Sydney CBD Light Rail

I have uploaded my submission

I wish to object to two aspects of the EIS:

- the lack of an integrated approach to transport management, specifically the lack of a clear proposal for event parking at the SCG/Allianz Stadium

- the proposal that the current major event bus hub at Moore Park be relocated north of the existing AFL training field between the bus roadway and Kippax Lake.

These objections are discussed in the attached document

Please see the attached papers

Please refer submission attached below.
Kind Regards,
Carol

See attachment...

I have attached our submission

Please see attached file

SOUTH EAST LIGHT RAIL - EIS SUBMISSION

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NSW Government's CBD and South East Light Rail Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

CHAPTER 4 - Definition Design Development

Issue:
4.3.2 This description of feasible options and the preferred design option fails (a) to justify the overall need for the project and (b) to explain adequately why some options were rejected and why the preferred option was chosen.

The NSW Government has announced the plan without making available a proper business case (costings, usage, impact, alternatives etc), ignoring recommendations of its own body, Infrastructure NSW and also without consulting the Surry Hills community in a meaningful way.

Many in the community find the NSW Government's plan to move large, long, frequent, high speed trams from Central Station, along narrow and hilly Devonshire Street, Surry Hills and thence through an existing residential building (Olivia Gardens), Moore Park and on to Randwick as quite incomprehensible.

The community has clearly voiced these concerns with the project overall and also presented alternative design and route options, all of which have been ignored or rejected without adequate explanation by Transport for NSW ("TfNSW"). The result of this flawed process means that the brief presented to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure was inadequate and based on a false premise.

For example, several months ago local Surry Hills infrastructure engineer Robin Bean presented a cut and cover model to the Minister for Transport and to TfNSW that would address the Government's objectives more effectively than the preferred option. This is summarised at Attachment 1. The explanation that TfNSW has provided for rejecting this proposal has been inadequate and ignores the many benefits it proposes.

The patronage, community impacts and cost analyses provided in the EIS are inaccurate and ignore factual advice presented by advisers and the community. Had the Government considered this advice and properly explained its choices based on this advice, an improved outcome in the EIS would have resulted.


Suggested response:
Release the full business case upon which the decision for the preferred option was based. To be told at community consultations that to do so would breach commercial-in-confidence requirements is quite spurious.


Chapter 13 - LOCAL IMPACTS - SURRY HILLS PRECINCT

The trams will be 4-8 times the length of a regular bus. They will be the largest trams ever to operate in Australia, on roads that are not designed for such high-impact rail.

The negative impacts on Surry Hills are enormous and the benefits are minimal.

The movement of such large, long, frequent, high speed trams from Central Station, along narrow and hilly Devonshire Street, Surry Hills and thence through an existing residential building (Olivia Gardens), will cut the neighbourhood in two. The loss of amenity through social and economic impacts will be nothing short of catastrophic.

The EIS notes noise and vibration levels that are questionable, being taken outside one noisy pub on the corner of Crown and Devonshire Streets.

The precinct is a powerhouse for the NSW economy and this proposal will degrade the amenity for visitors, residents and businesses, which rely on foot traffic, as well as adequate short-term parking, to service Surry Hills' thriving restaurant, creative and general business communities.

Existing residents of Olivia Gardens will be displaced and are unlikely to find suitable replacement housing in the area, due both to density and costs.

The social housing precinct along Devonshire Street will become further isolated and its residents affected by high noise and vibration levels from the trams.

Suggested response:
Reconsider the whole proposal and particularly the route along Devonshire Street and through Olivia Gardens, in favour of a cut and cover solution along Foveaux Street, which could provide good commercial opportunities around trams stops. (refer attachment 1).


CHAPTER 15 - LOCAL IMPACTS - RANDWICK PRECINCT

The majority of inbound public transport journeys from Randwick are to the eastern side of the CBD, not to Central Station.

Evidence: Most Randwick - CBD buses travel via the very quick, traffic free bus-only lanes alongside Anzac Parade through Moore Park, then through the final section of the Eastern Distributor tunnel or a short segment on Oxford Street, turning into Elizabeth Street. They do not go via Central Station.

Only three buses go direct from Randwick Junction to Central: the M50, 372 and 374, all of which provide an excellent and efficient service to Central and should be continued.

The existing express bus services between the area and the CBD operate effectively, with patronage levels and on-time running among the best in Sydney. This is most effective in reducing traffic congestion to the city.

Suggested response: Retain all existing bus services between the City and Maroubra and La Perouse running through Randwick Junction.

Patronage numbers to the University of New South Wales

International studies demonstrate that the number of people physically attending universities on a frequent and regular basis will continue to decline, following the steady take-up of MOOCs (Massive online open courses). Therefore, the government's projected patronage numbers between UNSW and Central cannot be justified.

Suggested response: Rethink the need for this rail network as currently proposed.

Loss of the park at Randwick Junction

The loss of this beautiful park in such a dense area for use by the trams will diminish the amenity of the area, which is a major commercial retail, education and medical services hub for the region.

Suggested response: Retain the park as a park and create an underground solution for the trams.


Wansey Road

This pleasant residential street will be negatively affected by the proposal, so it is encouraging to hear that the Government may be considering alternative routes through the racecourse, for example.

Suggested response: Listen to community advice and relocate this aspect of the proposal.

SUMMARY

The project is deeply flawed as currently proposed and should go back to the drawing board and involving genuine community and expert advisory consultation.

Claire Pamenter

This replaces my submission of 26/12/2013

Submission is attached.

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.
My concerns in relation to the CSELR project and the EIS, with particular interest with significant impacts caused by the proposed Surry Hills to Moore Park West route via Devonshire Street:
1. Lack of business case for overall project and cost benefit of possible routes through Surry Hills.
2. The EIS material is absence of the appropriate level of research at every point. There are too many unsubstantiated claims and unresolved issues in the EIS.
3. Devonshire Street is not capable of being the spine of the South East Network, as it is not future proof.
4. Vastly superior alternative routes have been identified - Foveaux and Devonshire sub-surface.
5. Governments `unsubstantiated' rejection of the Foveaux sub-surface route is less than satisfactory.
6. No genuine community consultation has been engaged in.
7. Unacceptable noise levels, and times through a densely populated suburb.
8. Size, speed and frequency of the light rail vehicles (LRV's).
9. Business and economic impact.
10. Road closures during and post construction.
11. Traffic congestion.
12. Acquisition of 69 homes.
13. Dislocation of Surry Hills.
14. Loss of Amenity.
15. Destruction of many mature and well-developed trees.
16. Impact on parklands.
17. Access to properties along the route - businesses, residents, elderly and disabled.
18. Significant devalue on properties along the route with no compensation from the Government.
19. Loss of car parking.
20. Cumulative impacts.

Please refer to my EIS Submission for further details.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.