Sydney CBD Light Rail

The La Perouse Precinct Committee strongly rejects the proposal to establish a light rail system from Circular Quay to Randwick and Kingsford because:
It is unnecessary AND VERY COSTLY in relation to more efficient use of buses.
Some bus services can be terminated at Central and passengers wishing to go between Central and Circular Quay transfer to trains or buses whose routes to Circular Quay are maintained. This arrangement can also be used in reverse. This will both reduce the number of buses between Central and Circular Quay and also create some shorter routes for half empty buses.
The need to have an second transport organisation administrative organisation is avoided so would the costs of establishing the infrastructure required for the operation of the trams ans costs of purchase in relation to costs og buses and also inventory of spare parts as well a the need to buy and maintain spares and maintenance crews etc.
More efficient use and routing of buses would also save Highcross Park at Randwick. More efficient use of buses can be achieved by elimination parts of services that are duplicated by other services so that buses are kept relatively full all the time.
It is understood that 80% of rail passengers would alight and get of at the terminuses at Kingsford and Randwick. Given the very small space available this will cause chaos by the throng of people and the throng ofthe extra traffic caused by people getting in and out of cars in the near vicinity of the interchanges, The interchange spaces are just not big enough nor is the interface to private transport for the rail passengers. Unlike Central station there has to be shelters built so that passengers waiting for tams or just alighting from trams have reasonable shelter from inclement weather.
This in turn restricts the available space at the interchanges.

The notion of having to change modes of transport s a retrograde step in service. It was much despised when it was extant in previous years. It is totally unfair to disabled and elderly and frail people.
When it comes to trams there is no such thing as an express service because one tram cannot overtake an other. Also the trams would have to stop at every tram stop because of the large number of passengers and also to keep service separations . Journey times in non peak times would therefor be a lot longer than could be achieved by buses.
Trams also cannot travel cross country as can buses. This again would lead to a deterioration in current bus services.

Rather than a myriad of people being forced to change modes of transport at Randwick and Kingspford, if people were obliged to change at Central to either the heavy rail and /or more efficiently used buses then the objectives can be achieved at very little it at all increased costs.
There is large unused bus interface capacity at the UNSW because Barker St is not being utilized for that purpose.
It would also be reasonable to ask that some buses be allowed on the Campus. Also a bus exclusive lane could be established along the UNSW fence line along Botany Rd by taking up the nature strip and creating a pedestrian way inside the university fence.
It is not on to expect the people who do not use the university to fund a transport system costing hundreds of millions of dollars for major benefit by the UNSW and major dis benefit of passengers who are forced to modes of transport at the interchanges.
The university must contribute space and cooperation so that buses can be better utilised and the monumental costs of another transport system averted..

The proposed routing along Anzac Pde at Kensington and Kingsford is an absolute travesty in its complete domination of what is a beautiful Broadway. The trams cannot be allowed to spoil it either visually or functionally.

I don't support any rail.

Dear Sir/s

Firstly my apologies as I've just been informed that the submission date was Dec 16 for any public comments. Carnival Australia's fiscal year end is Nov 30 and therefore the last 6 weeks have been rather frantic.

I am hoping that my comments are still noted.

As the owner of 27 Nobbs St, Surry Hills (which runs parallel to the North of the existing Olivia Gardens, Surry Hills). The property is currently rented.

I am supportive of the proposed light rail and it's path through the existing Olivia Gardens conditional on the following items:

Construction
1. That appropriate screening is installed between Olivia Gradens and the rear of the Nobb St properties to avoid excess particles/fragments etc that will be caused during demolition.
2. That laneway access to the rear of Nobbs St remain intact during demolition and construction.
3. That any impact on my tenants through excessive noise, limited property access and construction materials entering the property be negligible
4. That any resulting loss of rents from item 3 above be compensated as and when occurred.

Post Construction
1. That laneway access at the rear of Nobbs St will remain intact
2. That there will not be noise issues associated with the light rail that will unduly impact the value of the properties along Nobbs St
3. That the install and presence of the light rail system does not in itself affect land values accordingly to the OSR
4. That any capital value losses as a result of item 3 and 4 be appropriately compensated.

I am more than willing to discuss further and can be contacted either on this email or via my contact telephone numbers below.

Best regards and a wonderful festive season
Wayne Stokes

I do not support the CSELR propasal on the grounds that there has been limit consultation with the local effected communities. The compulsory buy up of housing and the removal of old growth trees, as well as the noise levels for locals are further grounds for objection. This is an ill conceived proposal which appears to have listened little to the local community needs.

I do not support the CSELR project due many reasons some of which are the buying out of homes, the removal of parks and trees, reduction of car parking in the area, the noise level and safety issues with rail speed and the lack of community consideration by the government.

Fantastic initiative...how about extending the network further by running it all the way down Elizabeth Street, through the CBD, Surry Hills and on to Zetland and then to Green Square, a major hub in the future...

Please don't take away more of our paradise for the desire of those few who don't see it. Our land, our culture is rapidly disappearing until there is not enough left for survival of any species on this planet.

I DO NOT SUPPORT THE CSELR PROJECT BECAUSE IT SHOWS LACK OF CONSIDERATION TO THE COMMUNITY

(Comments inspired by a quick glance at the map of the proposed line).

Would it be fesible at this stage to plan a segment of track all the way to Eastgardens? Anzac Parade, Maroubra Rd, and the portion of Bunnerong Rd up to Eastgardens are certainly wide enough to accommodate the light rail since they used to house tram lines.

Furthermore, extending this line to Maroubra and then onto Eastgardens would make sense since there have been so many new apartment blocks built in the last 10 years, and since the former Holden site (yes, i'm holding onto the glory days since my old man used to work there) is going to be re-purposed with large residential dwellings.

If an extension is under consideration, or planned as a future upgrade, would it not make sense to just build it into the current plan to save money in the long run (with higher upfront costs)?

I believe the community would be all for this as the Maroubra area has been built up tremendously over the last 10-15 years with seemingly little done to improve the public transport situation.

A point-to-point track from Eastgardens to Kingsford via Maroubra Junction would give people the option to join major bus lines in Maroubra or Kingsford (i'm not going to think of Eastgardens as a major bus hub considering the poor experiences i have had with Bunnerong Rd services).

Lastly, if Anzac Parade is not an option, how about at least building a track from Kingsford to Eastgardens along Banks Ave? This could serve as an alternative to Bunnerong Rd buses for parents sending their kids to Daceyville Public School.

Some food for thought.

Thanks for reading.

The EIS states that bus services from the Kingsford exchange will be terminated at Todman Avenue but does not reveal where the buses will turn around. This information must be provided before any approval is granted and must be properly assessed.

15th December, 2013



Development Assessments Systems and Approvals
Department of Planning and Infrastructure
CBD and South East Light Rail project
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2000

Attention: Director, Infrastructure Projects Branch

FAX (02) 9228 6366


Department of Planning and Infrastructure
Re: CSELR - response to Environmental Impact Statement

As a resident of Surry Hills for over 20 years and a business owner for nearly 30 years, I wish to voice my strong opposition for the proposed design of the CBD and South East Light Rail project (CSELR) as described in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) dated November 2013. I do not agree with the proposal as stated in the EIS document.
I have several concerns in relation to the CSELR project and the EIS, particularly in relation to the Surry Hills to Moore Park West Route in relation to light rail travelling along Devonshire Street. Over the past few months I have attended many local resident meetings and sourced any information that has been provided by way of media releases and the like, but still remain bemused as to why despite overwhelming public objection and viable alternatives that are equally cost effective being suggested, the current route appears to have been decided upon by officials involved in the CSELR's planning.
No genuine community consultation by Government Officials has been afforded to residents and parties affected and many residents and business owners are feeling their opinions aren't being considered. I have also discussed this matter with some of my staff members who are not residents but frequently choose to visit the area socially and they are in total agreement with the issues we are raising.
I will personally be affected by the current proposal as it stands in many ways, for example -

1. Specific to Parkham Street -
I request Parkham Street be kept open to allow access by service vehicles from Nobbs Street. This will allow traffic dropping off at the school to exit up onto South Dowling not back into the heavily restricted Surry Hills area.

This will also greatly reduce noise pollution into property along Parkham Street.
This is not modelled on EIS noise impact statement and in the EPA guidelines noise levels prior to a road alteration can be compared with noise afterwards, this is not true for train lines.

If Parkham Lane is open we insist on a right turn onto Burke St from Parkham Lane as well as a left, ie open up Bourke to two-way from Parkham Lane to Devonshire St.
This will again reduce traffic being forced into the very congested Bourke and Cleveland junction. Also this will be safer by reducing the traffic passing the front of the school.

2. Unacceptable noise levels and the size and frequency of the light rail vehicles as they travel through a densely populated area - the noise analysis does not include increased traffic noise from cars now travelling down Parkham Lane. We need maximum noise attenuation.

3. Road closures and access to my property during and after the construction process, including traffic congestion.

4. A devaluation of my property with no future compensation from the Government.

5. Loss of Amenity and car parking.

6. Loss of existing parkland which I have for many years enjoyed with other residents, personal friends, business associates and family members.

I am also deeply concerned as to the dislocation this is causing amongst other residents which for many many years have provided a sense of community that is fast disappearing in Australian Municipalities. A great deal of anxiety has, and will continue to impact on not only those elderly and family groups that will be required to lose their homes and relocate to other areas against their wishes (including financial and long term mental health issues that will be experienced), but also local residents who remain and other visitors and tourists who enjoy the current amenities available.

During her term as Shadow Minister for Mental Health, I am certain The Honourable Gladys Berejeklian, MP would have acquired an extensive knowledge that issues such as those being raised by residents and stakeholders can also become a long-term cost to the Government and the community itself. I agree that the CSELR will be an asset for the City of Sydney and it's residents and visitors but its planning and consultation methods have not met the standards required or deserving of such a substantially important project.

I am one of the thousands of people who have previously signed the PUSH Petition requesting an alternative Surry Hills route and I therefore urge your Department to genuinely engage in further community consultation before a final decision is made.


Yours faithfully,


M Bowen
Surry Hills Resident

I strongly submit in favour of this project. Through this project, transportation to the south east suburbs will greatly improve, which will provide cascading benefits to a plethora of individuals and businesses.

The positives of this project include: improving the current bus-focused public transport system, minimising congestion and increasing the sustainability of the city.

I further submit that the stabling facilities should not impact the local housing market in Randwick and I trust that the location will be appropriate.

I support an extension from Kingsford to Maroubra beach.
Maroubra is a suburb that is continuing to expand in density and has a high car population.
At present bus services are unreliable and can take between 40 and 75 mins to reach the city. In off peak times (weekends) bus services are particularly unreliable, forcing people to use cars as a primary mode of transport.
If removing car congestion is a primary goal, then providing a reliable alternative is worth the additional investment. I would like to know what feasible reasons there are to not extend the additional 4km of track down Anzac Parade?

Dear Sir / Madam

I object to this project on a number of grounds, however, I would like to highlight that it will have a significantly negative impact on the existing 373 and X73 bus services.

It is my understanding that the 373 and X73 services will be cancelled. These bus services are critical for Coogee residents and the tram will be a very poor substitute.

I would encourage greater use of bus lanes and removal of on-street parking on Belmore Road, Randwick (substituted by construction of more parking stations near Belmore Road if required) as better solutions for residents of Coogee and surrounding areas. Such developments provide a relatively cheap and effective solution for improving the journey to the City for residents of Coogee and surrounds on the 373 and X73 buses.

It is clear that this project has been designed to accommodate the needs of visitors to the area (primarily UNSW, Randwick Racecourse and More Park) and ill-conceived plans to ramp up further development of an already medium/high-density region. However, it is unnecessary as buses already provide a good service for visitors to the area, particularly special event services which can be ramped up as required. Further development of the area is also unwarranted and a poor excuse for the project as any benefit of additional infrastructure will be offset by further overcrowding (the focus should be on providing solutions for existing residents).

The proposal completely ignores those residents who live on the fringe of the project in the Coogee area and ultimately will be cut-off from any net benefits which will supposedly accrue.

Travel times will significantly increase against a journey on the X73 and 373 buses. These buses connect Coogee with the North of the CBD (by-passing Central and the Southern CBD).

To get to the North of the CBD via the tram, Coogee residents will need to find their way to the tram at Randwick this may take circa 20-25 mins for an able-bodied person. Wait for a tram (5 mins), then travel to the City North, via Central and a trip through the entire Sydney CBD (34 mins per the State's expected travel time). This journey is at least 1 hour (best case scenario). I expect that this will be a very conservative estimate.

I also cite the following objections to the project:
* Destruction of George Street as a thoroughfare through the City resulting in diversion of traffic (particularly buses) to roads such as Elizabeth Street and Castlereagh Street. Elizabeth Street and Castlereagh Street will not be able to cope with increased traffic. They are already struggling.
* Negative impact on streetscape (particularly George Street streetscape). The electrical wiring required to power the network is unsightly.
* Contrary to claims that trams will not be more reliable than buses. If the tram breaks down, the whole network will shut down. If a single bus breaks down a replacement can be found relatively easily with limited network impacts.
* Price tag for this infrastructure project is outrageous.
* Construction works will take too long and will have a significantly negative impact on the entire transport network.
* Trams have been tried in this part of Sydney and failed. Let's not repeat the mistakes of the past. We need solutions that are suitable for the peculiarities of this region of Sydney, we don't need to import another Edinburgh experience.

In summary please make better use of bus infrastructure as a better alternative to this project. Please also ensure that the 373 and X73 services are not cancelled or frequency reduced as a consequence of this disastrous project.



Thanks

I disagree with the proposed route on the surface of Devonshire Street in Surry Hills. Devonshire Street is a narrow, tree-lined residential street. The road is not wide enough to take a light rail as well as two lanes of traffic (one in each direction) unless all the trees are felled and the pavements narrowed. If pavement widths are to be maintained then property boundaries would have to be moved and properties made smaller.

A subsurface track is required if the route must follow Devonshire Street. Alternatively Albion Street could be used as the route because this is a much wider street and so it could accommodate both traffic and a light rail across the current width of the road without any pavements to be narrowed or property boundaries to be moved.

A subsurface light rail below Albion Street has been proposed because of the gradient of the road surface and, given the information for and against this proposal in terms of cost and other factors, I support the subsurface Albion Street proposal.

I would like to object to the proposed speed of the LRVs through the Surry Hills area. I believe the proposed speed of 45km per hour should be reduced to 20km per hour as it will be on George st. My grandchildren will be living metres away from the track and I would like them to be able to play safely in the park which will be created in the area surrounding the tracks which is currently Olivia Gardens. It is also proposed the LRVs will be between 45m and 90m long and this speed is too fast for such large vehicles. There is also a school metres down the road so such large speeding vehicles will pose a danger for the children within the area.