Sydney CBD Light Rail

As a resident of Surry Hills for 49 years, I wish to make it clear that I object to the proposal of the light rail through Devonshire street Surry Hills. My main objection is an aesthetic one. I feel implementing the tram will forever change the quality of Surry Hills as a suburb. As I am certain the tram is for monitory gains, for business and the like, it will ruin the village feel that we have enjoyed these last fifteen years. I have seen many changes to Surry Hills in my life and most have been positive but this is a step in the wrong direction. The tram through Devonshire street will cut the suburb in two. The fact cars cant drive through Devonshire street makes it difficult to get to my street from Riley street. I looked at the plans yesterday at Crown street Library.
I ask you to find an alternate route for the tram. I am not opposed to the tram parse, even though I dont like the look of these ugly modern ones that you can't even open a window to breathe, an important thing for some of us, but that beside the point. I dont really care about the city of Sydney, its pretty ugly already, so the tram wont make a difference but please do not have it go through Devonshire street. I wont ever use it, so that is just one insignificant person but please dont ruin Surry Hills and all the good work that our lord mayor, Clover Moore has contributed to make Surry Hills a decent and beautiful area to live and visit. I guess there is a reason why so many people flock to the area, its because it is special and not like other areas. The tram will also be the start of other changes... once that happens then we are lost. Expect protests, against this, if it goes ahead. Mark my words, the people of Surry Hills will not put up with a bullying Liberal state government.

While light rail is a valid means of improving public transport deployment of light rail in a mixed traffic environment is the least favourable option and will create significant loss of amenity to residents of streets around Anzac Parade.

Loss of traffic lanes and frequent stopping to allow tram operation will significantly hamper traffic progress. We risk a lot of this traffic moving into residential streets placing further pressure on streets that have already become rat runs.

This problem will be magnified if additional parking is forced into side streets to address loss of parking spaces on Anzac Parade. Side streets are already parked out during semester time by UNSW students. Parking restrictions and traffic calming measures will be needed as a minimum to provide some management of these issues.

Figures provided in the EIS indicate that the majority of light rail users will be existing public transport commuters. For many of these commuters loss of bus routes will force longer journeys on foot to join public transport at light rail stops.

Provision of light rail is being touted as a justification for substantial urban activation precincts in the Randwick local government area. Given that 2/3 of the users of the system are cited as existing commuters and only a minor proportion are cited as users to arise from urban growth use of CESLR project to justify urban activation precincts in the Randwick local government area is disingenuous and the two projects should not be linked.

Opportunity exists to minimise the mixed traffic implementation of the light rail system through use of existing light rail reserves remaining in the Randwick local government area. Some of these are used by buses that are proposed to be phased out once the light rail is in operation. I am unaware of any explanation as to why these corridors are not being utilised in the plan.

The concepts of public exhibition and consultation are worthy however the lack of detail, plethora of motherhood statements and assertion that information sought to better understand the rationale, ambit and impact of the project undermine these worthy initiatives. Significant public monies have been spent on what is therefore a public relations exercise to persuade as many taxpayers as possible that the project is and well founded. this is disingenuous. The people of NSW deserve better from government.

As a Small business that deals with many local galleries and shops in the area we object to the purposed Light rail
for the following points

1. Object to government not looking at underground subsurface route along Foveaux st.
2. Left hand in and out of nickson st
3. No parking on Devonshire st will affect businesses.


Kind regards

I am strongly opposed to THIS project but not against a light rail development overall. This ill thought out planning is being pushed through without ANY MAJOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION or DISCLOSURE. The Community Information Sessions especially in the Surry Hills area was conducted secretly and without publicity. Very few in the area were even aware that the display was being conducted as there was no street level information as to what was being discussed. The destruction of Surry Hills is both criminal and unnecessary as other obvious options such as Oxford and Flinders Streets or Tunnelling have been taken off the table. The clogging of ALL traffic arteries this current project will have on not only the city but ALL surrounding suburbs will be enormous both in its construction and its implementing and a re-thinking of the whole project needs to be done. This is a 20th century solution to a 21st century problem. Sydney deserves better.

A light rail is a transport solution for past decades. Mass transport in a city as big as Sydney and with the expected growth needs to be underground.

As a parent of a student of Sydney Girls High School, I welcome the CSELR to provide better public transport solutions for the wider community. I wish decisions could be made in consideration of the following key points:
1. Safe crossing not only of Anzac Parade, but also the bus lanes and the light rail tracks

- Approx 2000 school children will now need to cross Anzac Parade, as well as the existing bus lanes and new light rail tracks twice each day to access transport. A safe crossing option is of paramount importance. We favour a well-designed and well-positioned pedestrian bridge to ensure the children's safety and that traffic flow is not disrupted on Anzac Parade

2. Placement of Station (and proposed pedestrian bridge)

- We support the location of the Moore Park Station further south than is shown, opposite SGHS

- The placement of the pedestrian bridge should align with the station to ensure that children can access the Moore Park Station safely and efficiently, and there is not a need for children to walk a long distance to access the safe crossing option

3. Transport Amenity

- The CSELR schedule must be designed to provide for the efficient transportation of approx 2000 school children to and from school at the beginning and end of each school day

- Continuation of the subsidised ticketing system for school children on the CSELR, and integrated ticketing across all transport services

4. Parklands

- Minimisation of disruption to the school during construction, particularly during the construction of the Moore Park tunnel and station which are expected to be significant projects

- Maintenance and enhancement of current parkland space available to the school once the project is complete

I am supporting option 1b, because this option will have the least impact on the environment.

Hi there,

I am writing to you to express my support for option 1b, as outlined in the EIS because it will mean that the house located at 625-629 South Dowling Street, Surry Hills (which is located on option 1c) will remain;

it would be a great loss to lose this house as it will be truly unique and iconic for Sydney's architecture industry.

Kind regards,
Annabelle

To the Department of Planning and Infrastructure,

My submission is based on my support of option 1b, as outlined in the EIS, together with option 1a, as they are the two most cost effective options. As a tax payer and local resident, I would ask the State Government to choose the most cost effective options. Option 1c has been outlined as the most expensive option, so I would not support option 1c being chosen over option 1b and 1a.

Kind Regards,
Michael

Hi There,

I am writing to show my support for option 1b for light rail project in the CBD ans South East Area. I support option 1b, as well as 1a (being my second preference), as they have the straightest run, which results in less noise.

Kind regards,
Andrew

At the corner of Flinders & Albion Sts Surry Hills we have an excellent bus service now. We can get all the Coogee and Marourbra Bus services. I am concerned that as a Senior Citizen I'll have to walk all way to Taylors Sq to catch my bus to Sydney
CBD. The proposed light rail stops are too far for me to walk as I age. I request you keep the Metro #10 buses and Coogee #373. Your plans for light rail through Surry Hills, will destroy our present excellent bus services

The mature fig trees are a very significant part of Randwicks amenity. I object strongly to the removal of so many to bring in a public transit system that replicates existing bus routes.

Trees must be saved. If more than 100 are lost I would feel the area has been significantly scarred.

I would rather lose parking spaces. Take as many of those as you like. Trees are attractive, beneficial, valuable. Car parking is good only for cars. Let us walk to the shops from the light rail.

The light rail must go all the way to the beach at Coogee. Coogee Bay Road can certainly contain it - must be made to contain it. More Sydneysiders must have the opportunity to access the beach.

Western Sydney has surely as strong a claim for public transport infrastructure. Make it the legacy of this time that governments state and local worked to solve transport across Sydney.

The Light Rail EIS appears not to have addressed the cumulating effect of Randwick Urban Activation Precinct adequately. Technical Paper 4 states on page 31 that,
A contributing factor in selecting this [Randwick Urban Activation] Precinct was NSW Government`s commitment to providing light rail from Central Station to Moore Park and the University of NSW.
It follows logically that the Randwick Urban Activation Precinct (RUAP) is not just another development whose cumulative effects the EIS needs to consider. Rather, a consequence of the NSW Government's policy arising from the decision to link the RUAP to the CSELR is that the effects of the two need to be considered together. This has not been done except cursorily.
While the positive affects of this urban consolidation have been assessed, there does not appear to be any serious assessment of adverse economic and environmental effects, such as: -
* Increased traffic on main roads, particularly along routes not serviced by the CSELR. The densification of residences in nearby Waterloo and Alexandria are a case in point. Traffic has now become so congested that there are traffic jams in the middle of the day, well outside the peak hours. Similar congestion from the RUAP could be expected.
* Increased traffic in neighbouring suburban streets (also known as `rat running'). The CSELR is likely to result in an increase in rat-running as drivers seek to avoid the reduced capacity of Anzac Parade and other streets traversed by the CSELR. Rat running is already a major concern in Kensington and West Kingsford (Zones 2 and 3 of Figures 6-18 and 6-19 of Technical Paper 1 and further west), and a current issue being addressed by Randwick Council. It is surprising that the traffic experts do not seem to have become aware of this.
* Increased pressures on street parking in neighbouring suburban streets. Zones 2 and 3 of Figures 6-18 and 6-19 of Technical Paper 1 are too small. They do not take account of the substantial parking problem in residential streets resulting from cars of students attending UNSW. This parking extends westward to Tunstall Ave, and on university days, parking is extremely difficult. If surveys were done on days when the university had a student holiday, these cars would not have been seen. Was this the case for this EIS? It is of concern that the traffic experts may not have ascertained the existence of this problem.
It would appear that the EIS does not consider the cumulative effects of the east-west traffic resulting from the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Built Environment Plan - Stage 2, together with those of the RUAP at all.
These deficiencies in the EIS, found within a few minutes of starting to examine the EIS are disappointing. While the CSELR is a project with much to commend it, oversights such as these do not inspire confidence that all other adverse effects have been dealt with.

The assessment of aboriginal significance is good as far as it goes. However, it may have missed one important item of aboriginal infrastructure, namely the aboriginal road or roads used to connect Botany Bay with Port Jackson. These were noted by the crew of Captain Cook's voyage. It may be that some of the routes of the CSELR follow or traverse the line of these roads, and this possibility should be investigated.

It would appear that the estimates of the effects of the CSELR on traffic have not allowed for the impacts of the Randwick UAP. If this is correct, the EIS will remain deficient and prone to successful legal challenge, unless the NSW Govenment formally removes the linkage between the CSELR and the RUAP, or the effects of the congestion induced by the RUAP are also modelled and incorporated into the EIS.

For the same reason, the laudable cost-benefit ratio of 2.5 cited for this project must be set aside, and a new ratio must be estimated for the CSELR combined with the RUAP, unless the government removes the RUAP from consideration as justified by the CSELR.

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 information, which has been carefully compiled by some concerned citizens in order to assist others in formulating a coherent response, comprehensively expresses my own concerns about the issue, and I therefore wish for you to regard this submission as an individual response.

***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.

⁃ 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. This 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 SULLE).

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

Please don't cut down the old trees, they are what make our suburbs beautiful. New trees won't be able to replace their majestic presence.

To whom it may concern, i m writing to support the option 1b. for the Light Rail Project Because, I beleive it will have the least amount of impact on the enviroment.

After reviewing information provided I am against the proposed Light Rail going through Surry Hills via the Devonshire St route.

It appears that the Cut & Cover tunnel proposal has been dismissed without proper consideration. Looking to the future there are so many examples in the rest of the world where this sort of infrastructure is underground.

Having been a Surry Hills resident for the past 25years I have seen the major changes, Bourke Street no longer a one way street with heavy vehicles hurtling down it, transformed into a pleasant green, local thoroughfare,with children riding their bikes to school. Crown St changed beyond belief with Cafes & Restaurants, attracting crowds, as a local try & find a car park on Saturday evenings.

Why not try & preserve this "Village Atmosphere", the Light Rail will be of little benefit to Surry Hills residents, & I can see the already congested traffic on Crown St will get worse.

To whom it may concern,

I wish to dispute the findings of the EIS with regard to the impact that the proposed light rail project will have on the precinct of Surry Hills. I feel that the findings of the study were very bias towards a favorable outcome for the proposed project.

The Social Impact Assessment describes Surry Hills as a mostly childless suburb, stating that there are very few children between 5 - 19. I ask, did the assessment take into account children under 5? Surry Hills is exploding with young, pre-school children, and this can be seen by the large number of strollers on the street, the enormous waiting lists for the local childcare centres, and the number of babies in the local parks. Further evidence of the large number of small children in the area is that Bourke St Primary has experienced and enormous boost in enrollments over the last few years, and currently has nearly 80% of their students in years K - 2.

Further, I argue that the public transport and "activation" benefits of the light rail are overstated in that nearly half Surry Hills residents walk or cycle to work, and the Devonshire St precinct of Surry Hills has enjoyed signification "activation" over the last 10 yrs and doesn't need a light rail line for this to continue.

Finally, I dispute the finding that the operation of the light rail with have a moderately positive impact on the Wimbo Park precinct. How can this be? Parkham Lane/Wimbo Park will go from being a quiet cul-de-sac which children spend the afternoon playing in, to a major transport intersection. I strongly dispute this rating.

Dear Sir/Madam,

With reference to EIS for application SS6042, CBD and South East Light Rail Project I wish to make the following submission.

The light rail currently has a station planned for the Moore Park precinct. As a regular user of The Entertainment Quarter entertainment and leisure precinct I am concerned the proposed station is located beyond any suitable access point to the precinct and offers no solution for weather-protected cover to the stadiums, cinema or restaurants (rain or sun). As a part of the development there needs to be some kind of covered access provided from the station to the Hordern Pavilion/Royal Hall of Industries Driver Avenue entry.

I currently use my vehicle to access the precinct to attend the cinema. I can currently attend the cinema without any detriment as a result of weather. I would not use the light rail if I was not provided some degree of weather protection to the entertainment venues. I would propose crowds for the stadiums would likewise be severely impacted without any covered access path.


Sincerely,

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to support the light rail option 1B, as it would be a shame to lose an iconic Sydney and Surry Hills home that is located on option 1C.