Sydney CBD Light Rail

- The light rail should be extended to Maroubra Junction and Eastgardens to support exponential growth of population moving into newly built high rises. Particularly, up to 14 stories high blocks will be built next to Eastgardens on the former BATA site. NSW government approved the development; the government should provide additional public transport as well!

- The light rail will only deliver efficient fast transport if it will be fully isolated from cars to avoid light rail carriages getting stuck in general traffic.
The documentation does not provide information about track separation from the general traffic in Kensington and Kingsford areas.
If cars will be allowed to drive on light rail tracks, particularly during peak hours light rail carriages will lose intended advantage of fast public transport!

I support light rail in the CBD, but as a resident of Surry Hills I am concerned that the project will have a negative impact on our neighbourhood which is one of the best in the world. (Surry Hills ranked number 23 on the list of "The 50 Most Stylish Neighbourhoods in the World" published by American lifestyle magazine Complex). There are no positives for Surry Hills in this project. The Devonshire Street surface route will cause major disruption during and after construction. Devonshire street is too narrow to sustain two light rail tracks as well as local traffic. The loss of trees, car parking spaces and public park land in Moore Park, Wimbo Park & Wark Park will cause significant loss of amenity for residents. Local residents on and around Devonshire Street (including myself) will have restricted or no vehicular access to their houses. The tram stop at Ward park is pointless as it is only 4 minutes walk from Central station and the city bound trams will already be full in peak hour. Four major north-south roads will be impacted by trams every 2-4 minutes causing ongoing traffic chaos. This transport infrastructure project is short sighted as it will reach full capacity within three years of completion. The Foveaux Street subsurface route is far superior as it will cause less disruption, greater capacity (allowing for three tracks), it will be faster and provide a more useful service for Surry Hills residents. I am appalled that Transport for NSW has rejected this option without considering it. I am appalled that City of Sydney council has abandoned the Surry Hills "village" as collateral damage in their quest to get Light Rail established in the CBD.

I recently learned that a light rail service will be running along Anzac Parade, Kensington.
Even though I am not a resident of the Municipality of Randwick, my daughter has lived in the area since 1986 and I frequently visit her.
I was astounded to hear the excellent bus service that has been in operation will now be replaced by a service that will affect the area adversely.
The residents are already affected when football games, cricket and the races are held, the light rail will cause much more turmoil as it will be every day and every night. Also, the trees that now supply shade in the area, will be removed resulting in loss of habitat for native birds and animals. Parking will be non-existant.
You already have an extremely good bus service so hope you can see the logic in retaining the existing service.

I am very disappointed with this ridiculous idea of a light rail through surry hills. I do not want my home and neughbourhood destroyed. I will not benefit in any way and as a taxpayer the burden is shared by me. Homes near the city are difficult to get and the government plans to destroy beautiful apartment blocks for a service that has no chance if success. Why not try alleviating areas that are congested and improving the current rail system?? This is simply an unecessary waste of funding with no real thought to the utility of such a project. The most congested area is linking the city to the west and alleviating the huge traffic backlog.

I do not support the CSELR project due to 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.

I would like to object to the proposed light rail project for the following reasons listed below.

Having lived in two European cities that have light rail (trams), both cities had established light rail from very much the beginning of public transport and were basically designed around that mode of transport. However, the proposed light rail for Kingsford and Randwick are being imposed on already traffic congested roads totally unsuitable for light rail.

The light rail capacity according to the TNSW consultant report 2012 states capacity can never be increased. The EIS states that 9000 is the maximum passenger capacity per hour. The frequency can never be increased to cater for increased demand which will be needed for the future growth which will inevitably happen regardless of the UAP proposal. How the light rail will be able to cut traffic congestion and provide future growth in public transport in the Kingsford/Randwick area would appear not to be too well supported by the information I, as a resident, have received.

Traffic is already horrendous at the Kingsford roundabout at peak hours. Traffic now travelling along Gardeners Road to the Kingsford roundabout along with traffic from Bunnerong Road and Anzac Parade going to the UNSW or the Prince of Wales Hospital will only have less lanes, not three as it presently has, will itself cause problems such as traffic wanting to rat run through the local area trying to avoid the congestion that will inevitably happen. No provisions in any of the reports that I have seen or read suggest that this will not be the case. At present, our local streets are being very heavily clogged by students from all over Sydney looking to park their cars. The last thing we need as a community is traffic rat running through our neighbourhood, considering we have become a parking lot for the UNSW.

Being a pensioner who relies on public transport to go shopping I find it astonishing that the light rail will only be providing 20 stops. The distance I will now have to walk with my shopping will be twice as far as I presently have two walk, also not everyone travelling to the city wants to go to George Street or Circular Quay. Light rail does not appear to address this problem. Bus capacity, it would seem will be cut to the bone.

It would also appear to me after attending numerous community forums that this light rail proposal has not been fully thought through by the powers that be. If a mass public transport system is required for future growth light rail is not the way to go. Heavy underground rail is the answer and not just to Kingsford and the surrounding areas. It is my view that any amount of tinkering with the present system to impose light rail will be an abject failure and waste of taxpayers money.

Yours sincerely
R E Kelly

I wish to refer to your light rail project from the city to Randwick and Kingsford. I believe this to be a failure my reasons are as follows
1. It is an eyesore on the streetscape.
Anzac Parade just isn't wide enough. Traffic is already too heavy to have to share with of all things a rail line. Congestion on Anzac Parade is already at or very close to reaching capacity.
What next bike - lanes as well ? Perhaps a horse and cart lane ?
2. This is a very short term solution for a very long term issue. I believe an underground rail system would better suit the solutions of the longer term. The Lilyfield line is predominately underground it does not impact visually is relatively quiet and can be scaled up to accommodate additional train services as the need arises. It may be longer in the making by putting the light rail underground but the benefits would be very long term, any subsequent additional costs could then be spread out over additional years.
Any breakdowns would not affect traffic flow above.
Maintenance would not affect traffic flow above
Additional lines can be made to branch out more easily without affecting the streetscape above.
Train stops can be more selectively/strategically placed. With minimal effect to the streetscape above.
Passenger changeover would be more easily handled with underground rail platforms sharing pedestrian workload at changeover points.
3. This is a process that requires more thought and input from the community than has been allocated thus far. To me it seems like it's been a rushed job to arrive at a conclusion as soon as possible.
An infrastructure project of this magnitude needs careful planning and input with the appropriate community time allocated to it.
4. Do it once and do it properly. The monorail in the city comes to mind when past failures are looked at. The trams of 50years ago also can be cited apart from a nostalgic memory they were an eyesore. Hindered traffic flow and had no future potential for expansion as a people mover. Traffic flow has since increased immeasurably and will continue to do so at a immeasurable rate can you tell me that Anzac Parade will be up to this?
Many fellow residents I have spoken to are still not fully aware of the planning and what it all means and how it will affect us all in the years to come. The feedback I hear is this whole process is just happening to quickly for people to have proper consideration/consultation.
I would strongly urge your planning department for more community consultation and input and extend the consultation period for at least another 6-12 months.
Kind Regards
Concerned Citizen

KINGSFORD SOUTH PRECINCT
A resident group sponsored by Randwick City Council


31 January 2013


CSELR
Dept of Planning major projects
SYDNEY


Dear Sir

The Kingsford South Precinct represents 4,000 dwellings directly impacted by the proposed CSELR.

The Precinct strongly objects to the Light Rail CLR as proposed and requests the State Government to withdraw the flawed EIS.

The EIS is inconsistent, frequently presents misleading and deceptive statements as if they were factual, fails to provide the basic and necessary information to allow the community to accurately assess its impact.

The Project Communications Manager refused to answer over 30 questions concerning the underlying assumptions used to create the estimated journey times published in April 2013. The Manager stated that all the assumptions would be available in the EIS. After going through the entire EIS it is clear that those underlying assumptions and subsequent calculations do not exist in it.

This was subsequently confirmed by the Deputy Project Director at the Sydney Boys High school Information evening in December 2013. The community cannot be expected to accurately assess the project without the underlying assumptions made public.

There are no detailed figures nor analysis provided to justify many claims and there are numerous errors used as justification for the project. For example in the discussion of future capacity required it states that UNSW has a current student population of 37,000 with a future target of 50,000 by 2030. The correct figures are a current student population of nearly 50,000 with a target of 90,000.

Nowhere does the EIS reveal the thousands of hours of additional waiting and journey time the project will add to weekly vehicle journeys. Modelling commissioned by the Precinct generated a range of between 8,000 hours per week to 14,000 hours per week in the Randwick LGA with a most likely case figure of 12,000 hours per week.
Due to the cascading impact of the localised bottlenecks, the Light Rail Project is likely to cause Sydney basin wide additional delays of between 110,000 and 147,000 hours per week.

Leaving out these direct costs due to the project is alarming at best and less than honest at worst.

The EIS is meant to be an accurate account of its impact. It is not.

Misleading & Deceptive and incorrect claims

* claims fast and efficient but provides no analysis nor justification to substantiate it.

In fact, the published journey times and 8.5 to 8.7 km distances for Kingsford and Randwick to Circular Quay generated average trip speeds below 16kmh. This makes the CSELR the slowest major metropolitan light rail in the world.

* claims 9,000 passengers per hour capacity but admits in TP10 that the maximum journeys per hour is just 20 which is a 6,000 passenger per hour capacity. Due to major traffic intersection crossings it is virtually impossible to increase journeys per hour above 20 each way without creating gridlock in the CBD, Surrey Hills and Randwick LGA.

* Claims capacity can increase in the future, but TNSW Consultants' 2012 report states that it's capacity can never be increased due to its placement both on shared carriageway and it's placement on a legacy street structure.

Inconsistent and conflicting claims, Assertions and Statements

* Nearly every volume and technical paper contains conflicting or contradictory assertions claimed as fact.

For example, the placement of the footpath and cycle way on Wansey Road is variously cited as being placed on the eastern side and the Western side.

Why has no quality control or audit of the EIS accuracy been completed prior to its publication? This is a clear breach of the state legislative requirement.





Errors of Fact
* In addition to groundless claims of being fast and efficient transport system, which is factually incorrect, the EIS contains countless errors which all seem to overstate its benefit or understate its negative impact.For example, it states that just over 170 car parking spaces are lost on Anzac Parade directly outside Souths Juniors between Nine Ways and Sturt Street. The actual number lost (verified by a count done by souls Juniors and a separate count done by the Precinct) is over 300.

Schools
* The EIS and project team make it clear that local private schools in the Randwick LGA or school children who use public transport to transit the Randwick LGA other than to SBHS or SGHS were consulted or even considered in the modelling. This "missing" student population is over 5 times that of the only two schools considered.
* Why does TNSW not appear to be concerned for their safety and well being?
* The elimination of all all-stop bus services has a negative impact on their safety, well being and amenity.


Special Event Services
* claims capacity of 18k per hour but does not provide any explanation nor underlying assumptions to justify this claim. Nowhere is there any detail for the route from Circular Quay to Kingsford or Randwick.

18k implies a train to or from Central every 60 seconds on average leaving virtually not time for motor vehicle traffic flow on Elizabeth, Crown or Bourke streets amongst others. Why is this not dealt with?


Capacity - Can never be increased
* The CSELR will eliminate 135 all stop and 48 UNSW express buses from Randwick LGA and another 220 eliminated from Central to Circular Quay during the am peak. This is a total capacity of over 24,000 passengers per hour which the CSELR is to replace. Given its true capacity of just 6,000 per hour the TNSW is reducing capacity by 75 per cent. Why is this not mentioned nor justified?

I welcome the arrival of the new CBD SE Light Rail system however I have a number of concerns with the proposal and the impact it will have on my home, which is in the precinct between Devonshire St and South Dowling St Surry Hills. My concerns are listed below:

* Wimbo park is an important green area and it is pleasing that it is to be redesigned, local residents should be consulted in its new formation and how it can be used with light rail and cycle traffic across it.
* If further pedestrian access is proposed the impacts to local residents must also be considered. This will become a new thoroughfare, especially when events are being held in Moore Park, SCG and Sydney Football stadium. This can have a disruptive influence on the quiet nature of the surrounding neighbourhood. This will need to be mitigated. Thought also needs to be provided to maintenance in the area with litter collection and general maintenance. Guarantees and performance indicators must be adhered to. Any fines levied must be provided back to the local community not Transport NSW.
* The future trams running between Denvonshire and South Dowling St would appear to directly impact the rear of my property. This is currently a quiet laneway that is accessed for the local residents only. The introduction of light rail and a cycle path will introduce far more traffic, and the negatives that go with it such as increased noise and visual pollution. It is not stated how this can be mitigated except for landscaping. More details are required to the nature and type with community consultation required, but bearing in mind to keep the nature of the area in tact.
* The overhead wiring and supporting structures will introduce significant visual impact to the area, especially behind my home, consideration should be made for wire free running in the area to protect the visual amenity as it has been for the CBD area along George St - with the trams already being equipped with such running gear the cost should be nil or negligible.
* With removal of on-street parking along the Devonshire St alignment consideration needs to be provided to alternatives and ensuring it does not spill into surrounding streets affecting residential parking.
* Residential parking also needs to be considered if greater pedestrian access is provided to the Moore Park and SCG events as it will mean greater ease for parking access further impacting residential parking in the area.
* During construction of the light rail careful consideration must be given to the impacts to local residents and businesses. On street parking for construction activities must be banned and stringent enforcement must be used. Consideration to other "residential" parking could be considered
* Impacts to local parks must be minimised, the programme for the works must be of minimal duration and enforced. Suggest that these considerations be part of the tender assessment and any fines levied are fed back to the community not Transport NSW.
* I disagree the construction impact would be "five to six years", refer Landscape & Visual Assessment page 107. These areas should be constructed when required and not a construction site for that duration. The area only needs to be disturbed for the duration of actual construction which will invariably be conducted in sections of work. These sections should minimise the impact of construction activities to the local residents and businesses.
* Visual assessments were not assessed from residential homes only from the street, refer Landscape & Visual Assessment page 107, however from residencies with second or third story windows will have a deteriorated view.
* Privacy and light spill are also a concern, and are highlighted in the Landscape & Visual Assessment page 109. This impact is during construction and operation. Consultation needs to be undertaken how this can be addressed and all intrusion mitigated.
* With construction activities impacting the area of Devonshire and South Dowling Sts, particularly with the demolition of Olivia Gardens, consideration of limiting construction times in this area to provide respite to the residents. Out of hours work should be banned, construction access not permitted before 7am ceasing no later than 5pm and not allowed on weekends or public holidays. With a high density of residential housing in this area construction compounds should not be permitted. Residential parking and access should not be impacted by construction plant, equipment, vehicles and personnel. Vigilance and monitoring will be required. Every attempt must be made to use connecting arterial roads such as South Dowling St rather than Nobbs, Parkham or Bourke Sts
* The EIS states there will be ongoing operational impacts to the area where I live eg Landscape & Visual Assessment page 112, however there is no advice on how this is to be compensated for in perpetuity, advice is required.
* Further to this operational noise impact all consideration to mitigation measures must be included in the design, be that acoustically mounted track, catenary free running, rail design, light rail vehicle design and the like should all be required to be incorporated.
* The area between Devonshire and South Dowling Sts is a quiet residential area with limited access to the main arterial road of South Dowling St however providing road access could possibly allow illegal traffic access along the light rail alignment. Design consideration needs to be provided how this can be discouraged, moveable bollards that only allow access be transponder could be a viable solution. The trams must be able to transverse South Dowling St without hindrance, this will minimise noise pollution in the area, having a light rail vehicle waiting for traffic light clearance, however the new lights should be co-ordinated with those at Cleveland Street so there is not constant noise with cars and other vehicles (especially motorbikes) accelerating away from the lights.
* Although substations are not specifically located or detailed there will be a need for a number of locations. These should be located away from residential areas and always be considerate with the local environment. Underground types would be most effective.

Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to being consulted in the near future

Kind regards

I strongly support the contructionof the proposed light rail network. I have six brief comments on specific aspects of the proposal:
1. Overhead or Wireless Operation in George St
The proposal to use wireless operation in parts of George St is rash, even foolish. Supercapacitor power works nowhere in the world successfully, other than in low instensity, very low speed contexts in areas of great heritage. Dublin thought about it and wisely rejected it. French 3rd rail wireless systems are better but very expensive. In any case, Sydney is not Orleans or Valencia. It doesn't have medieval buildings to shield from overhead. Centre-pole overhead is appropriate to the streetscape. The QVB was built with centre pole tram overhead beside it in George Street. I strongly advise centre pole overhead in pedestrianised areas of George St as it was in 1900. Wireless would also commit TfNSW to buying trams for one supplier, which is not wise in this modern world where trams come up for sale or lease at good prices from time to time.
2. Need for emergency turnbacks in George St
Accidents and incidents inevitably will happen in George street. The challenge is to minimise their impact on operations. For that reason I strongly suggest including two trailing crossovers at approproximately 500m intervals in George St. These would be for emergency use and enable traffic to continue on either side of an incident. They may even be useful for turnbacks in peak-hour, when I suspect traffic will be more dense in the southern and central parts of George St than the northern section.
3. Viaduct or Tunnel over Moore Park
I disagree with the Lord Mayor over this and have written to her to tell her so. A viaduct is far more sensible on every ground. I honestly cannot understand the logic of SCC's position. A fenced light rail line in grass through the park would have minimal impact and even look attractiive. It would clearly separate the two cricket pitches. A viaduct also would avoid a level crossing at South Dowling Street and the delays to motor and light rail traffic that would bring. A tunnel under a park for light rail is insanity.
4. Design of Alison Road Junction
This is the place for the additional cost of a tunnel, not Moore Park. Alison Road is very busy and its intersection with Anzac Parade and Dacey Avenue is already frequently congested. A rail underpass under Alison Road surfacing in the middle of Anzac Parade to the south would avoid a source of many potential delays and improve reliability and speeds. It could also incorporate a grade-separated rail junction, so that inbound trams from Randwick wouuld pass over outbound trams to Kingsford. This sounds a little heavy rail, but in this context it would work well, assisting both rail and motor traffic.
5. Lines in grass rather than concrete
I would advise use of grass rather than concrete in park and roadside sectionsof the system. Grassed track works well in France, Spain, Portugal and Melbourne, all of which have drier climates than Sydney. It looks great, is quiet and speaks volumes about environmental friendliness. As for watering in dry spells, Sydney has had water sprinkler trams in the past and can again.
6. Keep the momentum going!
Towards the end of construction, don't dismantle the construction team and equipment. Keep up the momentum and start work on extensions. Coogee Beach and Maroubra Junction are the obvious extensions to the southeast, as well as cheap and easy with legacy infrastructure ready to use. Barangaroo is also going to need light rail. The pedestrian tunnel from Wynyard won't be enough. The light rail through the precinct should be planned and constructed simultaneously with the buidlings and public spaces, and integrated with them. This is essential for Barangaroo to work. Its transport needs haven't been taken seriously as yet.

1. I strongly support the project
2. I believe the proposal for wireless sections near the Town Hall and QVB is overkill and unnecessary. The technology is still in its infancy and could be trouble prone as well as adding cost and complexity. Tram wires are virtually invisible in the context of busy streetscapes like George Street. Existing street light posts in this area could be adapted as overhead wire supports or replicas of the centre post overhead supports used when electric trams were first used in George Street could be installed.
3. I note that one station is planned for Devonshire Street, at the Crown Street end. I feel that another may be needed near Elizabeth Street, as this area has great potential for residential and commercial regeneration, and the gradient of Devonshire Street may deter potential patrons from walking to Crown Street.
4. I support an overbridge and not a tunnel at Moore Park. Sydney does bridges very well and this bridge could become a striking feature of the local urban environment. Tunnels are troublesome with their additional problems of drainage and gradients. I believe the SCC wants a tunnel but I don't understand their reasoning; trams have low visual impact when running through parkland, especially in a grassed right of way - there are several such examples in Melbourne. The visibility of the tram near venues such as the SCG and Fox Studios is also important as it advertises public transport availability to patrons.

Dear NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure,

This submission is in response to the Sydney CBD and South East Light Rail Project design EIS currently on exhibition.

The following points have been carefully compiled by some concerned citizens to assist others with making a coherent response. These points comprehensively express my own concerns about, and I therefore wish for you to regard this submission as an individual response.

I support the overall goal of the project, which is to provide a more reliable public transport option for commuters and event-goers. However the current design would needlessly have significantly adverse impacts on Randwick's environment & heritage.
I recognise that one of the project's principle aims is to improve the overall amenity of areas along the alignment. Therefore I hold some strong objections to the current design:

I object to the removal of a large number of trees, including significant trees
⁃ The current design would involve the removal of a total of up to 760 trees (including 280 in Randwick and 160 along the Kensington/Kingsford corridor). Such tree removal would result in significant losses of heritage & amenity value for these areas and residents. The psychological benefits these trees currently provide would also be lost.
⁃ Such tree loss would also present a significant loss of habitat for the endangered grey-headed flying fox, and other native wildlife.
⁃ Light rail design should 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. These are iconic trees.
⁃ Trees along Alison Road/Randwick Racecourse, which are mature (around 100 years old) & healthy, and which provide significant visual, amenity & heritage value for residents and visitors, are set to be almost wholly and permanently removed. This is unacceptable. Their removal can and should be avoided with repositioning of the Light Rail alignment.
⁃ Wire-free running (as planned for the George Street alignment) should be applied wherever possible, to avoid impacts on tree canopies and wildlife.

⁃ Qualified arboricultural advice should be employed during design and construction and the most recent methods for assessing trees & impacts should be employed (not such superseded methods as SULE).

I object to the location of the Randwick Interchange at High Cross Park
⁃ High Cross Park marks the junction of early walking tracks used by the Indigenous population and the first European visitors. Today, the park hosts a number of important civic and community ceremonies and provides green recreation space.
⁃ An interchange at High Cross Park would render the park unrecognisable, resulting in adverse heritage impacts to the park as well as its surrounding conservation area.
⁃ The interchange should instead be placed on High Street where it would ensure easier hospital access (especially for those less mobile passengers), while conserving High Cross Park as the focal point for Randwick's historical development, and a quiet oasis for all to enjoy.

I object to the proposed light rail alignment on Wansey Road.
⁃ The proposed alignment would result in the removal of a large number of significant trees that positively contribute to the visual & landscape character in and around the racecourse, as well as amenity value for pedestrians.
⁃ I understand that there is an alternative proposal redirecting the alignment into Royal Randwick Racecourse land. This would maximise potential for significant tree retention. This would also reduce the impacts upon the adjacent residential properties. Furthermore, it would improve the experiences of light rail passengers, as they will be able to enjoy the visual amenity provided by the trees.

I object to the location of the proposed Randwick light rail vehicle stabling facility at 66A Doncaster Avenue
⁃ A stabling facility located here would have a significant negative visual impact to the area.
⁃ The light rail stabling facility should instead be located at the south-eastern corner of Randwick Racecourse, where it would have a lesser impact.

I object to the removal of significant trees in Tay Reserve (corner Alison Road and Anzac Parade).
⁃ This area has heritage significance, associated with its landscape and tree planting.
⁃ Alternative options for light rail track alignment should be explored to minimise impacts to Tay Reserve.

I object to an above ground substation at High Cross Park
⁃ At 10 metres long, 8 metres wide and 3.5 metres high, substations would have a negative visual impact and occupy highly valued public space.
⁃ Possibilities for relocation and underground placement of substation should be investigated.

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

I object to any reduction in footpath width or capacity

I object to the loss of 704 on-street parking spaces along Alison Road, Wansey Road, High Street and the broader Kensington-Kinsgford precinct
⁃ Many parking spaces to be removed are currently used by residents (like me) who do not have garages. Surrounding streets are already crowded, so demand may outstrip supply- particularly in Randwick.
⁃ A 700m radius catchment for alternative parking options does not reflect distances pedestrians and customers would be prepared to walk to access local shops and services.
⁃ Alternate light rail alignment should be investigated in order to minimise loss of parking.

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

I strongly support further investigation for improved design through ongoing and meaningful consultation with city councils, as well as other relevant stakeholders (including local residents).

I have been a lifelong resident of Randwick, and the retainment of the trees along Alison Road, Wansey Road & High Cross Park is of particular importance to me. These trees add innumerable value to my family property & provide for a visually appealing suburb to live in. More than that, they provide much needed oxygen, as well as cooler temperatures & shade, which is all ever more important given increasingly hot & sunny days. Furthermore, I would hate to have to miss the beautiful sight of the flying-foxes (currently listed as endangered) flying across Randwick Racecourse every night, using these massive trees as habitat. I cannot fathom how anyone could think it is OK to remove these trees (and so many of them!) when it is technically feasible for the Light Rail to find its way around them. Please avoid their removal with improved design. These trees have been around for generations & deserve to be protected for the generations to come.

I hope you will seriously consider my submission.
Thank you.

See attached.

See attached.

I do not support the proposed South East Light Rail project as it has currently been explained.

The choice of using Devonshire Street as the route from Central Station to the South East does not seem appropriate for the following reasons:
1. It will turn a quiet, small street into a major thoroughfare, potentially damaging its historic nature
2. Having a light rail system pass through the intersections of Devonshire & Crown and Devonshire & Bourke street every 2-5 minutes will damage the village nature of Surry Hills, which is a tourist attraction because of it.
3. The removal of 133 parking spots in an area that is already short on parking spots is unworkable
4. Given the existing complicated street configuration and the constant traffic jams on Cleveland Street, the loss of the west-bound lane will add further congestion.
5. There are viable alternative solutions such as the proposed Foveaux Sub-surface option - potentially in a modified form which is above surface from Central Station to Waterloo street (thus avoiding all the infrastructure that has been identified as existing below Foveaux St) then sub-surface, avoiding the steeper incline. Such options could facilitate faster movement of trains when traveling underground.
6. The destruction of Olivia Gardens and the loss of 66 apartments.
7. Large vehicles (up to 90 metres long) traveling swiftly through suburban areas.

Like many Surry Hills residents, I support further public transport infrastructure for Sydney however the current proposal seems to create more challenges than it is addressing. As Surry Hills contains Central Station and is adjacent to the major sporting grounds of the SCG and SFS it is expected that it will host significant public transport infrastructure however such infrastructure must be the best use of taxpayers' funds allowing Sydney-siders the most efficient option.

See attached.

Please find attached PDF document.

I support the project but request a review of two matters:
1) Location of the stop in Kingsford, set for Strachan Street, suggest it be moved to Borrodale Road.

2) Parking layby be established in front of Andrew Kennedy Funerals to allow the community to have their funerals conducted with dignity, allowing the hearse and mourning car to park at the from of 434-436 Anzac Parade, Kingsford between 9.30am and 3pm, on weekdays.

A report is attached examining the proposal in detail. It is considered that the proposal is fundamentally flawed as a light rail design and will be unable to meet the objectives set for it. Design and operational solutions are suggested in the attached report.

Mr James Chen
26 Doncaster Avenue Kensington
Email: [email protected]
Mobile 0403 326 823

Dear Sir / Madam,

I'm the current owner of property 26 Doncaster Avenue in Kensington. Currently it is leased but I intend to move back into the property in 2 years. My backyard currently adjoins Randwick Racecourse's staff car park. I strongly object to the intention to build a 24 hour stabling yard right behind my backyard, where a 6 meter noise wall is also intended to be erected right behind my backyard fence. My access to an open space [the current area is zoned as Open Space under the new 2012 Randwick LEP] would disappear as a result of a 24 hour stabling yard been built there. Individually listed below are my concerns and I present a few points as to why it is best to put the stabling yard in the South-eastern corner of Randwick Racecourse as proposed by Randwick City Council. My numbered concerns are:
1. Noise from stabling yard - currently I enjoy my peace and quiet in my backyard. Given this will be a 24 hour operational stabling yard, with trains pulling in and out all day long - how will this noise affect my current living standards? This is especially important during night-time when I need to go to bed early - will I still be able to have my peace and quiet time at nighttime?
2. Height of noise wall - the noise wall is proposed to be built 6 meters high. Given this wall will be right behind my backyard, would you consider building something lower [for example a 5 meter high noise wall] that will still keep out the noise from the stabling yard? What are the pros of building a 6 meter wall right behind my backyard?
3. Appearance of noise wall - how will the noise wall look like from my backyard? Will it be a mono-tone looking structure? Can you please provide cross-sectional view of the proposed noise wall standing from my own backyard? The current view of my backyard is magnificent mature Moreton Bag fig trees set in the background of a blue sky.
4. Over-shadowing and loss of sunlight in the morning - my backyard is an East facing backyard and receives a great amount of sunshine each and every morning. With the proposed noise wall, I will lose this sunshine in the morning. How much sunlight hours will I lose each morning due to noise wall being erected? Can you provide shadow diagrams of amount of sun loss during all 4 seasons of the year? [Summer, autumn, winter and spring].
5. Width of `sterile' space between proposed noise wall and my backyard fence. Currently I enjoy the sight of mature Moreton Bay Fig trees and blue sky when I walk out into my backyard. This will disappear when the noise wall is erected. Thus I request there be at least a 6 - 8 meter spacing of `sterile' space left between my backyard fence and proposed noise wall. This will only somewhat compensate my loss of open and free space if you build the stabling yard there.
6. Loss of up to 5 significant mature Moreton Bay Fig trees. As described above, I love the sight of Moreton Bay Fig trees from my backyard and I believe Randwick City Council has described them as of "significant heritage value" and I strongly oppose to them being just cut down for the sake of development. I do not know how old these Moreton Bay fig trees are but believe they are irreplaceable if they are cut down and destroyed forever.
7. Evergreen trees to be planted in the sterile space - I request that if you were to build a noise wall, then it would only be fair to put in some mature ever-green trees in the sterile space between the noise wall and my backyard fence. This will only somewhat compensate for my loss of open space and looking into a mono-toned noise wall from my house.
8. Cleanliness of the stabling yard - I fear there will be a significant increase in dust, oil runoff and general rubbish due to the construction of a stabling yard. Currently the area is un-used and therefore little to no dust is seen from my backyard. Will the new stables adhere to Standard EPA protocols and Standards? How will this affect my general health and well-being?
9. Possible graffiti and general security around stabling yard. The proposed noise wall will be a magnet for graffiti artists to start on a `blank canvass'. What sort of security measures are proposed so that it's a deterrent to graffiti artists gaining access to noise wall. In addition, if there is a sterile space - will this be fenced off to the general public as I would not want potential robbers to be able to look into my backyard and house from the sterile space simply by climbing over.
10. Property Value - it is my strongest personal belief that the construction of a 24 hour stabling yard right behind my backyard and house will negatively affect the value of my property. Can you provide an independent property valuation of my property on a Before and After Basis? Are there any avenues to compensation if my property value is negatively affected?

Thus, for the 10 reasons listed above, I'm strongly against the construction of the stabling yard being built between Doncaster Avenue and Alison Road. I'm aware in the last week, Randwick City council has put forward a revised stabling yard proposal that would see it built in the South-Eastern corner of Randwick Racecourse:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/council-suggests-giving-up-part-of-royal-randwick-racecourse-for-tram-line-20131127-2yae7.html
This alternative site/proposal is a far superior proposal that the current one because surrounding residential houses are all elevated over the proposed stabling area [currently horse stables]. Thus, residential housing along Wansey Road and student apartment blocks along High Street will not see the stabling yard in its line of sight - rather they will still see the city's skyline. The alternative proposed area is also further away from residential housing as well, thus affecting less people living around the south-eastern corner of the racetrack.


I look forward to your response.

Yours Sincerely

James Chen