Sydney CBD Light Rail

Thank you for providing the opportunity for comments.
I am concerned about the large number of trees apparently being affected by the proposal. In some precincts (Moore Park, Randwick, UNSW Anzac parade) the percentage of existing trees affected is larger than 70 percent. Removal of these trees would have a significant impact on the local ecology and needs to be kept to a minimum.
Urban ecology is increasingly being recognised as an important and essential part of a healthy and liveable urban environment. Trees help to regulate the local climate, mitigate the urban heat island effect, sequester carbon and provide habitat for many species of birds and insects.
I appreciate and welcome the suggestions for mitigation as outlined in the proposal. However, I think more could and should be done to minimise the impact on existing trees, to retain trees as much as possible and to provide adequate replacements if retaining is not possible. Tram stops and tracks should be designed in a way that helps to retain a maximum of trees.
Thank you.

Below is a list of comments and suggestions I wish to make about the Light Rail to Randwick and Kingsford.

Highcross Park. Extending the LR and issues re Kingsford circle:

I am very much against the use of Highcross Park in the Light Rail Project. It is an historically significant park which includes an important memorial which should be in a peaceful place. It is a beautiful, much loved area of greenery, grass and big trees which people use and appreciate. It is of great value in an otherwise highly built up, hectic commercial area. It adds a little character and charm to Randwick. There is already a dearth of green space in the area. The LR( Light Rail) stop should be somewhere in High street which is closer and much more convenient for access to the hospital and UNSW. Jamming buses, pedestrians and LR into the High Cross Park triangle will be a nightmare of congestion. Indeed it is already a crush to negotiate, being on an access route to at least 4 local schools.
I understand there is a cost to acquiring space elsewhere, but this project has to be considered for the long term and the Randwick hub is only going to get busier and needs to have scope to cope in future, or it will be cursed and fail. Please don't ruin the park.

The sensible thing is to continue the LR to Maroubra (either the beach, the Maroubra shops or Pagewood shops, where there is more space for the associated interchanges and a great need for transport. With the current plan people will have to change in Randwick and Kingsford to continue their journeys South and East, which is inefficient regarding time, space and coordination in all respects. These are areas (South and East) which could cope with residential expansion. ( UAP plans). Randwick and Kingsford most definitely are at a limit, as there is absolutely no room for vital infrastructure (schools etc).
Another major advantage to extending the LR past Kingsford' big circle is that the circle, which I believe works extremely well as a device for good traffic flow, could remain. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Replacing it with the proposed cross roads is going to cause traffic to bank up and slow down. Once again the fact that people will have to "interchange" here to continue their journeys by bus, will make this area chaotic. This is not a destination as such for anyone, it has a few shops and without parking, there will be less. Where are all the buses going to pick up and drop off passengers, passengers who previously had a straight run through and did not have to change?

Wansey Road issues:

I am very much in favour of the option of running the LR across the top of the Royal Randwick racecourse and not along Wansey Road. The beautiful trees should be preserved at all costs, the noise level for residents will be less, the road will be impacted on less. Besides I feel very sympathetic towards the residents in Wansey Road whose losses will be considerable, especially if the LR uses Wansey Road. I also feel it should be pointed out that the Racecourse is used by racegoers only. A large percentage of the population is not interested in the races. I suggest that that area adjacent to Wansey Road is under-utilised at present.

Anzac Parade, loss of green features and parking:

I am concerned that Anzac Parade will lose what greenery it has along its central strip, where the LR is to run. I implore the planners to do their utmost to retain or include new plantings and grassed spaces along this route. Parking must be made available and good cycle paths and parking for bicycles are important matters.

Bus route changes:

While I appreciate that bus routes will be adjusted according to the final LR plans, I wish to express my concerns, having read some of the proposed changes. I use the buses from Coogee and Randwick to the city often. I appreciate this very good service. People who are not within walking distance of the Randwick LR stop (wherever it will be) or are infirm, have prams, children, heavy parcels, do not wish to walk far at night, etc. will still need to have a bus route to get to and from the LR. The 372 is a case in point, and there are many others. It will be an irritant and time consuming to have to make a change en route to the city, when previously it was a single run. There are many examples I could give. The connections will need to be good and frequent, or the original routes retained, or similar devised, where ever the light rail is not an advantage.
Further to my concerns is that there are a few quite big gaps between stops along the route. This will be a problem for less mobile people.

Housing Facility for LR vehicles, Doncaster Ave/ Alison Road:

I believe it would be better to situate this facility within the Randwick racecourse land at the south-east corner. This will achieve a great saving of green space and prevent a large built structure being built a very visible place. (a visual Impact issue).

Yours sincerely WL.

I am opposing the Central Business and South East Light Rail (CBDSELR) as described in the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) November 2013. My objections and questions, to which I would appreciate responses, are listed below:

- Why was the community not made aware of the Devonshire Street plan until one year ago, when the decision had been made at least two years ago
- The Government employed an expert to advise on the best mode of transport, to take students to the two Universities, as well as transport for others to both Randwick, Kensington and beyond. Buses were recommended as the most ideal solution. Why was this advise not heeded.
- Why would we destroy countless trees, interrupt businesses, and demolish an apartment block of 69 units when, with the technology now available; for example tools for tunneling and the use of preformed and prestressed concrete, are available as 21st Century solutions
- Why is the Government unable to offer market values to owners in the path of the proposed route, or some compensation for those whose properties are adversely affected
- Why cannot communication between Sydney Buses, Light Rail and Council be made to be more transparent to the voting public, to clarify the vested interests of all concerned

I object to the proposal as it stands for the following reasons
Noise to the surrounding area due to proposed speed limits, times of operation and lack of details regarding tam lines/base construction methods and materials.
These factors would make life untenable in the surrounding residences

I do not agree with the CSLER as stated in the CSLER EIS dated November 2013.

My concern is limited to my interest in the Surry Hills to Moore Park West route as I live in the dead end section of Riley Street between Goodlet and Belvoir Streets.

I grew up in Melbourne in close proximity to a tram and do support the light rail proposal for here. I am however perplexed that Devonshire St was chosen as the main spine through Surry Hills. Devonshire St is extremely narrow, contains parking spaces that will disappear creating impact on surrounding streets, includes compulsory acquisition of 69 homes, results in loss of trees, includes closure of streets, increases potential safety issues for children using Ward Park whilst maintaining open access for food vans feeding the homeless in the area, and no consultation with residents both in the immediate area and Redfern East.

My main areas of concern are
- lack of any information on alternate routes explored including using Cleveland Street which is wide and contains the key bus routes which could also benefit from dedicated shared lanes, or Fauveaux Street or ....;
- lack of any information on alternate plans for routes such as sub-surface and tunnel routes;
- no cost benefit analysis for this route compared to any alternate route. This cost benefit analysis particularly of all routes examined should be made publicly available with a re-advertising period;
- Cost impacts need to be reviewed and included as visual impacts need consideration. Should Devonshire Street be demonstrated as being the most appropriate route, then any cost need to include providing cables under ground to ensure trees can grow;
- Parking impacts through the loss of street parking in Devonshire Street needs to reviewed. The impacts include loss of amenity for those in surrounding streets where residents will have no option but to park, impacts on local businesses along Devonshire Street including small business such as hair dressers, garment dying / alterations, etc;
- traffic impact studies are missing including how residents in one way Goodlet, Riley and High Holborn are to enter and exit the area particularly if heading to city;
- safety impacts around Ward Park needs to be examined noting that children are in the park during the day but in the evening, food vans enter from Devonshire Street to provide necessary support to many locals;
- there is no information available for review on vibration impacts to terrace homes along Devonshire Street. The narrowness of this section requires due consideration and review by an independent panel;
- Acquisition of 69 homes is not part of any cost benefit analysis included in this exhibition and should be when compared to alternate routes. The cost should not just be on the immediate financial but also the non tangible issue of emotional, social and relocation;
- safety relative to traffic impacts need to be reviewed by independent consultants / panel and full reports made available before any decisions;
- there is no information relative to noise impacts (and or associated costs for items to be included such as noise reducing beds to be installed below tracks);
- the proposed route in such a narrow street will actually divide Surry Hills into two segments and not actually provide the benefit reported to local business as Devonshire Street is of incline that benefits pedestrian traffic;
- the route does not provide assistance to struggling businesses along Cleveland Street and or provide transport options for
East Redfern residents.

Finally, should there not be much in the way of submissions from the Edgeview apartment building in Riley Street, or from Goodlet, Belvoir, Marlborough or Devonshire Streets then that is confirmation that lack of consultation and associated understanding of the proposal has occurred. Many people actually just throw out pamphlets in Edgeview Apartments presuming they are junk mail.

I have lived in Surry Hills with my husband and family for 30 years. I am a geriatrician and endocrinologist and have particular interests in the support of older and disadvantaged people.

The type of tram proposed will force many frail older people to stand rather than sit as they can usually do on buses. This will increase the risk of falls with serious injuries as trams accelerate/decelerate.

The Devonshire Street tramway proposal will have very negative effects on amenity for residents. The removal of a major east - west corridor without provision of an alternative is poor planning. Loading traffic onto the already heavy Cleveland and Foveaux Street corridors is inappropriate and will only exacerbate congestion. A local alternative will need to be provided eg opening up one of the previously closed corridors such as Cooper Street with traffic light controlled access onto Elizabeth Street.

There is no satisfactory parking option for residents and businesses on Devonshire Street. Underground parking stations must be provided to address this urgent need.

I have seen almost no data on the evidence used to justify the selection of the Devonshire Street route despite my written requests to receive same. I request that all data used to justify Devonshire Street be provided as a show of good faith on the part of TfNSW.

If the Devonshire Street route is subsequently confirmed as the final route, then a tram stop at the Wimbo Park site would be a real benefit to frail elderly people living locally or accessing the senior club on South Dowling Street, the clients of the Langton Clinic and the many local residents already having to cope with crossing the cycleway on Bourke Street. For elderly residents, a walk up Devonshire or one of the parallel streets on the eastern side of Crown Street to the only tram stop proposed for Surry Hills could be fatal for anyone with significant ischaemic heart disease.

I support an underground tram route and call upon TfNSW to provide detailed analysis on the alternate Foveaux Street tunnel proposal.

I have previously provided comments to the Project.
I confine my comments, in relation to the EIS, to the proposals for a terminus at or near High Cross Park Randwick and preface them by stating that High Cross Park should be sacrosanct and protected from any adverse impacts. Also, any submission is difficult to prepare, given the dearth of information available in relation to consequential bus arrangements - a glaring deficiency.
Of the three options put forward for the terminus, I would nominate option 3 as the "least worst". I find it more than odd that all thee options, as far as I can tell, show buses from the east and south-east stopping in Cuthill St for interchanging passengers.
If there is an inevitability of one of the three options being adopted, then option 3 would allow a bus set-down zone on the west side of Avoca St in the existing kerbside lane which is currently dedicated as "left turn only" into High St, but which use would become redundant.
This, I suggest, would then allow looping buses between Coogee Beach and the tram terminus to proceed via Belmore Rd - Arthur St - Clara St & left into High St and continuing to Coogee via the route of the present M50. Such buses could pick up eastbound tram passengers in High St.

I write these comments as a professional engineer (with extensive experience of project evaluation in a variety of positions including a period with the Bureau of Transport Economics), as a long-term resident of Surry Hills, and as a member of a family which has made extensive use of the current bus services linking the CBD, Surry Hills, Randwick, the UNSW, Kingsford and beyond.

As a great fan of trams, I have spent many happy hours this year traveling on various light rail systems including the new Bombardier fleet in Blackpool, England.

In my experience, light rail works well in situations where its tracks are well-separated from pedestrians, cyclists and public roads, and where passenger numbers are too low to justify a "proper" heavy rail system. Sydney's Central/Lilyfield/Dulwich Hill line, running along disused heavy rail tracks, is perhaps a good example of this.

However, to my surprise, the CBD and South East Light Rail (CSELR) proposal appears to ignore both international "best practice" and common sense. It seeks to replace a number of existing bus services (some of which have an easily-fixed reputation for poor timekeeping) with a system employing extra-large trams running along tracks which will permanently remove two or three lanes from busy existing roads.

Supporting documents for the CSELR make it clear that most current bus travelers will discover that their journeys will take longer and will often require them to switch between buses and trams during their journey, since most bus services currently running along or near the route of the CSELR will be terminated.

Given the fact that the current fleet of "blue" buses serving the route allow around 45 passengers to sit for every 15 who have to stand, the new trams (with only 80 seats per 300-passenger tram) will also greatly reduce the quality of "travel experience" for most passengers.

The only economic justification that I can find for the CSELR is a document entitled "Business Case Summary", published by Transport for NSW (TfNSW) in November 2013. In a format apparently aimed at primary school children, this estimates that the $1.6 billion capital cost of the project will be offset by accumulated savings (over 30 years) of $707 million in "public transport operational savings including increased revenues (and) reduced bus operating costs...".

Further details of these benefits are deemed "commercially sensitive" and have not been released to the public, although a very senior TfNSW official verbally assured me that they primarily represent savings in bus drivers' wages, given that a single tram and driver could replace about five buses.

This $707 million is of course insufficient to offset the $1.6 billion cost of the project, and a collection of extraordinary other "benefits" has been added in an attempt to justify the CSELR. These "benefits" - accompanied by no supporting evidence - include $264 million in "benefits for road users", $308 million in "environmental and health benefits", $333 million in "benefits for pedestrians" and a breathtaking $2.2 billion in "public transport benefits relating to faster, more comfortable, more reliable journeys".

I believe that this laughably inadequate "Business Case" is completely unprofessional and therefore request that:

-1- An independent Cost:Benefit analysis of the CSELR be carried out.

Turning to specific details, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describes a scheme in which, from its inception, fully-laden 45-metre trams will run slowly along Devonshire Street at 1-2 minute intervals (ie every 2-3 minutes in each direction). This presents mind-boggling problems for traffic on the many busy North-South roads which the trams need to cross, and leaves no significant scope for increasing the passenger capacity of the CSELR into the future.

The paragraph on p24 of the EIS Overview which suggests that "The CSELR will improve overall transport and pedestrian capacity" appears to be completely false, at least within Surry Hills.

An underground route - perhaps beneath Foveaux Street - would allow much higher speeds and therefore much greater scope for increased future passenger capacity on the CSELR. It would also dramatically reduce the permanent damage to many homes and businesses in Surry Hills.

I therefore believe that the current proposal to run the CSELR "at grade" along Devonshire Street, Surry Hills and through the sites currently occupied by Wimbo Park, Olivia Gardens and the Langton Clinic is not based on any rational engineering or economic evaluation and request that the scheme be amended to include:

-2- An underground route through Surry Hills.

Both the City of Sydney Council and TfNSW have clearly decided to downplay or ignore the overwhelming opposition to the CSELR from communities along its proposed route. My numerous questions to members of both of these organisations have generally been met with assurances which were later broken, or with promises that my questions would be answered in the EIS - which when it was eventually released was careful to avoid being specific or quantitative about the costs and benefits of the CSELR.

If - as most of my neighbours cynically assume - there is no possibility of changing the route or the nature of the CSELR then I specifically ask that the final design be amended to include:

-3- A light rail station on the "Olivia Gardens" site.

This would significantly improve amenity for several thousands of people living in houses (and in several blocks of units) on the Eastern side of Surry Hills, whose east-west bus services are to be reduced or curtailed by the CSELR. The light rail stop proposed for Ward Park, uphill and to the west of this area, is currently served by the north-south 30x bus routes along Crown Street. As I understand matters, these bus services will survive the CSELR.

-4- One or more new parking stations near Devonshire Street.

The EIS makes it clear that all of the heavily-sought-after parking along both sides of Devonshire Street will be removed to make way for the CSELR. This will have a disastrous effect on many people who live, work or shop nearby and - as people needing to park on Devonshire Street will be forced to seek street parking elsewhere - will dramatically increase parking problems and congestion within the entire suburb of Surry Hills. It is essential that these lost parking slots be replaced - perhaps with parking stations under Ward Park, Wimbo Park and/or Moore Park West (all of which will be extensively disturbed during construction of the CSELR).

To risk stating the obvious, the paragraph on p24 of the EIS Overview which suggests that "... there is adequate parking available to absorb most spaces lost" is utterly false, at least within Surry Hills.

Similarly, the paragraph on p29 of the EIS Overview which states that "Local social benefits include ... Increased access to local businesses, shops and services" makes no sense whatsoever within Surry Hills.

-5- Community feedback to this EIS should be extended.
-6- Community feedback should be accepted in "paper" format.

Amongst my Surry Hills neighbours are many elderly, infirm and/or non-ESB individuals who will be disadvantaged by the loss of bus services, by the more awkward and physically demanding nature of the proposed new CSELR "tram-and-bus" journeys, and by the requirement for most tram passengers to stand. Many of these people do not have access to (or confidence in) the Department of Planning's online consultation and submission process. I believe that they should be given an opportunity to make their feelings known to the Department by non-electronic means.

To conclude:

I was dismayed to watch the Eastern Distributor destroy any chance of re-introducing light rail down South Dowling Street, and to susequently watch the Victoria Park and Green Square developments proceed without the introduction of significant new public transport systems to cater for the massive numbers of new residents who will soon inhabit them.

It has been disappointing to see Sydney making no serious attempt to introduce the sort of dependable real-time bus tracking and scheduling systems that work very well elsewhere in the world.

But it is deeply shocking to now see this proposal to spend $1.6 billion inappropriately shoehorning a tramway onto roads currently well served by public transport, resulting (even if one accepts TfNSW's published figures) in a system which will make most peoples' journeys slower and more uncomfortable than they are at present.

The expense, inefficiency, inconvenience and traffic chaos associated with the CSELR would bring the whole concept of Sydney light rail into disrepute for generations to come, should this proposal proceed.

In the first instance I am not against the light rail per se but am against the current alignment. From all information I have received at meetings it appears to be built to a price and to worlds's best practice.This going to result in short term political gain at the expenses of long term transport gain for the public. On Light Rail systems I have used they are on their own land reservation and do not mix with traffic except where they have to cross the occasional road.

My 1st preference would be to see the light rail following the old tram routes and service Coogee Beach as well as being extended to the Prince Henry Development site. There was a promise undertaken that transport would be improved and was also an undertaking by Dept of Planning. A spur could be run both up and down High Street Randwick to service Prince of Wales hospital and NSW University linking Randwick shopping precinct and Anzac Parade. The current route will have a significant impact on the businesses in the Ranwick shopping precinct.

The trams under consideration are also being purchased are to a price rather than a slightly more expensive tram that could overcome the slopes in Sydney and improve the areas that can be serviced.

My second option the 1st is not adopted is that the light rail in Wansey Rd Randwick be west of the Morton Bay Figs inside the Randwick Racecourse on a greenfield site.

I requested the following information from Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) none of which have been answered raising questions in my mind as to the appropriate communication they are required to abide by law to follow.

1) I requested what standards the TfNSW was following.

2) The costing details of placing the light rail inside the racecourse compared to the Wansey Rd option?

3) According to information published on TfNSW website the original route was in High Street Randwick but was discounted as it was too narrow and too steep, however Wansey Rd is 2 metres narrower and just as steep in one section requiring it to go partially into the the racecourse and building a viaduct.

As a resident of Malabar I am very concerned about the Light Rail project, especially the fact that it will terminate at Kingsford and a huge parking area will be used for it.
I know that it is absolutely necessary to encourage people to leave their cars at home, but there is little incentive for people south of Kingsford to do so if we have to change from a bus to a tram- especially in the winter months.
From what I have read it appears that the attraction of the light rail is the "ease" of transport for the UNSW, The POW hospital, the Moore Park Precinct and Randwick Race Course. The residents, I believe are considered after the commercial sites.
While I am sure that studies have been done, I am concerned that the rail capacity will soon be reached and that it will not cater for any future growth in the areas concerned. Residents south of Kingsford will gain little if any benefit unless the rail continues on to La Perouse, especially with the rapid growth in housing in that area.
Buses provide a good, if slower service( they are now forced to drive behind bicycle riders who hog the lanes and go through red lights leaving buses (and cars) to try to overtake them repeatedly!)
I believe that unless the light rail continues to La Perouse, the central corridor would be better served with a dedicated corridor for rapid bus transit only, at a fraction of the cost and extending to La Perouse. "According to the latest quarterly national transport survey from the University of Sydney: "A dedicated corridor for bus rapid transit could be a significantly cheaper and equally effective solution to congestion compared to light rail." (TOPS) Has this been considered?
This would require less time and inconvenience during construction and while parking down the centre would be greatly reduced, a non-stop rail or rapid transit bus trip would be the way to get people onto public transport and out of their cars!
I have looked at the Architect drawings which show 9 lanes in the centre of Anzac Pde- this is not possible for the length of the rail and will require traffic to merge creating bottlenecks. Will there still be buses? Will they have to fight with the ever increasing number of bicycles on the road, where one bicycle rider can slow a bus with 40+ people on their way to work? Will there be any service to Darlinghurst? How many lanes for cars, buses and bicycles?

The parking area where the tram terminates is an important community facility as people park there and take public transport into the city and use tha many community facilities offered by SSJRL Club. With the light rail beginning here even more people will need parking there as it takes so long for the bus to get to Kingsford.
Travel from the railway on a 393 is always difficult and in peak hour the buses are full. The trams will fill from Circular Quay and the city and there will be no room for commuters by the time it gets to the railway! 2 crowded services currently provided by buses will become 1 crowded service by tram.
While I understand the need for progress, I am concerned that for the cost involved, this may not be sufficient to serve the needs of the residents of the affected areas for long enough into the future, especially when the two rail lines will merge at Moore Park!
Why have the community not been consulted more in open forum meetings where questions can be answered? While the displays have been very nice, real community consultation has not been addressed. This will affect our area for a very long time and must be right from the beginning.
Thank you
Vicki Jones

I have been a frequent visitor to Randwick for a great number of years, as I have family who live in the area.

I think that there needs to be more consideration put into the Light Rail design so that it avoids harmful impacts to so many trees. The Light Rail design should especially be improved to avoid the removal of a great number of significant trees, particularly around Randwick racecourse.

The trees along Alison Road & Wansey Road are such a defining landmark feature for Randwick. Driving onto Alison Road from Anzac Parade is so enjoyable and scenic thanks to these massive, historic & beautiful trees. There must be another way for the Light Rail to be designed so that these trees can be fully protected as they deserve to be.

The beautiful trees can stay if due planning is carried by the project's proponents & stakeholders. They add so much value to properties along the route. If these trees are taken away, I believe that the property values will drop, despite the introduction of the Light Rail. The permanent removal of these large trees along the route would be a significant loss, with long-term repercussions for Randwick, its residents & visitors. The amenities of Light Rail cannot replace the amenities that these trees provide. The design should be revised so that the Light Rail can work alongside what is already there - so that there is no trade-off of one for the other. Furthermore, the beautiful trees will add so much value to this Light Rail travel route if they are kept.

Also, the issue of loss of parking is of great concern to me. As mentioned, I frequent Randwick to visit family. As an elderly person it is important for me to be able to find parking very nearby to where I am going. If I am not able to park along Alison Road (between Wansey Rd and Cowper St), this will make visits extremely difficult for me. It is already very difficult to find parking around the area, so taking away parking spaces is a very bad idea. The design should be reconsidered so that traffic can be diverted, rather than parking being taken away.

It is also of great concern that important heritage areas such as High Cross Park are set to be lost to the current design. I know that this park hosts many important events including a ceremony on Remembrance Day. It would be very sad if this tradition is lost because the character of the park has been irreversibly changed to accommodate a Light Rail interchange. As I understand it, this interchange can just as easily be placed on High Street. This makes more sense because then it would better serve the hospital.

The Light Rail design should be improved so that it avoids the removal of so many trees, especially the significant trees along Alison & Wansey Road and in High Cross Park in Randwick. It is important to retain these trees.

It is great to see more light rail finally returning to Sydney. As a resident of Randwick, the lack of high-volume, off-road public transport as been sorely felt, and so I am extremely supportive of this project.

It would be great to see the construction used to extend and improve the cycleways connecting the CBD and inner west with the eastern suburbs, especially from Redfern/Surry Hills and down Anzac Parade. Currently, these routes are disconnected and interrupted by traffic signals. The light rail line construction offers a fantastic opportunity to make this also a first-class bicyle commute corridor.

Sincerely,
Michael Gratton.

There are many stops in the CBD but once it turns into Devonshire St there are not nearly enough stops to service the people who live along the route. On speaking to the transport rep I was told that it was about journey time. I hope this will not be like the train timetables that don't stop at the stations to keep to the timetable. There is no point in having a light rail that the locals don't use. It just makes the figures look better on paper while the public gets a worse deal. This is not acceptable. We do not need another "Mickey Mouse" system like the Monorail which will just get torn down in a few years.

There should be a stop in Moore Park so the school children do not have to cross a major road. A pedestrian bridge would be a blight on the landscape. They are just about traffic not people. A bridge does not cater for disabled, elderly, prams etc. unless there is a lift and in practice these are inconvenient and often broken. A station in Moore Park could serve people on that side of Crown St as Ward Park is a long way from the next stop.

There should also be a stop outside Prince of Wales Hospital. This omission just shows that the design is not about people.

A clearer view of the car parking is needed. We were told this is a Council matter but surely the EIS should have it sorted otherwise what is the point of having an EIS. Fiddling with the resident parking zones means nothing if there are no spots.
When I compare the Parking Supply and Parking Occupancy information in the EIS with what I see in my street and nearby the EIS is wrong on multiple counts. Unrestricted parking is shown on Riley St near the day care centre, parking is shown on Devonshire St next to Ward Park and the number of places on the north of Tudor St is wrong. Also the EIS says there is available parking during the day in this area. This is wrong.

I am concerned about the number of trees being removed in Surry Hills. The Council is reluctant to prune overhanging branches or roots threatening residents houses but 74% of the trees along the route are to be cut down with little understanding of the impact.

A new EIS which properly addresses these concerns and others should be completed and open for comment before the project is approved.

Please see my submission attached. I do not believe the positive aspects of the proposal out-weight the negative environmental impacts.

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the light rail construction. I am very pleased that a system is being implemented to help battle the horrific daily Sydney traffic by improving the convenience for commuters. During this process however, I understand there will be significant loss and damage to over 700 trees and local Randwick parks. It is not surprising that some clearance is necessary but the selected route appears to cause a large amount of destruction to natural heritage sites and landmarks. This is causing distress amongst locals and environmentalists. I therefore hope alternative routes may be considered which can be both effective yet conservative to our beloved natural surroundings.

I strongly object to the proposed CBD and South East Light Rail Project. After attending the Kensington /Kingsford Precinct meeting last Monday (9th December) night to hear the representatives of Transport NSW "selling" the proposal to residents it became abundantly within minutes that this is an extremely poorly thought out plan and NOT ONE OF THE EXPERTS from TRANSPORT NSW HAD ANY LOCAL KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER. No-one could name local schools within the Kensington, Kingsford and Randwick areas that would be adversely affected by this project. As a resident I was shocked at the lack of local knowledge by planners.
I object to the fact that there will be only 3 right hand turns from Kingsford through to Moore Park. In Kensington alone, the knock on effect will be monumental. I object to the narrowing of footpaths; I object to the loss of parking along Kensington and Kingsford - the local business that WE AS LOCALS SUPPORT will be destroyed; the traffic chaos - 9 months of construction work in front of each business will have disastrous effects; I object to the TOTAL LACK OF CONSULTATION with the community on this project; I object to the traffic changes in Devonshire St etc in Surry Hills. I drive and catch public transport around all these areas all the time and this light rail will effect business along its route - those very businesses that are making places like Surry Hills a great place to visit. I object to the ill planned stops - once again totally in line with planners who have no LOCAL KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER. I object to the light rail above all else because this will be a dangerous for pedestrians. Much of Anzac Parade services not only UNI students but school students. The traffic turmoil will be extreme when cars will have to give way to trams along the route to both Kingsford and Randwick. This project is majorly flawed and one must start asking serious question about WHY THIS IS BEING RUSHED THROUGH WITH SUCH LACK OF COMMUNITY CONSULTATION.

I am concerned the Foveaux St subsurface option for the Surry Hills sector has been overlooked without sufficient justification.

I appreciate the work done on the project and EIS to date, and want this to be as successful as possible.

Key to this success, in my view, are travel times and efficiency, and my observation from the existing light rail between Central and Darling Harbour that on-street sectors are in reality very slow. I am impressed by trip time and capacity modelling I have seen for the Foveaux St subsurface proposal. I live in Surry Hills and work in Randwick, and if this really does prove to be fast and efficient I, as I am sure will many others, switch from driving to and from work. If it is slow (or even worse, infrequent) then I will continue to drive. The core business of the light rail is getting as many people as possible between the CBD and the South-east, and while being able to get on or off in Surry Hills is important, this should not be by a slow above-ground tour.

Also significant to me is the likelihood of the on-grade option to seriously degrade the amenity around Devonshire St, including our much-loved Ward Park. I am concerned that a currently pleasant area will become over-congested , and overall less usable for pedestrians, cyclists and our children.

In summary I was surprised that chapter 13 of the EIS only made brief reference to the Foveaux sub-surface proposal without any genuine discussion of the pros and cons. This could be a serious lost opportunity for this project. Please consider it as an option- it could well be a really good one.

This is a tremendously flawed project and I object to it most strongly.

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.
While I support the overall goal of the project, which is to improve the reliability of public transport along this route, I strongly object to certain aspects of the current design that would hold significantly adverse impacts particularly for Randwick's environment and heritage, but also for the environment along the entire route.

Since one of the project's aims is to improve the overall amenity of areas along the alignment, it seems that the adverse impacts outlined in the EIS are at significant odds with this goal. I believe that the Light Rail design can be improved to avoid such significantly adverse impacts. This should be done through recognition of individuals' concerns as expressed through their submissions, and through ongoing and meaningful consultation with city councils, as well as other relevant stakeholders (including local residents).

I strongly object to the removal of up to 760 trees along the alignment, including 280 trees in Randwick alone.
- This would be an extremely large cost for such a project that is supposed to be improving the overall amenity of these areas - not taking away from them. The Light Rail design should be reviewed and adjusted so as to avoid the removal of so many trees, especially those trees that are healthy, mature & listed as significant, and especially in the areas of High Cross Park, Alison Road/Randwick Racecourse, Anzac Parade/Alison Road, and Wansey Road/Randwick Racecourse. The fact that trees in these areas are set to be almost wholly and permanently removed is unacceptable, as it can be avoided with repositioning of the Light Rail alignment.
- Randwick is my home, and I have grown up with many of these significant trees (along Alison & Wansey Road and in High Cross Park) that are set to be removed. They are extremely important for my own and others' psychological and overall wellbeing. The removal of these beautiful, large & old trees would cause extreme & long-term sadness. These trees add value to my family home. They provide oxygen, which we humans all need to breathe. They improve overall air quality, and provide for a cooler microclimate on these pedestrian streets- not to mention much needed shade. In an era of climate change and increasingly hot days, street trees and the unquantifiable amenities they provide are more important than ever. It is important that these trees are retained. Many of them stand at around, or over, 100 years old, and are therefore important historically and for our heritage.
- These trees provide significant visual amenity, and are landmark features of Randwick.
- These trees (especially those around the racecourse and in High Cross Park) also provide important habitat for many species of wildlife, including the endangered grey-headed flying fox. I do not agree with the assessment that the removal of trees would not have a significantly negative impact on these species. Every night the flying foxes fly out over Randwick racecourse, using the large bordering trees as habitat. They have done this every night, ever since I can remember. It is obvious these trees provide important habitat for such wildlife and that their removal would be harmful to populations that are already under so much threat. The nightly sight of the flying foxes' fly outs is something iconic for this area, and it should not be lost because these trees were needlessly removed.
- The overhead wiring proposed for this Light Rail alignment along Alison Road needs to be reconsidered also, as extra wires will present increased threats to wildlife, especially to the endangered grey-headed flying fox. I do not believe that this threat has been included in the EIS with regards to impacts on biodiversity, and that renders the assessment as even more unsatisfactory. Wire-free running (as planned for the George Street alignment) should be applied wherever possible. Since this section of Alison Road is flat and the distance between the racecourse stop and proposed Wansey Road stop is quite short, wire-free running is technically possible & therefore should be applied to avoid impacts on tree canopies and wildlife.
- The tree assessment in the EIS is unsatisfactory. The SULE method employed is outdated. The ranking does not accurately reflect the tree values. Qualified arboricultural advice should be employed during design and construction and the most recent & credible methods for assessing trees & impacts should be employed.
- While the EIS recognises that the community has expressed concerns about the impact on street trees, there have been no real measures investigated for avoiding such tree loss. Such measures need to be undertaken, as such significant tree loss is unacceptable.
- The negative impacts of such tree loss on greenhouse gas emissions has been overlooked in the EIS.
- The important benefits these trees provide in preventing soil erosion & flooding impacts has also been overlooked.

I object to the location of the Randwick Interchange at High Cross Park.
- High Cross Park is a heritage-listed park, and is one part of a larger & significant heritage area in Randwick. The park is the centrepiece for the historical buildings surrounding it. Hospital patients, workers and visitors all enjoy this park -it is a quiet oasis that should be conserved at all costs, as it brings unquantifiable benefits to so many as a green, leafy, recreation space. It also contains many significant trees that should not be unnecessarily removed, i.e. not for the sake of establishing an interchange that can easily -and just as functionally- be established elsewhere.
- 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, the losses of which would be extremely sad for Randwick and residents.
- The Interchange should be moved to High Street. The proposed bus stops for Options 2 & 3 in the EIS are not at all far from the LR terminus. There are traffic lights to cross, but this should not be a problem or affect LR service adversely, especially if LR services are going to be frequent. Changing between modes of transport often involves significantly longer walks, e.g. from a train platform to a bus stop.
- The conclusion that Options 2 & 3 offer a sub-optimal outcome is not supported by any convincing evidence.
- With an Interchange on High Street, the hospital remains extremely accessible to cars along Barker Street.
- A terminus on High Street would better serve the hospital, especially for less able or mobile passengers.

I object to the proposed light rail alignment on Wansey Road.
- The EIS outlines the removal of a large number of significant trees along Wansey Road. These trees should be retained.
- This alignment should be redirected into Royal Randwick Racecourse land, maximising potential for significant tree retention, and reducing impacts upon the adjacent residential properties. Retaining these beautiful trees would also improve the LR journey as passengers will be able to enjoy the visual amenity provided by them.

I object to the location of the proposed Randwick light rail vehicle stabling facility at 66A Doncaster Avenue.
- This would have a significant negative visual impact to the area. It would also have significant negative influence on flooding impacts around this area. These potential impacts have not been fully investigated or considered, which is unsatisfactory.
- I support an alternative location 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.
- Improved Light Rail design should further consider how such substations are going to impact on the overall landscape character of these areas.

I object to any loss of trees for the purposes of establishing construction compounds at High Cross Park, Tay Reserve and Wansey Road.
- Construction compounds should aim to have the most minimal impacts as possible. Choosing to place a construction compound at High Cross Park is especially insensitive to the current uses of the area, as well as the nature of the businesses immediately surrounding the park. These decisions need to be reviewed and adjusted accordingly, to ensure minimal impact.

I object to any reduction in footpath width or capacity.
- Randwick city is an extremely pleasant area for pedestrians and bicyclists, and reducing footpath width would take away from this.

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 of the parking spaces set to be lost are currently used by residents whom have no other option (i.e. no garage spaces). It is already extremely difficult to find a park around the Alison Road & Wansey Road alignment.
- Many residents and visitors are elderly people who need easy parking and access. They cannot walk 700m to where they want to go. This is an unrealistic radius catchment for parking options.
⁃ Alternate light rail alignment should be investigated in order to minimise loss of parking.

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

I also question the need for Light Rail stop canopies that extend the length of the vehicles. In cities in Europe, Light Rail stops are no bigger than bus stops. The aim should be to have as little visual and other impact as possible on these areas.

I strongly urge Transport for NSW to listen to and consider the requests of city councils. Councils represent and protect the interests of their residents, and therefore their design preferences should be respected.

As I care deeply about all these issues mentioned, I started an online petition. Please view it here: http://www.communityrun.org/petitions/save-randwick-s-environment-heritage-with-improved-light-rail-design
I also created a Facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/saverandwickimprovedlightrail

After speaking with TfNSW representatives I was urged to get as many people as possible to make submissions to avoid these significantly adverse impacts, so this is what I have attempted to do.

I therefore hope the Department of Planning & Infrastructure will seriously consider these issues, and approve the Light Rail EIS only on the condition that these concerns are dealt with and that improved design which avoids the loss of trees, parking spaces and heritage areas is found.

Thank you for your consideration,

Rickie-Lee McLaurin-Smith