Sydney Metro - Chatswood to Sydenham

We are objecting to proposed noise and air quality management at the Chatswood dive.

Our property is significantly impacted both during the construction and when it is in operation.

1) Concerns: The construction will spam over 6 years (2017 to 2022) 24 hours 7 days week. The noise and air pollution will increased dramatically as a result of demolition, exaction, movement of trucks/equipment and construction. In addition, I am extremely sensitive to dust and am concerned the impact it has on my health.

Suggestion: acoustic control such as acoustic shed and sound barrier to mitigate the noise level. I am unsure what can be done with the dust and air pollution but this need to be addressed.

2) Concern: Relocation of the T1 southbound (will be 1 meter closer to our property), T1 northbound (will be elevated 2 meter above the ground) and the new metro lines. This will certainly increase the noise level and air pollution while the removal of existing trees in the corridor which assists in reducing the noise and air pollution.

Suggestion: install a sound barrier fence of 4 meter height permanently to mitigate the noise level. There is currently sound barrier fence at the end of Hopetoun Avenue which this should be extended to the entrance of the tunnel for the impacted residence as a result of the Sydney Metro project. There should also be landscape or alternate control on air pollution as a result of this project.

We are a family with young children whom enjoy spending their time at the yard. If the project proceeds, it is only reasonable request to controls (both on noise and air) are in place to ensure we are not worse off than what we are now as a result of the new project, our living environment and condition need to be protected. Therefore we seek that an acoustic shed to be built during construction to mitigate the noise; landscape to reduce the noise and air pollution with increased train lines when in operation and a 4 meter height noise barrier to be built permanently as a noise control moving forward.

My query relates to chapters 10 and 11 of the EIS. I'm a resident in the Crows Nest area of the development. In relation to the assessment of construction noise and vibration the RBL used was taken from the area surrounding the station development (more commercial than the Hayberry to Curlow St areas that will be impacted). Was the residential area assessed to determine the acceptable levels of noise/vibration during the construction?
In chapter 11, the operational ground borne vibration and noise predictions for residential areas are often close to the criteria. For vibration the EIS clarifies that the prediction is based on a mid floor multi storey building. As much of the area is single storey residential dwellings of approx. 100 years of age, was this taken into consideration in the operational assessment and is this information available?
Regards,

There are only two proposals that I am objecting as outlined below:

1. Operational area of Pitt Street Station. Loss of historic buildings along Park St, Castlereagh St and Pitt St is unnecessary. These are the only low rise building group still intact in Town Hall area that connect Pitt and Castlereagh street and they maintain one last remaining low-rise streetscape in Sydney CBD. Demolish them will further isolate heritage Criterion Hotel and Pitt Street Uniting Church.

Please consider alternative option such as basement foodcourt area at 201 Elizabeth Street which could potential provide construction access. And also potential sites that would be for future Town Hall Square development such as 303-305 313 Pitt Street.

2. Sydney Yard Access Bridge. The bridge's footprint is too excessive. The bridge is too close to heritage item - Mortuary Station. The bridge will obstruct park users view of Mortuary station from Prince Alfred Park. The bridge will also obstruct passenger views of Mortuary station from both northbound and westbound suburban trains. In other words, eastern facade and platform of the historic station which eastern views is considered the only visual reminder of it is once a operating station and part of the railway precinct will be totally obstructed and lost forever.

Furthermore, loss of historic buildings along Regent Street is unnecessary. This group of two levels buildings integrated well with historic precinct of Chippendale on western side, the Lord Gladstone Hotel and streetscape. Demolish these buildings will only have negative impact and further isolate historic Chippendale.

Please consider other potential access locations such as site near existing driveway between 26 Lee Street and bus depot or existing maintenance access driveway from Chalmers St adjacent to Central station south eastern entry.

Dear Sir/Madam

It is important to provide public transportation in an increasingly congested area due to over development and lack of forward planning, therefore the issues remain that this proposal has a lack of stations and no face to face public consultation for the affected residents of Alexandria and surrounding suburbs. The EIS seems to lack cohesion and consistency in its lack of planning

As a resident I object to the proposal to excavate Blues Point Reserve for a Metro Retrieval site.

- recently purchased our unit after being hard all our lives. We are in our mid eighties and have been thoroughly enjoying our stays at our new unit. Either enjoying the views of the reserve and water or walking around the reserve in a friendly, quiet and safe community.

- our pedestrian safety will now be at risk with the unbelievable amount of truck movements and traffic. It seems like it will be highly dangerous for pedestrians. We often walk to the bus stop on the reserve.

- the unit which faces the reserve will now be subject to noise, dirt, dust, exhaust pollution, not to mention the vibrations.

- parking is already a problem which will be made worse especially for us when carrying our shopping and luggage to the unit. We need to be able to have close parking

- it is one of the very few places left where families and the elderly can drive and park close to our beautiful harbour and sit on the grass and have a picnic or just enjoy the view and peace and quiet.

- there will be irreversible impact on the heritage site

- do we really need this site?

- surely there must be alternative places for this site that would not have the impact on Blues Point Reserve, it's residents and the community that this will most certainly have.

Our property is within 100 metres of the construction site (the Chatswood dive site)and we are very concerned with the noise, vibration and air dust pollution impact of the construction to the health and well-being of our family living in our home.
Given the number of years that the construction will take to complete and particularly that the construction work would be undertaken during nights and weekends, we strongly urge the project's responsible entities install adequate sound and dust barriers that are of sufficient height at the eastern side of the railway corridor from Nelson street to Mowbray Road so as to minimise the negative disturbances and noise pollution levels to occupants in the homes along the corridor. We strongly requested that the responsible entities take into serious consideration the health wellbeing and rightful peaceful living environment of the people living in the affected properties along the eastern corridor and take appropriate measures to minimise the negative impact to our living environment.

Good afternoon,

I would like to express my concern with the proposed truck route both into and out of McLaren Street, North Sydney.

I lived through the recent new developments in Angelo Street I have come to understand that trucks, heavy equipment carriers and cement trucks park outside in No Standing and regular parking spaces with their engines running despite being outside the terms of the approved building plans.

Our house is very old and it shakes with the vibrations even when the tricks are outside Monte's properties on McLaren Street. The noise is so loud you can't be on the phone in conversation.

My only recourse was to take photos and tell the driver I would forward them to the Council. As you can imagine, this got some hot responses.

I am concerned that there will be no overseeing this heavy traffic or consideration given to its use by the North Sydney Demonstration School or Monte St Angelo school or the eye clinic or Dr Isaacs medical practice, the kindergarten at the church .....and so on!

The Naremburn Progress Association is broadly supportive of the Sydney Metro - Chatswood to Sydenham project as it represents the State Government's commitment to provision of a major public transport system that will serve the community well into the future, but sadly is long overdue.
Provision of the detail provided within the EIS documentation is appreciated, and goes to answering many of the questions being posed by the community as they come to understand the complexities of this mammoth project. We commend the work completed so far, and look forward to receiving further updates as they come to hand.
Residents of Naremburn will be adversely affected by construction activities during the tunnelling and station construction/fitout phases, but it is acknowledged that these adverse effects should be less than to our colleagues living & working closer to the dive sites, in our case particularly around the Chatswood dive site. The degree to which people living and working adjacent to such sites will be adversely affected is anticipated to be very significant, so every effort should be made to minimise these effects in both time and severity.
With particular reference to Naremburn, the TBMs will pass quite close to the southwest corner of the Naremburn Heritage Conservation Area with its multitude of beautifully restored single fronted Federation-style brick workers cottages, so every effort will be required to ensure no damage to these cottages from ground vibration during tunnelling/blasting/demolition etc. Condition reports should be undertaken both before and after works are completed to identify and rectify any damage attributable to these activities.

Our property is within 100 meters of the proposed Chatswood Metro Dive site and we are very concerned of the noise and vibration and pollution that will impact us.
We are requesting that the responsible departments erect noise protection barriers along the eastern borders of the construction site from Nelson Street to Mowbray Road, which doesn't have any noise reduction barriers currently.
Please seriously consider the pollution hazards that will effect the families living in the properties along the eastern border and erect the protection barriers as requested before the start of the construction. Thank you!

Major Projects Assessment
Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001

Attention: Director, Infrastructure Projects

27 June 2016

Sir/Madam

Sydney Metro City and Southwest - Chatswood to Sydenham ("the Metro")
Submission on EIS-Application Number: SSI 15_7400

I object to the building of the City and Southwest Metro for the following reasons:

1. The Metro is not about providing more passenger capacity across the suburban rail network. Rather, it is just a facilitation of overdevelopment of Waterloo, Sydenham and around all the stations on the Bankstown Line. If allowed to proceed, the Metro would destroy communities by displacing existing residents and creat¬ing high-rise slums. Given current "planning" processes in NSW it is highly unlikely that accessible, useable and plentiful open space would be allocated in proportional ratio with numbers and density of high rise buildings.
2. The Metro would not, as claimed, increase capacity across the Sydney Rail Network. The purported 60 per cent increase (as claimed in the "Have your say" brochure) relies on improvements to signalling operations on existing lines. This not part of the Metro proposal and has evidently been included to mislead the public about the actual capacity increase claimed for the Metro.
3. Experience in other countries demonstrates that double deck trains can run at the same frequencies as the Metro, offering a higher standard of comfort and carrying more passengers -for example, the operation of the Paris RER network demonstrates this clearly.
4. At 30 trains per hour (ie one every two minutes), the Metro would carry only 36,000 passengers per hour. If the line were built and operated with double deck trains, the capacity would be 45,000 passengers per hour, based on the same frequency.
5. The Metro would have very few seats. In the peaks, 70 per cent of commuters would be forced to stand for up to half an hour. At present, with double deck trains, 70 per cent are seated.
6. At a cost of $12 billion, the City and Southwest Metro is a very expensive way of increasing track capacity through the CBD. Using existing infrastructure, a heavy rail link for double deck trains could be built for less than $4 billion.

Conclusion

It is hard to escape the conclusion that once again, private interests are dominating what should be a public utility: publicly-owned, publicly funded and INTEGRATED public transport. It is my understanding that if approved, the Metro would almost certainly be owned and run by a private company, Hong Kong MTR. It is also my understanding that if MTR were to be handed this project, the company would simultaneously build grossly overheight high rise buildings along the rail corridor, as they have in Hong Kong. I invite you to disabuse me of this understanding.

In any case, I doubt very much whether any submissions other than those supporting this ill-conceived and poorly explained (to the general travelling public) project will be accorded any weight.

From recent experience with the WestCONnex project, over 12,000 submissions mostly objecting to the New M5 arm of the WestCONnex project were sent to the Department of Planning (mine included) and were ignored.

I fully expect the same outcome for the Metro . NEVERTHELESS, I OBJECT TO THIS PROJECT.

I expect to receive a written acknowledgement of this submission. Please do not publish my street address online or anywhere else. You may publish my name and suburb.

I have not made a reportable political donation.





Adrienne Shilling
PETERSHAM 2040

I wish to object to the building of the City and Southwest Metro on the following grounds:

* I am very concerned about the reduction in seating on single deck trains with most of the space for standing passengers - up to 70%.

* On current line, in peak hours 70% of passengers can be seated and enjoy a much more comfortable, relaxing trip

* With an ageing population I think that it does not make sense to reduce the seating on trains that will travel a long distance.
Elderly people will have no choice but to stand which may create an unsafe journey for many.

* As a shorter statured person myself I dread standing on crowded public transport where you cannot reach the swinging "handles".

* This is of even greater concern because on Sundays this line is packed with families with many young children in prams and Grandparents going to the city. I am very concerned about the fact that many children or elderly Grandparents will have to stand from Bankstown to the city or greater distances.

* Increase in capacity on the existing Sydenham/Bankstown line could easily be achieved with increasing the frequency of trains on the existing line, which happens in other major world cities.

* It does not seem to be economically responsible to spend so much on replacing an existing well functioning line when a new line without public transport would be a better option.

* Disruption to commuters will continue for many years with the necessity to straighten 11 stations from Sydenham to Bankstown. An estimated 6 month disruption is not realistic when we consider that it has taken more than two years for upgrades to Sydenham and Marrickville Stations.

* Safety concerns in relation to tunnels from Chatswood to Crows Nest, Victoria Cross to Barrangaroo and Waterloo to Sydenham. The proposed evacuation procedures do not cater for people in wheelchairs or those with limited mobility and lead to loss of life.

* The tunnels should be built to accommodate double decker trains so that they can increase capacity that way and conform to the rail system.

* I am very concerned that the trains will be driverless and with reduction of staff on railway stations that lives will be lost. I say this after having witnessed an attempted suicide on Sydenham Station last year. The station attendant was able to signal to the driver to stop just a few metres before the man balancing on the edge of the platform.

* I understand that there are driverless trains on for example the Paris Metro however it is interesting to note that there are plans to have many more lines there using double decker trains in the future.

* On MTR trains it has been revealed that 1/3 of women suffer sex crimes as a result of crowded standing only trains. WIth the introduction of the Metro passenger comfort and safety will be downgraded.
I have not made a reportable political donation

To Whom It May Concern

Re application no: SSI 15_7400

The Board of The Great Synagogue has concerns about the noise impact that the construction works may have on during the Sabbath period.

So as not to disturb the Sabbath Services, The Board requests that at all construction work be halted during the hours of 6 - 7pm on Fridays and 8.30am - 12.30pm on Saturdays.

Kind regards

Linny Gompes
General Manager
The Great Synagogue
P. 9019 0305 F. 9264 8871

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) is a tenant of the ground floor and lower ground floor areas of 48 Martin Place Sydney. The CBA was made aware of the planning exhibition today and will review the documentation and provide comments as soon as possible.

I believe that the Chatswood -City-Bankstown Metro should be built urgently. I know that Sydney cannot grow outwards forever. Since Up is the only direction we need effective, frequent high capacity Public Transport. With an extra million people living near the metro line in the next 20 years any road based non rail solution is wasting money as it just promotes congestion which is already costing Government and Business sectors, a lot of money. I hope this is just the second of many projects which will take Sydney into the World City status it will become. Prior Planning Prevents Pitiful Performance. Too long has this been ignored especially around development of Public Transport.

Dear Sir/Madam
My comments on 2 matters are as follows:

1. Crows Nest Station

The station would be better placed a bit further to the south. (in other words swap the location of the sallied spaces with the station so that it is located on the south side of Hume street. The current location is too close to St Leonards Station and too far from the heart of Crows Nest. The proposed entries are OK but a new entry would be useful in the vicinity of the 5 ways intersection or at the southern end of Willoughby Road. This location is the heart of Crows Nest.

2. Artarmon tunnel portal

This stage of the project requires the removal of the Nelson Street bridge. To accommodate traffic requirements flowing from this removal, a new southbound right turn phase is proposed for the pacific Highway at Mowbray Road.

However, this intersection is already at capacity at certain times. The introduction of a new phase will decrease the capacity with possible collateral damage on other routes.
I don't have an obvious solution. Nonetheless, this is a problem that will need to be solved.

Many thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Roger Stuart-Smith

Forensic Traffic Engineer.

EIS FOR NEW SYDNEY METRO SSI-15-7400
Submission
Director, infrastructure Planning
New Sydney Metro - objection from St Peters resident
My name is Anne Picot
My address is 57 Hutchinson St, St Peters NSW 2044

I am writing to express the following objections and comments about the proposed new Sydney Metro which, as far as I can tell from the sketch maps provided, will pass under my neighbourhood to emerge somewhere near Sydenham Station.

1) I object to the down grading of St Peters Station services which I have used for the 30 years I have lived in the neighbourhood, and continue to use regularly even in retirement.
The St Peters train service is extensively used by local commuters to the CBD to the point that the area has been targeted for residential development by the former Marrickville and the existing City of Sydney Councils. This has increased the local population substantially on the premise that public transport is well provided.
The existing number of services in the mornings is barely adequate especially for Erskineville station users. Reducing them because there will be a metro service quite a distance away seems a ploy to favour private providers over the public transport at the expense of the actual users. This is a familiar ploy to anyone observing the practice of successive NSW governments to protect the profits of private providers despite the inconvenience of the users. It doesn't usually work and simply leads to the mounting irritation of both sides and the tax payers end up subsidising the private providers.
We need our train services, and access to a station at Waterloo is no substitute for the far more convenient access we currently enjoy to St Peters Station.

2) No mention I could see refers to the the massive Westconnex project and the impact of its construction on the area around St Peters station during the time apparently our train services at St Peters are replaced by buses while the metro construction work is happening. Maybe the two projects will not overlap in time, but even if they do not, if the M5 interchange is completed before the metro work begins, it will add to road traffic in the St Peters neighbourhood which will put pressure on public transport to avoid the inevitable local congestion. This will occur at the same time as a number of large residential developments add to the local population but no where near Waterloo, so what will happen to commuters to the city? On your plans, overcrowded buses will be competing with private vehicle traffic and the trucks removing the "spoil" from the tunnels. This is horrendous. Where's the planning to cope with these successive construction impacts and then the subsequent transport needs?
The additional metro line is designed for the increased residential development around Waterloo not taking into account the developments on the books and already being built in the St Peters, Enmore, Marrickville and Alexandria neighbourhoods.
I object to the apparent failure to take into account all the local development, commuting patterns, increased traffic from the Westconnex construction phase and subsequent operations on both the route, the construction phase and operations of the new Sydney Metro.

3) I object in principle to the major development of private mass transit instead of public transport the aim of which is the public good of reliable cheap transport for workers and residents. The fact that this metro line has chosen to put a station in Waterloo, instead of going near the University of Sydney where 10-15 thousand people travel to daily, is evidence that this project is not conceived as a transport development but as yet another Baird government gift to property development. This will have the additional adverse impact of removing public housing and decreasing the amount of social housing in the inner city. The down grading of services in the public transport Bankstown line (T3) is further evidence that it is all about private profit, not provision of services actually based on the existing needs.
I hereby submit my objections to this project in the St Peters neighbourhood.
I request that my submission be published, with my name and address if the latter is needed for identification.
Anne Picot
27 June 2016

I object to the impact that approving this precedent will have the Bankstown line CBD onwards. I object to existing rail being replaced by minimal seating single level light rail. The existing double decker trains should remain, I object to the lack of green space to accommodate increased population density along this corridor I support maintaining existing rail infrastructure effective public transport for young and old both during and outside of peak hours.

I wish to lodge my objection to the City to Southwest Metro.

Passenger comfort and safety will be seriously compromised

the Metro trains will be uncomfortable. There will only be room for 30% of commuters to sit. The other 70% will have to stand, packed like sardines, whether they are old or infirm. Satistics show there is an increase in sex crimes against women in transport where people are standinding in a crowded fashion.

There are more efficient ways to increase the amount of commuters that can be moved from one place to another such as increasing the amount of trains on the existing line.
Double decker trains could be utilised.

Thanks for taking this into consideration,

Jean Hartman

This objection relates to the EIS SSI 7400 (Sydney Metro City & Southwest Chatswood to Sydenham)
I object to this proposal on the grounds that the project should provide additional Metro stations at Alexandria and St Peters. The objection is based on the project's flawed and inadequate traffic and transport capacity modelling as well as an inadequate public consultation process.
Further detail supporting this objection and the demand for immediate reconsideration and provision of additional Metro stations for Alexandria and St Peters follows.
1. Inadequate transport capacity modelling
The current Metro station selection process was undertaken before several recent infrastructure decisions and therefore requires immediate revision. These decisions significantly bear on the transport requirements of the inner-city. They include the ATP Commonwealth Bank project (11,000 workers, 1,600 cars), the Waterloo Public Housing redevelopment (20,000 residents), the Alexandria Super School (2,200 students), the Ashmore Estate development (6,000 additional residents) and Green Square as a high-job-growth area. Collectively these developments will swamp local road networks, limiting the ability of bus services to scale up to service growing transport needs.
2. Inadequate traffic modelling
The Metro EIS does not model any relationship between the Metro (Waterloo to Sydenham) and Westconnex traffic , despite the Metro line running under McEvoy / Euston Road and St Peters. The EIS has no modelling of additional Metro stations (Alexandria and St Peters) ability to reduce cross-town car use or offset the impact of Westconnex traffic spilling onto the inner-city road network.
3. Inadequate public consultation
Inadequate public consultation has been undertaken with residents of Alexandria, St Peters and Erskineville now that the Metro route from Central to Sydenham has been finalised.
The finalised Metro route (passing under Alexandria and St Peters), announced in February 2016, is still poorly understood by the communities being bypassed. Now that the route is finalised a further meaningful and substantial community consultation process should be undertaken to truly gauge the transport needs of these communities.
4. Additional (Alexandria and St Peters) Metro stations
In light of the flawed and inadequate traffic and transport capacity modelling and inadequate public consultation process I urge an immediate reconsideration of the provision of additional Metro stations for Alexandria and St Peters. I petition that adding these Metro stations would provide a mass-transit inner-city transport system and cross-town interconnectivity to and from the high jobs growth corridor (Green Square / Airport). It provides mass-transit systems for the areas' doubled population, reduces chronic over-crowding on Erskineville station and reduces inner-city car congestion.
(Insert any other personal statement here)
Declaration:
I have made no reportable political donations made in the previous two years.
Yours Faithfully,

I wish to object to Blues Point Road McMahons Point and the Blues Point Retrieval site being used for the construction of the Sydney Metro City and Southwest. As an owner of a unit fronting the road and looking directly at the site I feel that there must be an alternate way to manage the construction with the use of the harbour. I am elderly and am concerned about my safety with so many truck movements as well as the visual impact. The retrieval site is a park I use frequently. I am also concerned about my street parking as I unable to have off street parking.