area required at the High Cross Park terminus, by reducing conflicts with pedestrians moving between buses and LRVs

I believe this additional stop could be justified financially if appropriate values were assigned to walking, waiting and travel times for CSELR patrons. Similar values should be ascribed to the convenience of reduced walking distances between the LRV stop, Prince of Wales Hospital, and the Belmore Road shops.

RANDWICK TERMINUS - PRESERVATION OF PARKLAND

The use of High Cross Park as a CSELR terminus will destroy much of the present park. This could be compensated by providing a small underground car park, under the terminus, to accommodate those vehicles which are currently parked between Avoca Street and the front of the Edmund Blacket building in the grounds of Prince of Wales Hospital. With suitable accoustic barriers, a much improved public park could then be created in front of the Edmund Blacket building.

ANZAC PARADE UNSW STOP

The anticipated long-term expansion of the University of NSW (UNSW) to the western side of Anzac Parade should justify the positioning of this stop in the centre of Anzac Parade from the outset. Provision should also be made now for a future pedestrian underpass, conveniently connecting the east campus, the west campus and the LRV stop. There could be significant accumulated travel time savings for both LRV passengers and motorists in not requiring LRVs to leave and re-enter centre-of-road running, as is presently planned.

ADVERTISING ON LRV WINDOWS

The placement of advertising film on the windows of buses and LRVs in Sydney has become entrenched. This is despite complaints from passengers, for whom the view from inside the vehicle is compromised. In wet weather in particular, external features which can assist passengers in their orientation, are rendered unidentifiable, due to water droplets adhering to the perforations in the film.

This practice should be specifically forbidden on the CSELR. It can be irritating and confusing for on-board passengers, especially tourists, and it will destroy the corporate "arrows" livery of the fleet. Tourists' inability to take useful photographs from inside the LRVs should also be considered.

LRV STOPPING PATTERNS

Presumably all regular CSELR services will stop at every stop along the route. If "special event" services to and from Moore Park and Randwick Racecourse are to run "express", great care must be taken to ensure that this information is conveyed to potential passengers, especially as many of them may not be regular users of public transport.

The writer may be contacted if required, by phone on 9819 6052.

Kevin Eadie
21 St Georges Cres.
Drummoyne, NSW, 2047.

16 December 2013.

END

We are fully in support of improvements to public transport and active transport in the eastern suburbs. However we have concerns regarding the current scheme and the benefit of light rail for achieving a better integrated land use and transport outcome for the eastern suburbs and its ability to improve travel from this locality (Randwick) to key employment centres around Sydney. Based on our initial review of the scheme we have identified the following concerns, which don't appear to be addressed in the EIS as part of understanding, quantifying and managing the impact of the scheme:
* Based on the information provided it is unclear how the proposed changes to the bus system will benefit current users of the system from the Eastern Suburbs, and in particular Randwick. The scheme appears to remove key bus service routes, however the schemes route does not appear to adequately serve Randwick as a key specialist centre (the scheme is situated at the southern end of the current centre) nor the majority of its surrounding catchment (especially to its north and east). The scheme's route appears to support parcels of land owned by major land owners (race course and University and in some cases the hospital) that are being encouraged for development to achieve State Government growth targets. It is proposed to intensify land use along corridors adjacent to the above land holdings, which will provide direct benefit to the owners. However, it does not appear to support the improvement of Randwick as a centre, its connectivity with other surrounding centres nor does it help the intensification of other land use areas within the existing catchment. How does existing median to high density urban areas within Randwick North and East benefit from the removal of existing public transport services and the lack of a high quality public transport service alternative replacement that can adequately serve the centre and its catchment?
* The current scheme appears to force people to change modes on a number of occasions and not satisfy the travel needs of the majority of the existing community. Walking to bus, then bus to light rail, followed by light rail to heavy rail and then finally from heavy rail to walking - would you choice to switch or is the car now the only option for travel to destinations beyond the CBD?
* The focus also appears to be on access to the hospital, university, and race course, and new land use and not improving access for the existing community in Randwick and its catchment to other key localities around Sydney. Is this really an attractive option for the majority of existing trips created in the Randwick area and for travelling around Sydney?
* What is the cost penalty for users forced to change between modes and by how much would the price of travel change?
* Has a feasibility study been undertaken to justify that light rail as the preferred scheme above the previous proposed heavy rail scheme. This has previously been considered as an extension to the eastern suburb line travelling from Bondi Junction, serving existing centres of Charing Cross, Randwick, and Maroubra then travelling to the airport or feeding into the rail network in another location (offering additional rail capacity for accessing the city)? Would this not be a better way to move the masses around Sydney, improving connectivity and the attractiveness of public transport as a viable option for moving both from and to the eastern suburbs?
* How do people travel to Macquarie Park (or Green Square, Chatswood and North Sydney) from Randwick under the current scheme, which is another key locality encouraged by Government for employment clusters in specialist health and education services?
* In reference to construction impact, the assessment of the Alison Road route and its intersections does not appear to reflect the current operating conditions experienced by drivers on a day to day basis during the AM peak. Significant delays are experienced on a day to day basis by users of this route (intersection delay and travel speeds), which have not been adequately identified or considered in the determination of a scheme and the delivery of construction. Why is this not identified in the assessment?
* Alison Road is the primary corridor for travel from Randwick and its surroundings and supports city bound travel by commuters travelling by bus, private vehicles, bike or foot (walking and running) yet the scheme proposes to remove capacity on a currently constrained corridor. What is the related impact on each of these modes from this proposal and how has this been addressed or managed?
* It appears that alternative routes - High Street, Darley Street and Rainbow Street are also proposed to be impacted by the scheme and as a result the impact from the construction period will be significant and the cumulative impact from the scheme is not adequately addressed. How does the project propose to manage this impact?
* It is not clear why the route travels along Alison Road? The primary purpose of the route appears to be driven by serving new land use parcels in the University and race course corridor and reducing the number of buses travelling along the CBD road network for the entire length of the CBD. Based on this being the primary purpose for the alignment, would it not be more logical to relocate the scheme from Alison Road to the full length of High Street only (between Belmore Road and Anzac Parade)? This would reduce the proposed impact on all modes using Alison Road, Randwick as a key centre and ensure that the schemes reduces its impact on the majority of the Randwick community that are unlikely to benefit from this scheme.
All of the above matters need to be considered if the EIS is to adequately address the impact of the scheme and justify public investment in the current version of the project based on its current alignment.

I support the light rail network proposed, but having visited an exhibition at the University of New South Wales, I was encouraged to make a submission regarding questions and points for further investigation to improve the performance of the light rail system.

1. Why has a light rail (tram) been chosen over a trolley bus system, which would probably require less capital expenditure on laying rail systems, and is more easily upgradeable in future. A trolley bus can also operate for a short time off the wire grid if necessary in the case of breakdowns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus

2. The energy and carbon footprint of the system should be of great concern to the City of Sydney. Despite photovoltaics having been proposed for the stabling facilities in Rozelle and Randwick, why has consideration not been given to placing photovoltaics on suitable tram stops? Moreover, will the system make any commitments to purchase green power in the contract with the energy retailer? This should be considered if the City of Sydney cares to reduce its footprint and strive to be a climate conscious city. Photovoltaics already pay for themselves under leasing arrangements, and depending on the contract offered by the energy retailer, should be quite competitive, not to mention improve the green credentials of the transport scheme.

3. Considering the plans for a significant program of urban renewal around Green Square, why has there been no proposal to extend the light rail to that area and beyond?

4. Bicycle parking and car parking facilities should be a priority particularly at the endpoints of the network, to encourage uptake by people who live slightly out of range of the network.

5. Energy Efficiency measures should be considered from the beginning. I have been told the trams will be air conditioned. Why should this occur, when there is the possibility for absorption chilling and heat pumps? What of solar cooling in the trams?

6. The colour of pavement used, especially around the stretch of track planned for george street, has a significant temperature effect on the urban heat islands in the city. Darker pavement increases temperature, whilst lighter pavement increases light penetration down the narrower streets of george street, and reduces the temperature of the city especially on hot summer days. use lighter pavement!

7. Native planting should be conducted, particularly around bus stations. Xeriscaping will reduce the water requirements, and improve visual amenity.

8. My final and most important recommendation is that the scheme will only succeed if there is one ticket, useable across all forms of public transport within and beyond the sydney region. Hopefully the use of the OPAL card will remain a central element of the proposed light rail.

I oppose the CBD & South East Light Rail Project & the EIS in its current format.
I am concerned that in its current format it is not looking at the best public transport travel options for residents but rather looking at servicing the event precincts (Moore Park & Randwick Racecourse) and the University. Whilst no one could argue that the event precinct patrons & the University patrons need to be considered, they should not be the driving force behind the proposal.
I also object to the South East Light Rail Project being intrinsically linked to the justification of the Urban Activation Plan in Randwick. When the campaign to bring light rail back to the east was running the residents supported it as an improvement to their area, not to have the project high-jacked to feed into the UAP.
The terminus at High Cross Park creates several issues ranging from loss of amenity to creating traffic congestion at one of the few access roads to Coogee & `The Spot'.
High Cross Park is a heritage area classified in the Randwick LEP and by the National Trust of NSW. High Cross Park provides a precious respite for hospital patients and a welcome place to rest and relax at lunch time for the workers in the area. I object to losing what little green space Randwick has to the terminus, this also seems unjustified when an alternative terminus location could work nearby on High St.
In addition the significant loss of mature trees at High Cross Park is devastating. Many of the trees are in the Randwick's Significant Tree Register. These trees give this tiny park its peaceful, restful ambience despite being bounded by three busy streets.
Having the terminus at the top of Coogee Bay Rd will create traffic congestion along Coogee Bay Rd, Perouse Rd, Avoca St & Belmore St. There a two roads into Coogee; Alison Rd & Coogee Bay Rd, currently both are under serious strain during peak hours & placing the terminus at the top of Coogee Bay Rd & having it act as a bus interchange will create a bottle neck.
I believe that a revision of the placement of the tracks & terminus is required to save the mature trees and keep Randwick green. The loss of approx. 700 mature trees along the light rail corridor is excessive & detrimental to the area in terms of social, environmental & economic factors. Trees provide a positive contribution towards maintaining a city's sustainability and to community health and serenity.
Collectively, trees add beauty to our urban landscapes by softening the harsh lines of buildings, complimenting architecture, screening unsightly views and providing privacy and a sense of security and place.

Trees absorb air pollutants, release oxygen and sequester carbon dioxide. They reduce stormwater runoff and erosion, ameliorate climate, can save energy, provide wildlife habitat and strengthen a sense of community within a given area.
The proposal does not have a dedicated bike & walking corridor included; this must be planned & delivered along with the light rail. If we are serious about improving transport links as well as improving access to public spaces then a holistic approach is required.
I also feel that the multi-mode of transport that is on offer (ie. Most buses terminate at light rail terminuses & all passengers transfer to light rail) will add significant additional travel time & cost to journeys. Increased travel time not just as a result of the time it takes to change transport modes but also factoring in that many buses are proposed to be cancelled this will result in less options to get to the terminus to change for the light rail. In addition the route via Surry Hills, Central & George St will also add significant travel time even with light rail being given a dedicated lane & `right of way'. Increased cost as 2 separate trips will now need to be paid for as well as factoring in that light rail fares are currently more expensive than bus fares for the same distance. E.g. Fares on light rail from Lilyfield to Central cost $4.60 and yet are only $3.60 for the same distance on a bus.
Public transport is well utilised when it doesn't feel like a `chore' to use. It needs to get us to our destination in a timely manner but it also needs to be accessible, affordable, convenient, comfortable, clean & safe.
This proposal severely diminishes the accessibility, convenience & comfort of public transport.
The cancellation of bus services reduces both accessibility & convenience. It also assumes that everyone is travelling into the city & not to destinations in between. E.g. From beach to their home in other parts of Coogee or Randwick, shopping at Randwick Junction or attending an event at the Racecourse/Moore Park.
I strongly object to the cancellation of bus services from Coogee, particularly the 373 from Coogee. As the M50 is also to be cancelled, this will leave just the 314, 370 & 372 to service passengers from Coogee to the light rail terminus as well as service the passengers utilising these services to destinations beyond the terminus.
I also object to the rerouting of the 374 to Edgecliff after it travels Anzac Parade. North Coogee residents & the Randwick residents living near Carrington Rd & Alison Rd already have a very limited public transport service as it is. The 374 should be retained as an all-day service to the city.
The much reduced seating to standing ratio on the light rail coupled with the need to change modes severely decreases the comfort.
Whilst the light rail carriages can hold a significant number of additional passengers 300 on the light rail versus 58 on a bus. The seated versus standing ratios are significantly altered: light rail = 80 seated & 220 standing; bus = 43 seated & 15 standing. This represents a greater proportion of standing passengers. Currently on a standard bus the seating to standing ratio is 16:3 on the light rail the ratio will be 4:11.
I would like a revision of the placement of the tracks & terminus that better services the needs of the residents as well as retention of more bus services.

I object to the proposed light rail as the Fouveaux St option has not been explored and the loss of Olivia Gardens apartments

Dear Sir / Madam

Submission re Sydney CBD and South East Light Rail Project
- Objection to removal of trees including heritage and significant trees

I am writing on behalf of the membership of Sydney Metropolitan Wildlife Services Inc. (Sydney Wildlife). Sydney Wildlife is a voluntary charitable organisation comprising approximately 450 members licensed by the Office of Environment and Heritage to rescue, rehabilitate and release native fauna across the greater Sydney basin.

Whilst our membership recognises the need for improved public transport for commuters it is felt the current design will have significant adverse impacts on the environment & heritage of the area. In particular the removal of a large number of trees (760 trees) many of which are significant and some heritage listed (e.g. Fig trees).

These trees provide significant habitat for native fauna species in particular the Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), a species listed as threatened under the NSW Threatened Species Act 1995 and the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999. This animal is a keystone species and primary pollinator of native trees in both NSW and QLD. During the spring-summer season, lactating females carrying young often require a number of stopping points (trees) between roosting sites and feeding grounds. There are two known roosting sites within the Sydney CBD, - Centennial Park and the Royal Botanic Gardens. Lactating females use canopy trees in surrounding areas as resting points whilst carrying non-flying, dependent young.

Sydney Wildlife requests the following points are considered, that the:
* Light rail design be reviewed and adjusted to avoid the loss of existing mature, healthy trees, especially in the areas of High Cross Park, Alison Road/Randwick Racecourse, Anzac Parade/Alison Road, and Wansey Road/Randwick Racecourse.
* Light Rail route be relocated to ensure trees along Alison Road / Randwick;Racecourse, which are mature (around 100 years old) and healthy, and currently provide significant visual, amenity & heritage value for residents and visitors, remain protected and preserved;
* Entire project employ wire-free running (as planned for the George Street alignment) to avoid negative impacts on tree canopies and wildlife;
* Project employ qualified arboriculturalists during both design and construction to ensure the most recent methods for assessing trees & impacts are employed and that trees are not negatively impacted during construction;
* High Cross Park interchange be relocated to High Street where it will ensure easy hospital access (especially for less mobile passengers), while conserving High Cross Park. High Cross Park marks the junction of early walking tracks used by indigenous peoples and the first European visitors. Today, the park hosts a number of important civic and community ceremonies and provides green recreation space.
* The Light Rail alignment on Wansey Road be relocated into Royal Randwick Racecourse to ensure the preservation of a large number of significant trees that positively contribute to the visual & landscape character in and around the racecourse, as well as amenity value for pedestrians, tourists and local residents.
* 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.
* That the significant trees located in Tay Reserve (corner Alison Road and Anzac Parade) be preserved and alternative alignments be explored to . These trees are of significant heritage value and also provide habitat for native species.

Should you have any queries please do not hesitate contact the undersigned.

Yours sincerely

Sonja Elwood
Chairperson

I am not in favour of any rail going up Devonshire Street. I have worked in the area for a number of years and I think the light rail that is being considered will totally destroy the feel of the place, not to mention the noise it will create for residents, forcing more vehicles into the side streets for parking (which is almost impossible now already) removal of trees and the demolition of houses along the planned route.

Not a good idea at all, we should learn from other cities and put it underground

Recently I've found out about some of the impacts of having the light rail in my area. I live in Anzac pde Kensington and it would be going and stopping outside my place.
My concerns include:
the lost of already very limited parking (plus we have Peter's of Kensington visitors and the Race, football & cricket goers)
more traffic congestion
the cost to travel on the light rail is much more expensive than bus- so I probably won't use it and others would feel the same
we already have a wonderful public transport system of buses in this area...perhaps putting the funding to areas in the west would be benefit from better public transport.
the removal of trees from the footpaths which decreasing shade and decreases biodiversity- less habitats and less food for native animals including the endangered flying fox.
limited right turning into side streets (which has alreadly be reduced over the years)
extra noise and vibrations from the light rail
extra noise at my immediate location due to the installation of traffic lights.
I am against the light rail in the Eastern suburbs. Would prefer to see the money being put into public transport in other areas or in country locations.

I strongly object to this Light Rail proposal as it is currently presented. it does not serve my community at all, and cuts an intrusive swathe through an otherwise quiet and green village style community and park lands. This is careless and irresponsible town planning at its worst, with artist impressions that describe a lie! Where are the overhead wires in you art-scape? And, with mature trees that look to have been there at least 20 already. Another Cahill Expressway/Circular Quay eyesore of the future!
Meanwhile, the communities of East Redfern and Waterloo get no benefit from this proposal either! If this project eventuates I hope every bureaucratic twerp involved were vain enough to put your name to it, so generations to come will know who to blame.

I am completely against the light rail, I cannot believe that one tree should be cut down to make way for transport. If any trees are damaged I intend to make sure everyone knows what environmental damage is being caused by this project in what ever way possible. Those trees are part of our history, if they cannot design something to work in sympatico with them, try again!

I do not support the light rail development in the eastern suburbs at its current cost in trees, heritage around the racecourse, and bus services.
The trees in the Randwick Precinct along Alison and Wansey Road are hundreds of years old. Just replanting them does not take into account their place in the floral history of the area nor the practical benefits of shade and beauty.
The heritage of the Racecourse is also being destroyed along Alison Road and through into where the 'stabling' area is planned. Historic buildings that contribute to the character and understanding of the racecourse within the history of the area are being lost without a thought.
Furthermore, you are cutting the only bus that links the inner west with the east (M10) forcing commuters to take two different forms of transport. Further disruptions to routes forcing commuters into other forms of transport will not improve Sydney transport, it will only lead to disgruntled commuters. How is the light rail supposed to cope with the high number of uni students plus everyday commuters? According to the EIS, the maths indicates only 6000 can be transported using the light rail and yet 135 all stops buses and all express buses are being cut.