Sydney CBD Light Rail

This is a submission regarding the EIS for the CBD and South East Light Rail (CSELR) project from BIKEast, the bicycle user group representing commuter and recreational cyclists in the eastern suburbs.

BIKEast applauds the government's light rail initiative and in particular the provision of secure bicycle parking facilities at the proposed Randwick and Kingsford stops of the CSELR project. However, BIKEast believes the detail matters, therefore BIKEast would appreciate participation in the design and placement of bicycling facilities at these and other stops - where U-rail bicycle parking facilities are proposed - as part of the CSELR project.

BIKEast also notices that, as currently shown in the EIS, there are no U-rail bicycle parking facilities proposed for the Central Station (Chalmers Street) stop. BIKEast believes this is a major oversight, and that, at a major tram/heavy rail interchange such as this, there will be a huge demand for bicycle parking facilities.

BIKEast also supports the provision of a cut-and-cover tunnel under Moore Park and Anzac Parade. However, BIKEast notes that for some years there has been a proposal to build a pedestrian/cycle bridge over Anzac Parade. This would be expensive and intrusive and, for bicycles, slow to access (via stairs/lift/ramp).

Consequently, BIKEast believes the design of this tunnel should include an adjacent shared pedestrian/cycle path under Anzac Parade, with cycle-friendly ramps at either end. It should also be wide enough to allow for the large numbers of pedestrians travelling to and from the Moore Park sporting precincts. The concurrent construction of this cycle/pedestrian tunnel with the tram tunnel under Moore Park will cost much less than building a separate cycle/pedestrian bridge at a future date, and allow for better design of pedestrian, cyclist and public transport integration in the Moore Park cycling precinct.

The pedestrian/cycle tunnel should emerge on street level as soon as possible on both sides; on the west side of Anzac Parade, it should emerge to allow pedestrian/cycle access to the large number of existing pedestrian/cycle paths in Moore Park (within the Anzac Parade/South Dowling Street and Eastern Distributor boundary). It would also allow pedestrians/cyclists to travel at grade through Moore Park to the new tram and pedestrian/cycle bridge over South Dowling Street, to be built as part of the CSELR project.

BIKEast also asks that the current off-road shared path pedestrian/cycleway along Alison Road (south) from Darley Road to Wansey Road, and then alongside Wansey Road (west) to High Street, be maintained as part of the CSELR project, and that - in the places where it currently does not meet AusRoads standards for a shared path facility (in particular, between Darley Road and Wansey Road, where the path is too narrow) - it is upgraded to a suitable standard. More generally, BIKEast also requests that bicycle and pedestrian access be maintained throughout the construction period along the length of this route.

BIKEast also requests that access be maintained for cyclists along Devonshire Street, as this route is the only safe street for cyclists to access Central Station to/from Surry Hills/Moore Park and all points east. This access is required both during and post construction. Again, BIKEast asks that bicycle and pedestrian access be maintained throughout the construction period along the length of this route.

BIKEast further notes that the Centennial Park Draft Master Plan includes a significant upgrade to the pedestrian entry at Doncaster Avenue. The redevelopment of this entry point is integral with the provision of light rail passenger access, the aim being to reduce reliance for park access by private motor vehicles. BIKEast supports this endeavour by Centennial Park and we ask that such a light rail stop be fully considered here as part of the project.

In conclusion, BIKEast would like to thank Transport for NSW for the opportunity to comment on the CSELR EIS.


Yours faithfully on behalf of BIKEast
James Hope
BIKEast vice-president and Randwick Co-Ordinator

We own a property on Nobbs street in Surry Hills and are in full support of he proposed CBD and East Sydney Light Rail Project and the chosen route along Devonshire street. It will be a huge convenience to us and once operational, we will never consider taking the car into the city again. It is well worth the temporary disruption during the construction stage.

Submission to NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure

To whom it may concern:

I am writing to you in my capacity as General Manager of Central Station Lodge Pty Ltd (trading under 790 on George Backpackers) regarding the CBD and South East Light Rail Project.
Our backpacker's is located on the corner of George St and Rawson Pl, with the entrance being on Rawson Pl. We are excited to learn the proposed tram line will have a stop so close to our business, but there are a few concerns I would like to raise for consideration before any plans are finalised:
* The height of the stop itself. I have been told the tram stop will be raised due to the fact that trams struggle to stop on an incline. If this is the case, I would like ensure that this raised tram platform will not impede our entrance, nor will it block out any natural light that comes in through our glass windows and doors, and that the entrance will still remain visible for our guests to see easily.
* The laneway between Scubar and Five star Kebabs, that runs from Rawson Place to Pitt St. I am aware you will be providing access to the lane from Pitt St for the rubbish trucks to back down. This is fine, but I would also request that this lane is still accessible by foot from Rawson Place. We have a number of contractors that will no longer be able to park in front of the hostel as the loading zone there will be removed, so we would like to be able to still use that lane for laundry pickups etc. If there is no foot access it will be much more difficult for our laundry to be picked up and dropped off
* I would also ask that a loading zone is provided on George St just near the corner of Rawson Place for our additional contractors. We can have up to 6 different contractors come through on any given day, and it is essential that they have space to park their vehicles while working on the business.
Looking forward to hearing back from you,

Regards

Duncan Hilder
General Manager

790 on George Backpackers
p: 02 9080 1155
f: 02 9080 1156
a: 790 George St
Sydney 2000, Australia

For $1.6bn you could create a cycle system that would be the envy of the world. It would take less maintenance, get more cars off the road and reduce health costs as everyone would be fitter.

All you're effectively doing is creating more traffic in the same space that is currently extremely limited.

Considering the amount of money being spent on this project, I consider it an extreme waste of time, effort and funds NOT to build the system right out to La Perouse immediately.
Previous projects such as harbour tunnel , SW Freeway tunnel were all within a few years, found to be insufficient for present use let alone projected use.
The rail system and space will cost less from Kingsford to La Perouse due to enlarged centre corridor of Anzac Parade especially as evidenced by he old trams lines which are still there for much of the distance. Planners should look at how much residential building is going on for the entire length of Anzac Pde. especially considering the housing commission areas affected by the cheaper and increased transport potential of the project

I get on the bus near Carlton Street (Kensington) on the way to work near Circular Quay. Currently I can get an express bus from Kensington to near Phillip Street in the city in less than 20 minutes. After the next light rail, because it goes through Central and the city, it will end up taking far longer.

Is it possible to have express ones go through the ED or some way that you can get straight to Circular Quay for all the people that go towards that end of the city without having to go all the way through the city.

Dear Sir or Madam
I would like an assurance that the present bus routes from Coogee Beach to the city and to the Central Railway will continue when the light rail is operational.
Kind Regards
Sharon Magee

Please consider a proposal to submerge the light rail along Devonshire St, either as a cut away or deep tunnel.

My main concern regarding the rail remaining above ground is that traffic will search for alternate routs through the tiny side streets in Surry Hills causing once quiet streets to become congested.

In the event that this is not possible, to reduce the impact of large numbers of people getting off at the Surry Hills stop after major sporting events events, there should be express services to Central station. My concern is that too many drunken people will want to continue the party on Devonshire street causing significant disruption to the residents.

Also I would support an additional stop located between South Dowling St. and Bourke street.

I would also request that the Rail itself is not red and white stripped, but more simple in design. In addition, that all trees removed from Devonshire street will be replaced.

Regards,
Katherine Sahm

I am the secretary of the Owners Corporation of the Portico residential and commercial building situated on the corner of York and Jamison Streets Sydney.

This is a building that has 147 residential apartments, with approximately 117 car parking spots in the building for residents.

Currently access to the carpark is off George Street, into Jamison Street (a one way street).

If vehicle access from George Street is to be restricted/prevented, I request that two way access into Jamison Street from York Street be made possible.

This will mean residents and other users can access the carpark from York Street into Jamison Street, and no longer need to access via George Street into Jamison Street.

Thank you

PS similarly affected buildings are the Amora Hotel and 50 Margaret Street carpark (as this is accessed also from Jamison Street)

To Whom it May Concern,

My name is Anthony Cipolla, I am the coordinator of the Student Representative Council (SRC) at Sydney Boys High School. I am writing to you on behalf of the SRC.

Some time ago we wrote a submission regarding a grand walkway that was to be built through Moore Park to the SCG and the SFS. In that submission the SRC suggested a pedestrian walkway over Anzac Parade and the removal of the pedestrian lights currently used by students from Sydney Boys High School, Sydney Girls High School as well as the public.

This would have removed a peak hour traffic problem and given all pedestrians safer access across Anzac Parade during peak times and major sporting events. We now assume this project has been put on hold for the Light Rail to be constructed.

The student body would still like the relevant authority to take into consideration the incorporation of a pedestrian crossing when construction of the Light Rail takes place. This pedestrian access could be incorporated into the form of the bridge or tunnel used by the Light Rail to cross Anzac Parade.

We hope you will consider this safety improvement within the scope of the South East Light Rail project as a means to 'kill two birds with one stone'.

Yours Sincerely
Anthony Cipolla
Teacher
Sydney Boys High School.

I support the Sydney CBD and South East Light Rail Project

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.
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 have significantly adverse impacts on Randwick's environment & heritage.
In recognition that one of the project's principle aims is to improve the overall amenity of areas along the alignment, 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 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.
⁃ 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.
⁃ Wire-free running (as planned for the George Street alignment)should be applied wherever possible, to avoid impacts on tree canopies and wildlife.

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

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

I object to the removal of significant trees in Tay Reserve (corner Alison Road 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 304 on-street parking spaces along AlisonRoad, Wansey Road and High Street
⁃ Parking spaces to be lost include loading zones, taxi zones,disabled spaces, permit, short term and unrestricted parking.
⁃ 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 object to such a design which would result in the flooding of Alison Rd (once Wansey Rd is sealed).

I object to a design which is cheaper in face value, but doesn't seriously take into consideration the effect of the removal of trees on erosion and slope stability.

I object to a design which leaves these potential impacts to guess work.


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). City councils represent and protect the interests of their residents, and therefore their design preferences should be respected.

This will be a much needed improvement to the transport to and from UNSW, provided that it is not hindered by traffic and can be reliably quick. There also needs to be a very frequent flow of trams at all times of morning and evening, as the line for the current bus route is always large.
As long as this is included within MyMulti tickets, and won't cost students any more than transport already does, it will be an effective and well used system.

The Coogee Precinct has serious and significant concerns about the South East Light Rail proposal as set out in the EIS.

1. High Cross Park is a precious public green space in an otherwise heavily built-up area. Hospital patients and their visitors seek solace and respite in the park looked over by the big old trees. Workers have their lunch there sitting on the lawn and enjoying the peace and quiet of the Park. Others just sit and enjoy the shade. Under the EIS this lovely Park will have its heart eaten out by the rail terminus and rail lines, the sides will be eroded by the bus loading and off loading areas and what is left will be concreted over. This MUST not be allowed to happen. Furthermore busy Avoca Street will become a parking lot as the Light Rail will cross every 3 minutes either way and passengers moving from and to Belmore Rd and the hospital will need to cross Avoca St. Most of the local residents are unaware of this assault on High Cross Park and Avoca Street but when the penny drops there will be community anger. The Precinct urges the planners to seek alternative locations for the terminus etc. Clara Street has to be an option - that way the hospital will get a stop somewhere near where patients, visitors and staff need a stop and near where the buses stop now. Or what about rerouting the line along Botany Street and up Barker Street to service the hospitals that way as well as the High School. There would be space for a terminus there without having to go across Avoca Street.

2. Many of the trees in High Cross Park are on the Randwick Signifcant Tree register. These and the other beautiful mature trees in the Park must not be lost.

3. The Precinct cannot believe that the EIS has no Rail stop proposed for the hospital. Patients and/or their visitors who need to use public transport will need to drag themselves up the hill and wait to cross Avoca Street to the stop. Similarly for hospital staff after a tiring day. Currently they can arrive or leave by the M50, the 370 and the 400 bus routes all of which pick up right outside the entrances to the public and the childrens hospitals.

4. The 373, 372 and M50 bus routes are very well patronised by residents of Coogee. It will be a sigificant loss of amenity to have to terminate and change to the Light Rail in order to to get to Central (372) or the City (373). In the same way it will be a significant loss of amenity if the M50 ceases to operate as this route after a slow start is now very popular and well used through the day. We ask that some consideration be given to keeping these bus routes. We have been told that one reason for the Light Rail is to get buses out of the CBD. This makes sense but the 372 does not go to the main CBD and the 373 and M50 do not go down the most congested streets. George and York are the most heavily congested city streets and at times are just one continous bus line but this Light Rail will offer nothing by way of relief for York Street or little for George Street.

5. The Coogee Precinct opposes the loss of the mature trees along Anzac Pde and Allison Rd. As the trees in Anzac Pde are located in the middle of the grassed median strip surely they could be saved and trimmed and the Rail lines run along either side. This would beautiful the Rail line.

6.The Coogee Precinct also opposes the loss of parking along Anzac Pde and High Street. There is so little parking now across the Randwick Municipality that to lose another 1000 spaces is untenable. It will kill off much of the commercial activity along Anzac Pde and those wishing to shop, dine or otherwise access commercial services will seek to park in nearby residential streets which are already at capacity. Unless the Governement funds underground car parking alongside the rail lines, the loss of 1000 parking spaces will give rise to a lot of anger and distress.

I was interested in the times which are on the leaflet, which has been distributed about light rail (NSW Transport November). For the trip from Circular Quay to Kingsford - light rail all the way - I compared the time with the existing bus timetable and found that the buses are expected to do the trip in a shorter time (about 5 minutes less)! I also wonder if there has been any modeling done on the impact of the light rail on other traffic and especially that on roads crossing the light rail route. For example the junction of Anzac Parade with Cleveland St/Lang Rd. Such more or less East/West traffic is unlikely to be absorbed onto the light rail itself and so given that the light rail is being given priority with the traffic lights as it approaches such junctions (but still apparently is slower than buses!) what will be the impact on other traffic? I hope that there will be a good scrutiny of the light rail proposal on Monday December 9 at the meeting of the Kensington Precinct!

While I support this proposal in general, I'm concerned at the language used in regarding Oxford Street being a traffic gateway:

pp12: "Road capacity
Without action, congestion on our roads will worsen. For example, by 2031 peak travel times by road are forecast to increase by an average of 15 minutes between Parramatta and the city centre and by a similar amount between Mona Vale and the city centre. The city centre gateways from William Street and Oxford Street at College Street are already operating above capacity causing significant delays for all road users."

This is the same kind of thinking that led to the failed Oxford Street `upgrade' in 2004/5 which turned a 4 lane high street and community centre into a 6 lane highway with barely any parking, decimating business and splitting Darlinghurst in two.

It seems that, as far as the state government is concerned, Oxford Street is, has been and always will be nothing more than a traffic gateway, this despite the City of Sydney's figures showing a 22% drop in traffic on Oxford Street since the `upgrade' and the infographic on pp10 of the Strategy, showing that Oxford Street, William Street and the Cross City tunnel carry as much traffic combined at the Anzac bridge alone.

It is disheartening to see that this marvelous plan for the city centre will come at continued cost to Oxford Street, which seems to be nothing more than a traffic feeder to Transport for NSW, even though City of Sydney research shows that just the stretch of Oxford Street from Whitlam Square to Taylor Square (and a block either side) supports a $360 million/year economy.

The City of Sydney Economic Development Strategy shows that Sydney's inner suburban economies provide a full one quarter of Sydney's GDP and that small business employs 60% of the city's work force and Oxford Street, being the main connector between the CBD and the Inner East should be a spine of this economy, instead it is more of a butt-crack; a void that entices no one to come into the Inner East should they be brave enough to venture up to the South West Corner of Hyde Park.

High Streets are vital to the city's economy and cultural life.
Yes, the CBD and Harbour might be Sydney's beating heart, but the Villages are its lungs and provide the fine-grain breathing space that any International city needs in addition to its headline attractions to provide an attractive quality of life.

Oxford Street is not at capacity. William Street, shaded wind-tunnel, full of car hire places that it is, is the natural traffic gateway and if people are ever going to use the Cross City Tunnel, the government should make it free. In fact, all Sydney's tunnels should be free and there should be a toll on private vehicles travelling through the city centre above ground. This would be the best way to "encourage traffic without a city destination from going through it," as exactly stated by the plan. [Appendix 1]

Please do not `gateway' Oxford Street again and help us revitalise this Internationally Iconic Street by removing the clearways and encouraging traffic to use the CCT or William Street.

Appendix 1:
Pp16 "... extending clearways on key routes into the city centre and targeted action on pinch points. Traffic without a city centre destination will be encouraged to use by-pass routes to avoid being delayed on slower moving city streets through traffic management measures including signage.

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.
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 have significantly adverse impacts on Randwick's environment & heritage.
In recognition that one of the project's principle aims is to improve the overall amenity of areas along the alignment, 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 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. Also these trees currently provide important psychological benefits.
⁃ 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.
⁃ Wire-free running (as planned for the George Street alignment) should be applied wherever possible, to avoid impacts on tree canopies and wildlife.

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

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

I object to the removal of significant trees in Tay Reserve (corner Alison Road 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
⁃ Parking spaces to be lost include loading zones, taxi zones, disabled spaces, permit, short term and unrestricted parking.
⁃ 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 impacts, particularly as a result of the proposed developments around the 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). City councils represent and protect the interests of their residents, and therefore their design preferences should be respected.

The effect on the wildlife and environment around the area that will be disturbed to built this light rail is very concerning. I do not support this project in my neighbourhood for transport i do not think is necessary.

Dear NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure,

I support the overall goal of the project, which is to provide a more reliable public transport option for commuters and event-goers. I do believe that it does not go far enough in terms of capacity for the current and planned population of the area and identify this as a 'bandaid fix' only. I believe a heavy rail or metro connection to the city and other areas will alone be sufficient.

The current light-rail design would have significantly adverse impacts on Randwick's environment & heritage.
In recognition that one of the project's principle aims is to improve the overall amenity of areas along the alignment, 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 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 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.
⁃ Wire-free running (as planned for the George Street alignment) should be applied wherever possible, to avoid impacts on tree canopies and wildlife.

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

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

I object to the removal of significant trees in Tay Reserve (corner Alison Road 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
⁃ Parking spaces to be lost include loading zones, taxi zones, disabled spaces, permit, short term and unrestricted parking.
⁃ 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's 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). City councils represent and protect the interests of their residents, and therefore their design preferences should be respected.

I note that Randwick council is submitting well-researched amended designs to the department and request that the department strongly considers these amendments.

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.
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 have significantly adverse impacts on Randwick's environment & heritage.
In recognition that one of the project's principle aims is to improve the overall amenity of areas along the alignment, 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 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 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.
⁃ Wire-free running (as planned for the George Street alignment) should be applied wherever possible, to avoid impacts on tree canopies and wildlife.

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

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

I object to the removal of significant trees in Tay Reserve (corner Alison Road 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
⁃ Parking spaces to be lost include loading zones, taxi zones, disabled spaces, permit, short term and unrestricted parking.
⁃ 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's 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). City councils represent and protect the interests of their residents, and therefore their design preferences should be respected.

Regards,

Jana Kobras