Sydney Metro - Sydenham to Bankstown

1. No Connection to Redfern etc ( university of Sydney students and
staffs living in Canterbury-Bankstown will be affected the most)? How
about bus services, will they be upgraded too?
2. Should be linked more to Parramatta and Lidcombe
3. How much is the max capacity (people per hour) it can take? why not
just add/Upgrade the existing trains and upgrade the signalling
system?
4. The T3 isn't complicated. From around Yagoona, Liverpool,
Canterbury Bankstown use it to get to the City circle.
5. WestConnex and NorthConnex will not enable substantial improvements
in travel times for road users. Make dedicated lanes, even dedicated
lanes and roads/streets for busses and bicycles. Bicycles aren't even
mentioned, both in infrastructure or as a person.
6. Why not just more and better double deck trains. And make them
shorter in non peak hours? Those trains are actually two trains joined
together
7. How many will sit versus stand in thee metro?
8. It's still all CBD minded, where is the plan for Connection to
Liverpool and Parramatta? Won't the city be splitted to 3?
9. For future projects, there should be bike lanes along the railways
to reduce pressure on public and private transport. It's also good for
cyclists as Railways are more flat.
10. How about more gentle ramps for bicycles and wheelchair users?
Lifts has a capacity limit
11. No mention of cycling investment, which can take the pressure off
for many, including the need for parents to drive their kids to school
and childcare cost. Cycling have the network at least beside the
railways. Please rebuild the railway network so bikle lanes exist
beside them. Also connect them to Workplaces and schools.
12. There is still need for express trains that doesn't stop at every
station.
13. if it's just capacity, removing seats from existing train,
replacing some with leaning bench, or designated carriage(by just
opening some of the doors, example, only 4 carriages from the back
will open at Bankstown.) for station groups can be done.
14. We don't need a change for the existing rail, we need addition.
Keep T3 as it is, and the metro can go somewhere else that doesn't
have rails. Interconnect with existing rail network, but not replace
them.

Thank-you for the opportunity to give feedback on the preferred project.
I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:

The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:

1. The response to concerns about the justifications for the project
(Part B, Submissions Report p 14-15) does nothing to convince the
community of its need, especially in the context of poor transparency
regarding business cases, and political agendas relating to
privatisation and property development.. The justifications have been
contradicted by independent rail experts and Sydney's Rail Future 2012
("In the Sydney context an independent metro system would deliver few
benefits in terms of service enhancement, capacity improvements or
better operating efficiency on the existing rail network". P24,
Sydney's Rail Future 2012). Alternatives must be addressed to improve
the heavy rail network's capacity (such as tunnelling options if the
City Circle and Sydenham sites are problematic, and improvements in
signalling and timetabling, now). Metro trains are designed for short
distances with frequent stops; the capacity argument is based on most
people standing.
2. The response has failed to acknowledge community concerns about the
supposed benefits( Part B, Submissions Report p30-35):
-more direct access will not occur - the popular stops of St Peters,
Erskineville, Redfern and City Circle will be lost. Commuters west of
Bankstown will be worse off with many facing longer commuting times
and less direct connections (Part B, Submissions Report p74 and 108).
This is not an acceptable outcome and is contrary to one of the a
major strategic contexts - the "30 minute city" of the Greater Sydney
Commission.
-opal ticketing is not a benefit - we already have it.
- the response to submissions fails to explain why a metro is needed
for accessibility upgrades at stations (Part B, Submissions Report
p29); many heavy rail stations have had such upgrades over time; there
remains plenty of room for improvement for accessibility in the
existing network, such as improved acoustics of announcements for the
visually impaired. In addition, metro trains will have significantly
reduced seating capacity, which is inappropriate for a 66km railway
with an ageing population.
-the response addresses specific benefits for Hurlstone Park (Part B,
Submissions Report p 36) The preservation of our railway heritage is
welcome, but the pressure for high-rise development triggered by a
metro would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. An an
increased number of services must be seen in the context of this
government incrementally reducing the number of services to the suburb
since 2013 and metro trains having significantly less seats. The claim
of better connections to "key employment and service centres" is
arguable, as current popular stops will be lost.
3. The response to concerns about development is dismissive (Part B,
Submissions Report p36-39). The link to development has been made
repeatedly, with the exhibited project acting as a"catalyst" for
growth; the strategic context of the metro and its relationship to
Future Transport 2056 (which supports the concept of property
value-capture), the Greater Sydney Commission (seeking to integrate
land use and transport planning),and the Sydenham-Bankstown Urban
Renewal Strategy (widely condemned by communities for its
indiscriminate up-zoning plans; the invitations to Stakeholders such
as the Australian Turf Club and the NSW property Council and the
awarding of metro operations in northern Sydney to MTR Honk Kong with
its "rail plus property" Business model. The project will promote
growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning process
and poor quality development without benefits such as affordability,
green space and amenity.
4. The response to some of the negative consequence of the metro has
been welcome:
-the decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important. Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate. At Hurlstone Park Station,
the use of traditional hand rails for the stairs would be welcome.
Hurlstone Park Station was recommended for state heritage listing in
2016. The community supports this and hopes that works for the metro
would not impede such a listing. In the report's Non-Aboriginal
Heritage Assessment , Appendix F, it is admitted that some "items or
fabric (are) proposed for removal and ....the historic character of
the line...would be altered by the contemporary metro". (p93). This is
of some concern and requires clarification.
-the decision to abandon the inappropriate design plans for station
precincts is also welcome. It is disappointing that community input
into station precinct and open space planning is given such a low
priority, especially in the context of multiple submissions critical
of the consultation process to date (Part B, Submissions Report p
51-53 and p 58-70). "Place-making" should begin with the people who
live in and know in the places.
The Hurlstone Park Association should be one of the stakeholders
consulted in the development of the "integrated urban and place making
outcome" for Hurlstone Park Station.

5. Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. The gas leak in the city on
7th July 2018 due to metro construction work is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instil public confidence. The predicted exceedences of operational
noise criteria due to increase in train speeds are are significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, locals would welcome noise attenuation in
the form of denser vegetation or other heritage sympathetic
attenuation measures.

6. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it here.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
7. The loss of the previously planned active green strip takes away
one of the few benefits of the project.
8. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used, and measuring
success by the number of encounters, does not address the lack of
engagement with, and failure to prioritise the input of, the
communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are opposed to
the project. In addition, the continued use of biased glossy
brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning, reveals
little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
9. I remain concerned about the loss of mature trees and tree canopy
during construction, for example around Lakemba, Wiley Park and
Punchbowl stations. There will be significant loss of vegetation from
council-owned land along the corridor. ( Appendix G 'landscape and
visual' section).

In summary, this project should not be approved because it lacks
bipartisan and community support, and is the product of process that
has lacked democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be :
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways
I am sure other parts of Sydney without an existing railway would be
only to happy to have the metro system

Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and Preferred Infrastructure Report
(Application No SSI 17_8256) July 2018
I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to Metro. My main concerns about the Metro, the report on
submissions and the preferred project are as follows.
The response to concerns about the justifications for the project
(Part B, Submissions Report p 14-15) does nothing to convince the
community of its need. How is destroying an existing heavy rail line
and converting it to Metro improve the networking of required public
transport? Why doesn't it travel from Sydenham down the traffic grid
locked Ramsgate peninsular and over the Georges River in the vicinity
of Taren Point Bridge, thus servicing an area in great need of
improved public transport? The justifications for this new system have
been contradicted by independent rail experts and Sydney's Rail Future
2012. "In the Sydney context an independent Metro system would deliver
few benefits in terms of service enhancement, capacity improvements or
better operating efficiency on the existing rail network"(p24,
Sydney's Rail Future 2012).
Why is the Metro going from Sydenham to Waterloo, four kilometres away
without stopping, through some very densely built suburbs with very
poor public transport options? Metros are supposed to be short
journeys with plenty of stops and yet this plan eliminates stations
between Sydenham and Central for commuters, including Redfern a
critical stop for students and medical staff. This certainly will not
deliver "better access to education with fast, more frequent and
direct connections". The opposite is the case! A direct link to the
city, with usually a seat to sit on will be severed. Currently each 8
carriage Waratah train has 896 seats while a Metro will only have 378
seats per 8 carriage train. That is less than half the seats currently
available!
There has been no business case which demonstrates the benefit of a
stop at Waterloo for existing customers, particularly those commuting
from west of Bankstown who now face two changes of trains and systems
to access stops they presently travel to directly, and less chance of
getting a seat on the journey home. For commuters beyond Bankstown the
journey will also be longer. Conversion of the Sydenham to Bankstown
section of the T3 Line significantly fractures the cohesive rail
network which exists now. Approximately 19,000 commuters will be
forced to change trains because of the disconnection of this nexus. It
makes a mockery of the 30 minute city.
There has been poor transparency regarding business cases and
political agendas relating to privatisation and property development.
Alternatives must be addressed to improve the heavy rail network's
capacity, such as tunnelling options if the City Circle and Sydenham
sites are problematic, as well as improvements in signalling and
timetabling. Metro trains are designed for short distances with
frequent stops; the capacity argument is based on most people
standing.
The Executive Summary claims the Metro project will address one of
Sydney's biggest rail bottlenecks but former Rail Corp and State Rail
executives, Dick Day, John Brew, Ron Christie and Bob O'Loughlin wrote
to the government in 2015 saying the conversion of the Bankstown line
to Metro would remove "the relief valve for the network and will
result in the network having no escape route". They believe it is
wasteful as Metros should supplement heavy rail not replace it.
The response to submissions fails to explain why a Metro is needed for
accessibility upgrades at stations (Part B, Submissions Report p29).
Many heavy rail stations have had such upgrades over time, however
there remains plenty of room for improvement for accessibility in the
existing network. In addition, Metro trains will have significantly
reduced seating capacity, which is inappropriate for a 66km railway
servicing an ageing population.
The consultation process had limited impact. I attended consultations
at both Marrickville Town Hall and Canterbury Bankstown Leagues Club
and at both there was lucky to be five participants at a time. There
was no consultation venues west of Belmore and yet the impact on those
commuters will be great. The affected area is very multicultural but
there was limited multilingual communication and you should have
realised that publicity in local papers is useless because they are
rarely delivered to households. A Belmore public meeting about the
impact of the Metro attracted over 300 residents a few weeks before,
and Sydenham to Bankstown Alliance meetings have attracted over 200
people. Why was your response so poor? Also there were no consultants
acknowledging the huge difficulties with this major redevelopment,
except with vague concerns or lack of knowledge, when difficult
questions were asked. The response to concerns about community
consultation is inadequate and inappropriate. Justifying the many
techniques used, and measuring success by the number of encounters,
does not address the lack of engagement with, and failure to
prioritise the input of, the communities along the line and beyond
Bankstown, who are opposed to the project. In addition, the continued
use of biased glossy brochures, which have replaced transparency and
meaning, reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the
future.
The response to concerns about development is dismissive (Part B,
Submissions Report p36-39). The link to development has been made
repeatedly, with the exhibited project acting as a "catalyst" for
growth. The Sydenham-Bankstown Urban Renewal Strategy is widely
condemned by communities for its indiscriminate up-zoning plans which
will promote growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the
planning process and poor quality development without benefits such as
affordability, green space and amenity. The Canterbury Bankstown City
Council wrote a strong submission with strong arguments about why the
line needs to be underground from Punchbowl to Bankstown. This has
been totally ignored, indeed the latest glossy document lauds a line
Sydenham to Punchbowl with none of the suggestions for Bankstown being
integrated. It doesn't even appear the development has been future
proofed as promised by the Minister. This response to going
underground contrasts with the development of the north section of the
line.
The decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important (Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate and the decision to abandon
the inappropriate design plans for station precincts is also welcome.
It is disappointing that community input into station precinct and
open space planning is given such a low priority, especially in the
context of multiple submissions critical of the consultation process
to date (Part B, Submissions Report p 51-53 and p 58-70).
Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. Six traffic volume locations
were used to determine traffic volume trends and not one was in the
Metro project area. Closing up to three stations concurrently will be
disruptive for commuters and worse disruption than in the original EIS
plan. TTS monitoring is to be undertaken during possession and then
refined. Surely this refinement should take place before closures. The
gas leak in the city on 7th July 2018 due to Metro construction work
is a concern. Issues with cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the
light rail project do not instil public confidence. There is a lack of
clarity about station closures and alternative transport arrangements
during construction and there has been no adequate explanation as to
why 23 bridges and underpasses no longer need to be demolished or
renovated. Is there a safety issue now ignored? There has been no
explanation. There has been no traffic condition data available for
standard weekend possessions but the report claims they occur "without
significant disruption" How can this be claimed if no data is
available? My experience on those buses is a much longer and
uncomfortable stop start journey on busier roads. No consideration has
been made for the increase in population or increased construction
traffic from both within and outside the possession zones. Your data
shows the worse level congestion in bottlenecks already exists.
I do not support the franchising to a private operator. This has not
been good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it here. In
particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor. The awarding of Metro operations
in northern Sydney to MTR Hong Kong with its "rail plus property"
business model is already strongly condemned by the public. The MTR
will obviously be the carriage from Sydenham to Bankstown because a
direct train can't change ownership half way. I am angry that this
decision was done secretly. The involvement of MTR was not
acknowledged by your consultants.
The loss of the previously planned active green strip takes away one
of the few benefits of the project. I remain concerned about the loss
of approximately 500 mature trees and tree canopy during construction,
for example around Lakemba, Wiley Park and Punchbowl stations. There
will be significant loss of vegetation from council-owned land along
the corridor ( Appendix G 'landscape and visual' section). Why does
the removal of trees have to extend beyond the rail construction zone?
Increases in noise due to increase in train speeds and the
introduction of Rail System Facilities such as substations, intruder
detection systems and security fencing are a significant concern which
can be ameliorated by denser vegetation or other heritage sympathetic
measures. Nowhere are hours of operation addressed.
In summary, this project should not be approved because it lacks
bipartisan and community support, and is the product of a process that
has lacked democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be :
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways.

Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018
To Whom it May Concern
Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback on the preferred
project.
I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.
I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:
The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:
1. The response to concerns about the justifications for the project
(Part B, Submissions Report p 14-15) does nothing to convince the
community of its need, especially in the context of poor transparency
regarding business cases, and political agendas relating to
privatisation and property development.. The justifications have been
contradicted by independent rail experts and Sydney's Rail Future 2012
("In the Sydney context an independent metro system would deliver few
benefits in terms of service enhancement, capacity improvements or
better operating efficiency on the existing rail network". P24,
Sydney's Rail Future 2012). Alternatives must be addressed to improve
the heavy rail network's capacity (such as tunnelling options if the
City Circle and Sydenham sites are problematic, and improvements in
signalling and timetabling, now). Metro trains are designed for short
distances with frequent stops; the capacity argument is based on most
people standing.
2. The response has failed to acknowledge community concerns about the
supposed benefits( Part B, Submissions Report p30-35):
-more direct access will not occur - the popular stops of St Peters,
Erskineville, Redfern and City Circle will be lost. Commuters west of
Bankstown will be worse off with many facing longer commuting times
and less direct connections (Part B, Submissions Report p74 and 108).
This is not an acceptable outcome and is contrary to one of the a
major strategic contexts - the "30 minute city" of the Greater Sydney
Commission.
-opal ticketing is not a benefit - we already have it.
- the response to submissions fails to explain why a metro is needed
for accessibility upgrades at stations (Part B, Submissions Report
p29); many heavy rail stations have had such upgrades over time; there
remains plenty of room for improvement for accessibility in the
existing network, such as improved acoustics of announcements for the
visually impaired. In addition, metro trains will have significantly
reduced seating capacity, which is inappropriate for a 66km railway
with an ageing population.
-the response addresses specific benefits for Hurlstone Park (Part B,
Submissions Report p 36) The preservation of our railway heritage is
welcome, but the pressure for high-rise development triggered by a
metro would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. An an
increased number of services must be seen in the context of this
government incrementally reducing the number of services to the suburb
since 2013 and metro trains having significantly less seats. The claim
of better connections to "key employment and service centres" is
arguable, as current popular stops will be lost.
3. The response to concerns about development is dismissive (Part B,
Submissions Report p36-39). The link to development has been made
repeatedly, with the exhibited project acting as a"catalyst" for
growth; the strategic context of the metro and its relationship to
Future Transport 2056 (which supports the concept of property
value-capture), the Greater Sydney Commission (seeking to integrate
land use and transport planning),and the Sydenham-Bankstown Urban
Renewal Strategy (widely condemned by communities for its
indiscriminate up-zoning plans; the invitations to Stakeholders such
as the Australian Turf Club and the NSW property Council and the
awarding of metro operations in northern Sydney to MTR Honk Kong with
its "rail plus property" Business model. The project will promote
growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning process
and poor quality development without benefits such as affordability,
green space and amenity.
4. The response to some of the negative consequence of the metro has
been welcome:
-the decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important. Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate. At Hurlstone Park Station,
the use of traditional hand rails for the stairs would be welcome.
Hurlstone Park Station was recommended for state heritage listing in
2016. The community supports this and hopes that works for the metro
would not impede such a listing. In the report's Non-Aboriginal
Heritage Assessment , Appendix F, it is admitted that some "items or
fabric (are) proposed for removal and ....the historic character of
the line...would be altered by the contemporary metro". (p93). This is
of some concern and requires clarification.
-the decision to abandon the inappropriate design plans for station
precincts is also welcome. It is disappointing that community input
into station precinct and open space planning is given such a low
priority, especially in the context of multiple submissions critical
of the consultation process to date (Part B, Submissions Report p
51-53 and p 58-70). "Place-making" should begin with the people who
live in and know in the places.
The Hurlstone Park Association should be one of the stakeholders
consulted in the development of the "integrated urban and place making
outcome" for Hurlstone Park Station.
5. Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. The gas leak in the city on
7th July 2018 due to metro construction work is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instil public confidence. The predicted exceedences of operational
noise criteria due to increase in train speeds are are significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, locals would welcome noise attenuation in
the form of denser vegetation or other heritage sympathetic
attenuation measures.

6. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it here.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
7. The loss of the previously planned active green strip takes away
one of the few benefits of the project.
8. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used, and measuring
success by the number of encounters, does not address the lack of
engagement with, and failure to prioritise the input of, the
communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are opposed to
the project. In addition, the continued use of biased glossy
brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning, reveals
little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
9. I remain concerned about the loss of mature trees and tree canopy
during construction, for example around Lakemba, Wiley Park and
Punchbowl stations. There will be significant loss of vegetation from
council-owned land along the corridor. ( Appendix G 'landscape and
visual' section).

In summary, this project should not be approved because it lacks
bipartisan and community support, and is the product of process that
has lacked democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be :
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways
Sincerely
Sara Hristov

Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018
To Whom it May Concern
Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback on the preferred
project.
I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.
I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:
The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:
1. The response to concerns about the justifications for the project
(Part B, Submissions Report p 14-15) does nothing to convince the
community of its need, especially in the context of poor transparency
regarding business cases, and political agendas relating to
privatisation and property development.. The justifications have been
contradicted by independent rail experts and Sydney's Rail Future 2012
("In the Sydney context an independent metro system would deliver few
benefits in terms of service enhancement, capacity improvements or
better operating efficiency on the existing rail network". P24,
Sydney's Rail Future 2012). Alternatives must be addressed to improve
the heavy rail network's capacity (such as tunnelling options if the
City Circle and Sydenham sites are problematic, and improvements in
signalling and timetabling, now). Metro trains are designed for short
distances with frequent stops; the capacity argument is based on most
people standing.
2. The response has failed to acknowledge community concerns about the
supposed benefits( Part B, Submissions Report p30-35):
-more direct access will not occur - the popular stops of St Peters,
Erskineville, Redfern and City Circle will be lost. Commuters west of
Bankstown will be worse off with many facing longer commuting times
and less direct connections (Part B, Submissions Report p74 and 108).
This is not an acceptable outcome and is contrary to one of the a
major strategic contexts - the "30 minute city" of the Greater Sydney
Commission.
-opal ticketing is not a benefit - we already have it.
- the response to submissions fails to explain why a metro is needed
for accessibility upgrades at stations (Part B, Submissions Report
p29); many heavy rail stations have had such upgrades over time; there
remains plenty of room for improvement for accessibility in the
existing network, such as improved acoustics of announcements for the
visually impaired. In addition, metro trains will have significantly
reduced seating capacity, which is inappropriate for a 66km railway
with an ageing population.
-the response addresses specific benefits for Hurlstone Park (Part B,
Submissions Report p 36) The preservation of our railway heritage is
welcome, but the pressure for high-rise development triggered by a
metro would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. An an
increased number of services must be seen in the context of this
government incrementally reducing the number of services to the suburb
since 2013 and metro trains having significantly less seats. The claim
of better connections to "key employment and service centres" is
arguable, as current popular stops will be lost.
3. The response to concerns about development is dismissive (Part B,
Submissions Report p36-39). The link to development has been made
repeatedly, with the exhibited project acting as a"catalyst" for
growth; the strategic context of the metro and its relationship to
Future Transport 2056 (which supports the concept of property
value-capture), the Greater Sydney Commission (seeking to integrate
land use and transport planning),and the Sydenham-Bankstown Urban
Renewal Strategy (widely condemned by communities for its
indiscriminate up-zoning plans; the invitations to Stakeholders such
as the Australian Turf Club and the NSW property Council and the
awarding of metro operations in northern Sydney to MTR Honk Kong with
its "rail plus property" Business model. The project will promote
growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning process
and poor quality development without benefits such as affordability,
green space and amenity.
4. The response to some of the negative consequence of the metro has
been welcome:
-the decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important. Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate. At Hurlstone Park Station,
the use of traditional hand rails for the stairs would be welcome.
Hurlstone Park Station was recommended for state heritage listing in
2016. The community supports this and hopes that works for the metro
would not impede such a listing. In the report's Non-Aboriginal
Heritage Assessment , Appendix F, it is admitted that some "items or
fabric (are) proposed for removal and ....the historic character of
the line...would be altered by the contemporary metro". (p93). This is
of some concern and requires clarification.
-the decision to abandon the inappropriate design plans for station
precincts is also welcome. It is disappointing that community input
into station precinct and open space planning is given such a low
priority, especially in the context of multiple submissions critical
of the consultation process to date (Part B, Submissions Report p
51-53 and p 58-70). "Place-making" should begin with the people who
live in and know in the places.
The Hurlstone Park Association should be one of the stakeholders
consulted in the development of the "integrated urban and place making
outcome" for Hurlstone Park Station.
5. Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. The gas leak in the city on
7th July 2018 due to metro construction work is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instil public confidence. The predicted exceedences of operational
noise criteria due to increase in train speeds are are significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, locals would welcome noise attenuation in
the form of denser vegetation or other heritage sympathetic
attenuation measures.

6. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it here.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
7. The loss of the previously planned active green strip takes away
one of the few benefits of the project.
8. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used, and measuring
success by the number of encounters, does not address the lack of
engagement with, and failure to prioritise the input of, the
communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are opposed to
the project. In addition, the continued use of biased glossy
brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning, reveals
little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
9. I remain concerned about the loss of mature trees and tree canopy
during construction, for example around Lakemba, Wiley Park and
Punchbowl stations. There will be significant loss of vegetation from
council-owned land along the corridor. ( Appendix G 'landscape and
visual' section).

In summary, this project should not be approved because it lacks
bipartisan and community support, and is the product of process that
has lacked democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be :
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways
Sincerely

Shinichi Sasaki

This revised proposal shows how ridiculous the original one was. It is
scaled back, but fundamental flaws remain.

Disruptions
There are still extensive so-called temporary closures which will be
incredibly disruptive. I simply do not believe that, given the state
government's record in regard to the eastern suburbs light rail and in
George Street, that this project will be completed in an efficient
manner. There are so many chaotic aspects to the existing projects,
yet we are expected to believe this one will be different!

Seating
The substitution of a set of trains that will halve the number of
seats is intolerable, especially given the proposed development around
the stations. There is here a terrible loss of amenity. and what for?
The only benefit will go to developers. The off-peak trains are be
increased from 4 to 6, but the number of seats on each will be reduced
by half. That's less seating over all since the trains are nearly full
at off-peak. Clearly older people like myself will be standing over
long distances. This system is nothing like the London or Paris
metros, where people are getting on and off at the stations all the
time. This line is just basically the old line revamped, so it is
still a spoke in the wheel leading to the centre of the city, only
with far fewer seats to carry most passengers over that long journey,
and the PROMISE of more trains, a promise that is, in the context of
Sydney's infrastructure, unbelievable.


Vegetation damage
The destruction of hundreds of mature trees along the construction
route is typical of this government, and deplorable.

Capacity constraints on the network
The revised version does not address adequately the technical
questions raised publicly by experts with long experience in rail
transport that the removal of the heavy rail on this route will not
free up capacity on the route, but foul it up. State Rail executives
Ron Christie, Dick Day, Bob O'Loughlin and John Brew wrote to the
government in 2015 stating that conversion of the Bankstown line to
the Metro would remove "the relief valve for the network and will
result in the network having no escape route." That issue isn't solved
by the revised plan. This project is a white elephant and the current
government will be forever remembered for mistakenly pushing it
through.

Access to Sydney University
Patrons of this service will still have access difficulties to Sydney
University and the city.

Costs
The commercial in confidence procedures of this government preclude
democratic and effective scrutiny of the cost benefit analysis of the
project. Put this proposal to the people at the next state election,
and see what they really think about the transport infrastructure.

18 July 2017

The Director
Major Projects Assessment
Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY, NSW 2001
Attention: Planner - Naomi Moss
Dear Director,
Sydney Metro City & Southwest T3 Bankstown Line - Sydenham to
Bankstown Upgrade - SSI 17_8256

The National Trust of Australia (NSW) welcomes this opportunity to
comment on the revised plans for the "Sydney Metro City & Southwest
Sydenham to Bankstown Upgrade" Preferred Infrastructure Report
exhibition. Although the Trust is relieved that the Preferred
Infrastructure Report considerably reduces likely heritage impacts on
the historic built fabric of affected railway stations, the Trust
continues to object to the proposed rezoning of large tracts of
historic suburbia along this corridor.
Firstly, the National Trust welcomes the statement in the Sydenham to
Bankstown Preferred Infrastructure Report Overview (June 2018) that
"all heritage buildings along the Bankstown Line will be retained".
This was an important expectation given that all ten stations are
heritage listed. Three stations are listed on the State Heritage
Register (SHR) - Marrickville (SHR 1186) Canterbury (SHR 1109) and
Belmore (SHR 1081) - all listed as Railway Station Groups. However
this statement appears to relate only to the stations themselves, not
the heritage buildings within the National Trust identified
Conservation Areas along the route of the Metro.
In 2017 an Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed replacement
of the publicly-owned, heavy rail line between Sydenham and Bankstown
with a privately owned Metro line, was exhibited for public comment.
Over 500 submissions were received, most expressing objections to the
plans. A revised plan has been developed in response to the many
issues raised during this public consultation process and is currently
on exhibition as the "Preferred Infrastructure Report". The Trust's
submission responds to this exhibited Report.
The section of the Preferred Infrastructure Report which addresses
built heritage issues most directly is the "Memo . . . [on]
Non-Aboriginal Heritage Assessment," Appendix F (the Memo). The Memo
is 102 pages in length and consists of heritage impact analyses of the
Preferred Infrastructure Report as it affects statutory heritage
listed places between and including the ten railway stations between
Bankstown and Sydenham, which are all listed on statutory heritage
registers. It includes consideration of five SHR items, 32 local
listed items, and two heritage conservation areas. The information is
grouped in ten sections, each focused around a railway station.
The emphasis of the Memo is on design changes made in response to
public submissions made during the exhibition of the Environmental
Impact Statement in 2017, as they affect built heritage. Each major
element of each heritage place is discussed comparing the original,
Environmental Impact Statement proposal and the revised, preferred
project proposal. The Memo also notes prominently in its introduction
that the preferred project excludes the use of "rock-breakers" and
thus effectively removes all the vibration problems for heritage
places associated with them. It proposes instead to make limited use
of "ballast tamper" equipment which is already in use along the line
without ill effects (page 2). The Memo's conclusion summarises the
likely heritage impacts of the Preferred Infrastructure Report:
* Would not result in "major direct or visual impacts to any stations"
although there would be "moderate direct and visual impacts to ten
stations."
* Nonetheless all stations would retain enough significance to keep
their current levels of heritage listing, be it state or local.
* Many of the historic buildings would be adaptively re-used and all
would contribute to the functioning of the Metro.
* New additions would be built but would be distinguishable from
historic fabric.
* It is admitted that some "items or fabric [are] proposed for removal
. . . More generally, the historic character of the line, a late
nineteenth-century to early twentieth century railway line with layers
of inter-war development, would be altered by the contemporary Metro
infrastructure" (p93).
* There is a table detailing mitigation measures to help conserve
heritage significance of the line and its elements (pp93-97). For
example, Each SHR listed station (Marrickville, Canterbury and
Belmore) would have a conservation management plan (CMP) commissioned
while the others would have a (smaller, briefer) conservation
management strategy (CMS) (pp87-88).
A major problem with the Memo is that it does not address all the core
heritage issues. It discusses only places which are listed on
statutory heritage lists: the State Heritage Register and Local
Environmental Plans, and some Section 170 listings. It does not
discuss places not yet heritage listed, nor does it note or mention
the existence of non-statutory lists such as the National Trust
Register or the former Register of the National Estate. It does not
mention or note draft heritage listings such as the heritage
conservation areas (HCAs) proposed for Hurlstone Park. A better
heritage analysis would recognise all these community-backed heritage
listings and insist on undertaking an independent heritage assessment
of the entire affected property on the (unquestionable) assumption
that these statutory heritage registers are not complete.
Furthermore, the Memo does not mention nor attempt to analyse the
heritage impacts of the proposed rezoning of a large swathe of land
around the rail corridor whose sale and redevelopment is said to be
essential to fund the project. This would involve demolition of a huge
quantity of historic suburban fabric. This huge, negative heritage
impact is ignored.
On 7 November, 2017 the National Trust made a submission on the Sydney
Metro City & Southwest Sydenham to Bankstown upgrade Environmental
Impact Statement which had been exhibited for public comment.
In that submission, the Trust expressed its deep concern that the
environmental assessment requirements of the Secretary of the
Department of Planning and Environment ("The Secretary's environmental
assessment requirements") had not been addressed with regards to
"environmental heritage" in the preparation of theEnvironmental Impact
Statement and associated Technical Paper 3 - Non-Aboriginal Heritage
Impact Assessment.
The T3 Bankstown Line - Sydenham to Bankstown Upgrade Environmental
Impact Statement and Heritage Impact Statement had only addressed
"heritage-listed" items not "environmental heritage" as defined under
the Heritage Act, 1977 (the Secretary's requirement).
While the National Trust notes the rationale for this proposal it is
vital that impact on the "environmental heritage" is minimised and
this can only occur if the "environmental heritage" is correctly
identified.
In its comments on the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor
the National Trust made the following comments and re-iterates them as
they have relevance for the Metro proposal: -
The corridor traverses three former local government areas -
Marrickville, Canterbury and Bankstown. There appear to be major
differences in the way that these Councils recognised and protected
their heritage.

The Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 has 36 Heritage
Conservation Areas listed on Schedule 5 - (Environmental Heritage), of
its Plan. By contrast, the Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012
Schedule 5 (Environmental Heritage) has only one Heritage Conservation
Area and the Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2015 has no Heritage
Conservation Areas listed on its Environmental Heritage Schedule.

Deep community concern has been expressed to the Trust on the impacts
of proposed rezonings on the heritage in some of these Station
Precincts. The Trust is also aware that many residents of these areas
are unaware of the likely impact of the rezonings on their heritage
and their locality's sense of place and of the very limited time to
now comment and influence this process.

The Trust notes that, for the Dulwich Hill and Hurlstone Park Station
Precincts, there appears to have been recognition of the significance
of the Heritage Conservation Areas, with a corresponding reduction in
the density and height of new development proposed. However, with some
other Station Precincts there appear to be major impacts on a number
of Urban Conservation Areas which had been identified and listed on
the National Trust Register in 1998/1999.

These listings in 1998 were the consequence of a major study "Housing
in NSW - Between the Wars - A Study of Housing and Housing Estates
constructed and developed in NSW between World War I and World War
II".

This study was prepared in February 1996 for the National Trust of
Australia (NSW) by Robertson & Hindmarsh Pty Ltd, Architects. The
study was funded in two stages under the National Estates Grants
program, at that time administered in NSW by the Heritage Branch of
the NSW Department of Environment & Planning. The study examined
interwar period housing in twenty Sydney local councils and two NSW
country local government areas. The two Sydney local government areas
with the highest number of identified precincts were Ku-ring-gai (23
precincts) and Canterbury (24 precincts).

Eighteen Urban Conservation Areas in the Canterbury Local Government
Area were listed on the National Trust Register in 1998 and 1999. The
three precincts identified in the 1996 Housing Study in the former
Bankstown Local Government Area were also listed on the National Trust
Register in 1998 and 1999.

The Trust raises its concerns in regards to the impacts of the
proposed rezonings in the following Station Precincts where National
Trust Register listed Urban Conservation Areas are sited : -

Belmore Station Precinct
Within the circled areas for the Belmore Station Precinct there are
three National Trust Register listed Urban Conservation Areas: -

Canterbury Urban Conservation Area Precinct 15 - Paxton Avenue,
Belmore

Canterbury Urban Conservation Area Precinct 16 - Redman Parade,
Belmore

Canterbury Urban Conservation Area Precinct 17 - Belmore

Precinct 15 (Paxton Avenue, Belmore) is proposed for low rise housing.
It has not been designated as a Heritage Conservation Area and
consequently is under threat of major redevelopment without regard for
its heritage values.

Precinct 16 (Redman Parade, Belmore) is proposed to be zoned to its
east as low rise housing and to the west of Cecilia Street as medium
rise housing. No Heritage Conservation Area has been designated to
protect the heritage values identified by the National Trust.

Precinct 17 (Belmore) is proposed for rezoning for a combination of
`Main Street Shop Top Housing' and High Rise and/or Mixed Use. No
Heritage Conservation Area has been designated to protect the heritage
values identified by the National Trust.

Bankstown Station Precinct
Within the circled areas for the Bankstown Station Precinct, there is
the National Trust Register listed Urban Conservation Area: -

Bankstown Urban Conservation Area Precinct 2 - Bankstown

Precinct 2 (Bankstown) is largely proposed for rezoning for medium /
high rise housing. No Heritage Conservation Area has been designated
to protect the heritage values identified by the National Trust. This
is particularly disappointing given that almost the entire inner
circle area has been proposed for high rise and mixed use development.

Punchbowl Station Precinct
Within the circled areas for the Punchbowl Station Precinct, there are
two National Trust Register listed Urban Conservation Areas: -

Canterbury Urban Conservation Area Precinct 27 - Punchbowl

Bankstown Urban Conservation Area Precinct 1 - Mt Lewis

Precinct 27 (Punchbowl) is proposed for low rise housing. It has not
been designated as a Heritage Conservation Area and consequently
remains under threat of major redevelopment without regard for its
heritage values.

Precinct 1 (Mt Lewis) has a large area with proposed zoning for Main
Street Shop Top Housing, medium high-rise housing, medium rise
housing, low-rise housing and single dwelling areas. No Heritage
Conservation Area has been designated and Precinct 1 (Mt Lewis)
remains under threat of major redevelopment without regard for its
heritage values.

Wiley Park Station Precinct
Within the circled areas for the Wiley Park Station Precinct, there is
the National Trust Register listed Urban Conservation Area: -

Canterbury Urban Conservation Area Precinct 26 - Defoe Street,
Punchbowl

Precinct 26 (Defoe Street, Punchbowl) is proposed for low rise
housing. It has not been designated as a Heritage Conservation Area
and consequently remains under threat of major redevelopment without
regard for the heritage values identified by the National Trust.

Lakemba Station Precinct
Within the circled areas for the Lakemba Station Precinct, there is
the National Trust Register listed Urban Conservation Area: -

Canterbury Urban Conservation Area Precinct 19 - Dennis Street,
Lakemba

Precinct 19 (Dennis Street, Lakemba) is proposed for low rise housing.
It has not been designated as a Heritage Conservation Area and
consequently remains under threat of major redevelopment without
regard for the heritage values identified by the National Trust.

The National Trust indicated that it would be pleased to provide
detailed information on the 1998 Study - "Housing in NSW Between the
Wars - A Study of Housing and Housing Estates constructed and
developed in NSW between World War I and World War II" and copies of
the National Trust Register Listings referenced above to the planners
dealing with the Urban Renewal Corridor Strategy.

In its response to the concerns expressed by the National Trust, the
Report argued that Transport for NSW is not proposing any rezonings or
residential developments as part of the project.

However, it is clear that funding for the Metro Project is predicated
on the proposed rezonings and residential redevelopment.

The National Trust is deeply concerned that the former Canterbury and
Bankstown Councils did not follow the lead of Ku-ring-gai Council and
act on the National Trust's 1988 Study and list the recommended
Heritage Conservation Areas.

Ku-ring-gai Council has listed 31 Heritage Conservation Areas
protecting most of its historic interwar housing from unsympathetic
over-development.
Bankstown Council had listed no Heritage Conservation Areas and
Canterbury Council had listed only one Heritage Conservation Area.
This is despite the National Trust's 1998 Study identifying 24
precincts in Canterbury Local Government Area worthy of heritage
listing and three precincts in Bankstown Local Government Area.
The National Trust is aware that the Independent Commission against
Corruption is investigating claims of improper conduct against two
former Canterbury City Councillors and a current member of State
Parliament in relation to property development dealings in Canterbury
Local Government Area. In the light of this investigation, the
National Trust is concerned to see that the issue of Heritage
Conservation Area listing in Canterbury Local Government Area is given
fair consideration.
The National Trust will again be calling on Canterbury Bankstown
Council to address the issue of listing the Heritage Conservation
Areas on its Local Environmental Plan and urges that these proposed
listings be given due consideration in the planning and development
assessment process for the Sydenham to Bankstown Metro.
Yours sincerely

Graham Quint
Director, Conservation

Station Improvements and Heritage Considerations
Please restore the heritage railway buildings and select colour
schemes that are appropriate to the era of the buildings. The bright
orange "Hurlstone Park" Signs recently erected are revolting and
should be removed. Adding lifts is important however the design must
be such that it does not create glare from the sun, maintains privacy
to surrounding homes and somehow "fit in" to the proposed heritage
conservation areas around the station rather than stand out. The
original stair railings should be kept.

The restrooms and waiting rooms should be accessible to commuters.
Rather than allowing these to decay restore them and allow people to
use them, at least during peak hour and especially in winter. Access
may possibly be granted via an opal card therefore identifying the
user should any issues regarding vandalism arise. There are many a
time when people have trespassed into the homes surrounding the
station to relieve themselves, because they could not access the
station toilets.

At Hurlstone Park station fencing needs to be installed on the
heritage rock face on platform 2 to stop vandals accessing the wall of
the building on that rock face where the vandals leave unsightly and
sometimes offensive graffiti. This will stop vandals accessing the
wall, allow the owners of the building to safely maintain the building
and possibly plant some attractive vegetation in this area which
currently is full of unsightly dry weeds. This will improve the
amenity for commuters and the community at large.


Loss of more parking spaces in Duntroon Street.
We already have 3 accessible parking spots in Hurlstone Park which are
in the vicinity of the shops and station - perfect for less mobile
community members that need to do their shopping or catch public
transport.

I understand after speaking with the Metro staff that the kerbside
facilities and accessible parking space on drawings for Duntroon
Street (to the west of the station) are no longer part of the
preferred project and this has now been scrapped. Residents in this
street do not have off street parking - all properties on this side of
the street are zoned residential (including the old shopfront adjacent
to the station). No parking should be removed.

Metro Bill.
The Metro Bill gives powers to the private operator to compulsorily
acquire property should they see fit. Where does this leave
communities and residents that don't want to leave their homes and
suburbs? No one should have the right to take your home, particularly
a private company that will likely turn the areas around and over the
stations into the high rise towers we see in Hong Kong. Our suburbs
have already been destroyed by high rise concrete monstrosities due to
the greed of developers, public officials and their "mates" (see ICAC
Dahsa investigation). We do not need any further destruction of
heritage and loss of sunlight, green areas and amenity in these areas.
High rise is not the way to go. Communities want appropriate
development and looking at the MTR model -high-rise is their preferred
form of development over and adjacent to stations.

Privatization will additionally lead to increased transport prices for
commuters. Look at what has happened with the privatization of the
electricity grid. We are now paying huge electricity bills after being
told that privatization would increase competition and decrease
prices.

Reduced seating
We have an aging population in Australia and reducing seating on
transport is a silly ideas. Unfortunately, morals in society have
degraded and there is very little respect for the elderly. Many times
I have seen children and adults sit in the seats specifically for the
elderly on current trains while elderly passengers are made to stand.
We need trains that increase the number of seats available, not
decrease them.

Noise/Dust/air quality/health effects during construction and
operation of the Metro.
We have not been provided any details of noise, dust, etc mitigation
measures that will be adopted for the homes adjoining the corridor.
There are some serious issues here as many of the homes are in close
proximity to the rail line and as they were built in the early 1900s
do not have noise mitigating features such as double glazing. Most of
the work will take place during school holidays and evenings when
families are generally at home which will make life unbearable for
these residents. The noise and dust impacts that will be adopted need
to be made available to the community so they can make an informed
decision.
What measures will be taken to protect the community from excessive
dust from construction and the pollution caused by diesel machinery
and any excavating? There may be asbestos risks posted to the
community with any work undertaken. Mesothelioma occurs decades after
exposure to asbestos which I understand may have been used on train
brakes.

Additionally, more detail needs to be given regarding the noise
impacts of the Metro once in operation, should it be approved. The new
trains, security screens, intruder alarms etc will no doubt be very
noisy and cause problems for the residents along the corridor,
particularly in the evenings when most vandals are about. Will the
noise emanating from these keep residents along the corridor awake at
night? More information needs to be given to the community.

Damage to buildings due to vibration.
What mitigation measures will be in place to protect the homes along
the corridor that were built in the early 1900s (some older) from
vibration impacts? Again we need appropriate information to make
informed decisions. Will any damage be rectified?

In summary, I do not agree that replacing the heavy rail with a metro
system from Sydenham to Bankstown is the way to go. A more cost
effective approach would be to update our signaling and add additional
Waratah trains during peak hour.

We should be creating additional train lines where there are none to
make more suburbs accessible by train. I am totally opposed to
privatization of our public transport.

The preferred infrastructure report is a huge improvement on the
original plans, but the community needs more detailed information
regarding the details of the project in order to make an informed
decision and I therefore cannot support it until this information is
made available.

Submission on Preferred Infrastructure Plan, Metro Southwest< Sydenham
to Bankstown
Application No: SSI 17_8256

This is intended as a joint submission on behalf of myself and my wife
Jennifer Hillier (also of 52 Starkey St, Hurlstone Park). We can't see
a way on the exhibition portal to lodge this submission under both
names, but we would like it to be recorded as a joint submission.

We strongly support the Sydney Metro Southwest Project - in particular
the section of the project involved in converting the existing heavy
train corridor from Sydenham to Bankstown to be part of the Sydney
Metro system. However, we also share the concerns of many residents
that the extension of the Metro here may be used to justify a
poorly-planned - and excessively high-rise - avalanche of
"overdevelopment", which could swamp the long-established urban
villages along this corridor.

We have made submissions to earlier stages of the public consultation
on both the Metro and associated rezoning proposals. We are also
members of the Hurlstone Park Association (HPA) which has actively
opposed Metro Southwest, both on its own and as part of the Sydenham
to Bankstown Alliance (SBA). We have made our position on the Metro
clear within the HPA and made a number of posts in favour of the Metro
on the SBA website, but our sense is that our position is a minority
one among active members of both organizations.

We have some specific responses to the changes made in the Preferred
Infrastructure Plan - in particular a serious concern with the
apparent shelving of the commitment to the creation of an "active
transport corridor" as part of the refurbishment of the rail corridor,
but we would like to start with some general observations on the
political climate of the local debate on the Metro.

* An over-riding impression from the local debate on the Metro project
is that most people are not taking the potential advantages of the
Metro seriously, because the Metro is not being considered seriously
in its own right. It is regarded as inextricably linked with
unacceptable levels of "overdevelopment" and its opponents have
settled on a simple formula: block the Sydenham to Bankstown Metro and
you will get rid of the main overdevelopment threat. We think this is
very simplistic. But the idea of a very close link between the Metro
and overdevelopment is a direct product of the way the state
government has touted its plans for "urban renewal" in the Sydenham to
Bankstown corridor - and the sweeping draft rezoning proposals
published in connection with this. Given this link, it is very
unfortunate that there has been little systematic connection between
the consultation on the Metro and the consultation on the rezoning
proposals, and that there is much less firm evidence at this stage of
serious concessions to community concerns on the rezoning than there
is on the Metro.

* The Metro documentation on the Preferred Infrastructure Plan claims
that it involves major changes to the original proposals in response
to community concerns expressed in the consultation process. We think
there have indeed been genuine and substantial concessions,
particularly in the abandonment of plans for major station
realignments. Assuming that the proposed mechanical alternatives to
station realignments are reliable - and don't provide a regular
touchstone for complaints about the Metro when it is operational -
this change of plan is probably desirable on a number of counts.

* However, we are very concerned that any detail on the promised cycle
path and "active transport corridor" has been quietly dropped from the
precinct maps in the Preferred Infrastructure Plan - and though no
proper rationale is provided for this in the documents, it seems
likely that this initiative has become a casualty of the overall
decision to minimize the engineering changes to the existing rail
corridor. This has very bad echoes of the way in which an "active
transport"/Greenway corridor was promised as part of the Lilyfield to
Dulwich Hill Light Rail extension and then dropped in the final stages
of the process. It is part of a general pattern in which the interests
of pedestrians and cyclists are marginalized in major infrastructure
projects, and it encourages cynicism among the very groups who ought
also to be natural supporters of major public transport projects as
opportunities to break the stranglehold of the car in Sydney urban
planning.

* Finally - as an extension of the last point - we think that planning
for the Metro should incorporate serious attempts to shift the balance
more in favour of pedestrians in planning decisions about pedestrian
crossings, etc around train stations and associated shopping strips in
this corridor. As things stand, such decisions seem clearly to be
dominated by a systematic road planners' bias in favour of motorists,
even in a relatively quiet urban neighbourhood like Hurlstone Park
which is well away from "main roads". The published precinct maps seem
to indicate that Metro authorities view their precinct planning
"orbit" around the stations in quite restricted terms. But an
infrastructure project as important as the Metro - a project which if
successful should substantially increase the general flow of
pedestrian activity - ought to provide a platform to promote the
interests of pedestrians across these urban villages in the Sydenham
to Bankstown corridor, not just in the immediate vicinity of stations.

There are several concerns with this updated proposal. While it is
pleasing the original facades of some of the historical Railway
buildings will be retained, according to the Preferred Infrastructure
Report, Dulwich Hill will continue to have the highest number of
residents on each precinct along the line with noise impacts.
According to the report, 126 `noise receivers' - that is residents'
homes - in Dulwich Hill are likely to be given night-time alternative
accommodation (such as in a hotel) during the project's life during
periods of 24/7 construction works. This is down from 191 receivers
anticipated requiring alternative accommodation under the original
plans exhibited in September last year.
Residents in streets such as Bedford, Ewart, School, Wilga, Kays, The
Parade and Challis will be among those likely to be offered
alternative accommodation because of excessive noise impacts.There are
also concerns about the excessive vibrations on heritage homes in
these areas.
Noise monitoring will happen at the homes of another 186 Dulwich Hill
receivers, down from 334 in the original environmental impact
statement.
This is still a significant number of homes and residents and given
the lack of action over the WestConnex noise issues with residents at
St Peters, it is very concerning.
The preferred project report indicates that the NSW Government will
still only be offering alternative accommodation if a resident suffers
night-time noise impacts a full 30 decibels over background noise.
This is quite arbitrary, given the Save Dully Action Group last year
requested that all residents who suffer potential sleep disturbance be
offered alternative accommodation (which is 15 decibels above
background noise level) but this was denied.
Noise impacts though are being generally reduced along the corridor
because of moves by Transport for NSW to retain existing tracks,
platforms and bridges - if this turns out to be correct.
This differs to the approach outlined in the environmental impact
statement (EIS) which was exhibited last year, which was proposing
major works to bridges and platforms, caused by track reconstruction
and realignments.
The preferred project report also states there are going to be less
closures of the Sydney Trains Bankstown line, while the new Metro line
is built - although the impacts on commuters will still be
significant.
Instead of a six-week line closure each year from 2019 to 2024, there
will now be only a two week closure during the Christmas school
holidays.
However, there will still be a tortuous major final line closure of up
to six months in 2024, along with additional weekend closures and
individual station closures for up to two months.
It is also unclear what is happening with St Peters and Erskineville
stops - it is well documented the T4 Eastern Suburbs/Illawarra is well
over capacity, at least 140 per cent and rising, particularly in the
morning peak.
There is also general confusion is that with the retention of the
existing tracks, which sections will need replacing?
Traffic problems during construction will also be significant. New
Canterbury Rd at Dulwich Hill will be packed with up to 1,020 buses a
day during rail shutdown periods (eight weeks a year from 2019 to 2024
plus on an unspecified number of weekends).
Other streets with significant bus impacts include Marrickville Rd at
Dulwich Hill shops (1,020 buses a day), Bayley St (495 buses),
Beauchamp St (495 buses), and Ewart St (495 buses).
A total of 27 commuter parking spots lost from the carpark to the
south of the station, and nine out of the 17 parking spots in Bedford
Crescent removed, during the construction period.
Up to 130 construction workers will want to park in local streets
during rail shutdown periods, and up to 60 at other times.
During rail shutdown periods, even after mitigation measures, the
average vehicle delay for the intersection of Wardell Rd and Ewart St
will increase from 32 seconds to 55 seconds.
Residential streets such as Wilga, Keys, Challis Avenues and
Albermarle, Beauchamp and Ewart Sts will be used as construction
haulage routes, which is not acceptable and dangerous given the
narrowness of these intersections.
The ongoing impact of the Metro project is not acceptable for inner
west residents. The ongoing construction planning work at Sydenham is
also having an impact on nearby suburbs, such as Tempe, with a large
number of trucks using nearby streets adding to the WestConnex
construction congestion.

The Save T3 Bankstown Line is a new community action group comprising of
residents west of Bankstown station. We strongly oppose the Sydenham
to Bankstown Metro and the privatisation of public transport. We
believe that there is no benefit to public transport from such
conversion and more attention should be given to upgrading existing
signalling and heavy rail infrastructure.

The Sydenham to Bankstown section of the T3 Bankstown Line should not
be converted into Sydney Metro Southwest as it significantly breaks
apart a cohesive rail network. It must also be noted that the T3
Bankstown Line currently continues west to Lidcombe and Liverpool
beyond Bankstown. Not only is there no patronage demand statistically
for a T3 Bankstown Line Metro, but the alienation of 9 stations west
of Bankstown is also of significant concern. For the first time since
the Sydney Trains network was constructed, the following nine stations
of Berala, Regents Park, Sefton, Chester Hill, Leightonfield,
Villawood, Carramar, Birrong and Yagoona will no longer have any
direct train services to the City.

The number of interchanges and travel times from the nine stations
west of Bankstown will increase. Former rail executives John Brew, Ron
Christie, Bob O'Loughlin and Dick Day, have already warned that over
19,000 commuters will be forced to interchange because of the Sydenham
to Bankstown Metro line. Such increase in interchange adds additional
pressure on Lidcombe and Birrong station which are already struggling
to cope with the number of commuters interchanging due to the removal
of the Liverpool via Regents Park train service (from the Inner West
Line) in 2013. We also call for the restoration of the Inner West Line
to Liverpool/Bankstown via Regents Park.

The Sydenham to Bankstown Metro line will also remove the `T3
Liverpool to City express' service which was a significant feature of
the 2017 timetable for Southwest Sydney. The 2017 timetable also
removed all T1 Western Line express trains from Lidcombe station
especially during the peak hour increasing travel times to the city by
50%. Increasing the number of customers interchanging from the Sydney
Trains T3 Bankstown Line to all stations T2 line trains only adds to
worsening of overcrowding. For the majority of commuters west of
Bankstown, interchanging at Bankstown for a Metro train to the City is
an increase in overall travel time.

Community consultation with residents west of Bankstown on the T3
Bankstown Line has been shamefully non-existent despite the
significant adverse implications of the Metro Southwest project on
their journeys. We also believe that the suspension of trains between
Lidcombe and Bankstown during construction of the Metro Southwest
project should be avoided by with the operation of trains from City to
Liverpool via Regents Park (on the former Inner West Line). This would
reduce the number of non-Metro stations having to use replacement bus
services to just Birrong and Yagoona.

The current government policy of increased urban density along
Canterbury Road and the Sydenham to Bankstown rail corridor demands
appropriate investment in public transport such as improvements to
heavy rail to cope with the increased population. The proposed Metro
does not have the capacity to deal with the increased number of
commuters and the only feasible form of public transport that can cope
with the increased development is an improved heavy rail system and
connecting electric bus, and light rail options need to be part of the
mix that delivers commuters to the major stations on a heavy rail
line.

We recommend that the entire Sydney Metro Southwest (Sydenham to
Bankstown) project be cancelled due to the significant disruption to
services during and after construction. We recommend the T2 Inner West
Line be restored as a frequent City to Liverpool/Bankstown via Regents
Park service running alongside a T3 Bankstown Line with upgraded
signalling similar to technology being rolled out on the T4 Illawarra
Line and T8 Airport/South Line.

The Save T3 Bankstown Line group also notes that there have been
reports of lobbyists in favour of increasing development and in
support of the the Metro Southwest project that may have breached NSW
Legislation - Passenger Transport (General) Regulation 2017 with the
distribution of materials to train passengers onboard a number of
train services.

We would also like to include the @SaveT3BankstownLine Instagram
account and the following 30 reasons why Metro Southwest is madness as
part of our organisation's submission. Our Instagram account is at
www.instagram.com/SaveT3BankstownLine

When parts of Sydney with no transport links to City are crying out
for help, the government decides to rip up an existing railway for no
good reason!#noT3metro #sydneymetro #sydneytrains#bankstown Commuters
on T3 west of Bankstown will be left with no choice but to interchange
(or drive) to the City!#noT3metro #sydneymetro #sydneytrains#bankstown
The government's so-called "express" Liverpool to City train goes via
Bankstown, but with Metro Southwest - that'll be the end of the line!
#noT3metro#sydneymetro #sydneytrains #bankstown It's 2018 but the
government wants to take the T3 Bankstown Line back in time to an era
where the further away from Sydney you are, the more disconnected you
were! #noT3metro #sydneymetro#sydneytrains #bankstown Ya-gonna be sad
when the Bankstown train starts at Bankstown but you're never gonna
get a seat because of the 19,000 people being forced onto Metro
Southwest. #noT3metro #sydneymetro#sydneytrains #bankstown Going to
Sydney Uni? The government won't build you a station and now is
forcing you to interchange at Bankstown and Central!
#noT3metro#sydneymetro #sydneytrains #bankstown Sydney's forgotten
commuters are from Chester Hill. Does the government even know the T3
Bankstown Line actually goes beyond Bankstown? #noT3metro#sydneymetro
#sydneytrains #bankstown There's plans to tear through more
communities with a possible Metro line through Condell Park (which
probably won't get a station) #noT3metro#sydneymetro #sydneytrains
#bankstown Students will be hit hard by Metro Southwest with many
Sefton High students from Punchbowl and Wiley Park losing their direct
train! #noT3metro#sydneymetro #sydneytrains #bankstown Birrong station
needs more than an urgent upgrade, it needs the Inner West Line back
(Liverpool and Bankstown via Regents Park) #noT3metro#sydneymetro
#sydneytrains #bankstown If it ain't broke then don't fix it. (The
Bankstown Line could do with a signalling upgrade, but there's no real
need for Metro) #noT3metro #sydneymetro#sydneytrains #bankstown
Throwback to when there were express trains to City from Regents
Park... now there's only a forced interchange at Lidcombe or
Bankstown! #noT3metro#sydneymetro #sydneytrains #bankstown Government
plans drawn up since 2012 hint at more cuts to the T3 Bankstown Line!
#noT3metro#sydneymetro #sydneytrains #bankstown Tiring day at work?
You'll be standing because of Metro Southwest on the T3 Bankstown
Line.#noT3metro #sydneymetro #sydneytrains#bankstown
Going to the City? might as well go away from the City and head west
to Cabramatta for another train that will get you a seat in the
morning peak!#noT3metro #sydneymetro #sydneytrains#bankstown Metro
Southwest increases pressure on the T2 Leppington Line with more
commuters changing at Cabramatta for a direct train to City!
#noT3metro#sydneymetro #sydneytrains #bankstown All Metro Southwest
does is to fatten up the back pockets of property developers.
#noT3metro#sydneymetro #sydneytrains #bankstown Will it take another
world war for the government to realise that its Metro Southwest plan
leaves the area worse off? #noT3metro #sydneymetro
#sydneytrains#bankstown Overcrowding at Lidcombe is going from bad to
worse with Bankstown Line terminating and now the Metro Southwest is
forcing more commuters to change for City trains! #noT3metro
#sydneymetro#sydneytrains #bankstown Metro Southwest isn't really
about transport, it's actually to allow property developers to destroy
heritage with high rise! #noT3metro #sydneymetro#sydneytrains
#bankstown It's like the government wants to keep Villawood away from
the rest of Sydney! #noT3metro#sydneymetro #sydneytrains #bankstown
Remember the good days when there were 2 direct routes to City from
Birrong, now there's going to be none! #noT3metro #sydneymetro
#sydneytrains#bankstown The government is already preparing to sell of
the Metro to foreign buyers before it's even built.#noT3metro
#sydneymetro #sydneytrains#bankstown Berala once had a 22 minute
direct City commute but with cuts and Metro Southwest, forget about a
fast train because there's no train to City!#noT3metro #sydneymetro
#sydneytrains#bankstown It's not just Sydenham to Bansktown that will
lose train services during Metro construction! #noT3metro#sydneymetro
#sydneytrains #bankstown Metro trains are aren't actually much better
than existing double-deckers. #noT3metro #sydneymetro#sydneytrains
#bankstown From Berala, Regents Park to Sefton, Chester Hill,
Leightonfield, Villawood and Carramar as well as Birrong and Yagoona -
these communities will be cut off from Sydney! #noT3metro
#sydneymetro#sydneytrains #bankstown T3 commuters outside of Sydenham
- Bankstown will be forced onto full trains at Lidcombe, Cabramatta
and the Illawarra Line. #noT3metro#sydneymetro #sydneytrains
#bankstown Former Sydney rail executives warn that Metro Southwest
worsens the train network's ability to recover from incidents and will
not improve reliability.#noT3metro #sydneymetro
#sydneytrains#bankstown Going to Town Hall, Wynyard, Circular Quay, St
James or Musuem? You'll have to change at Bankstown and at Central.
#noT3metro#sydneymetro #sydneytrains #bankstown Warning: the Bankstown
Metro forces 19,000 commuters to interchange for trains to
City#noT3metro
&#8195;
Converting 'Sydenham - Bankstown' to Metro is designed to fatten the
wallets of property developers at the expense of the community.
Cutting the Bankstown Line in half disconnects 9 stations between
Berala - Carramar - Yagoona from the rest of Sydney! We need to keep
heavy rail on the Bankstown Line and restore trains to City via
Strathfield.

I support it

Thank-you for the opportunity to give feedback on the preferred project.
I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations.

Re: Submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and Preferred
Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback to the report. The
preferred project still falls short of community expectations in many
areas.
We wish to respond to a number of points the Sydenham to Bankstown
Preferred Infrastructure Report (PIR) presents and raise eight
concerns:
1.Residents of the Close Street Liveability Group are vehemently
opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham to Bankstown heavy rail line
to a metro. Our street is very close to the existing rail line so we
speak as residents directly impacted. It is a gross waste of public
money and does not address the need for better public transport. Metro
trains are designed for short distances with frequent stops; the
capacity argument is based on most people standing.

2.The justification for the project is far from adequate. For example:
it does nothing to convince the community of its need, especially in
the context of poor transparency regarding business cases, and
concerns relating to privatisation and property development. The
justifications have been contradicted by independent rail experts and
Sydney's Rail Future 2012 ("In the Sydney context an independent metro
system would deliver few benefits in terms of service enhancement,
capacity improvements or better operating efficiency on the existing
rail network". p24, Sydney's Rail Future 2012). Alternatives must be
addressed to improve the heavy rail network's capacity (such as
tunnelling options if the City Circle and Sydenham sites are
problematic, and improvements in signalling and timetabling, now).

3.More direct access will not occur. Stops at St Peters, Erskineville,
Redfern and City Circle will be lost. Commuters west of Bankstown will
be worse off with many facing longer commuting times and less direct
connections (Part B, Submissions Report p74 and 108). This is not an
acceptable outcome and is contrary to one of the major strategic
contexts - the "30 minute city" of the Greater Sydney Commission.

4.Why is a metro is needed for accessibility upgrades at stations?
(Part B, Submissions Report p29) Many heavy rail stations have had
such upgrades over time; there remains plenty of room for improvement
for accessibility in the existing network, such as improved acoustics
of announcements for the visually impaired. In addition, metro trains
will have significantly reduced seating capacity, which is
inappropriate for a 66km railway with an ageing population.

5.Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. People will need to catch
buses who would normally go to Canterbury Station, how will their
needs be accommodated? The gas leak in the city on 7th July 2018 due
to metro construction work is a concern; issues with cost blow-outs
and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not instil public
confidence. The predicted amount of operational noise criteria due to
increase in train speeds are significant concern. Close Street
apartments are adjacent the train line.

6.Our community group is concerned at the lack of care the report
presents to the voices of residents (Part B, Submissions Report
p36-39). The link to development has been made repeatedly but
downplayed in the report, with the exhibited project acting as a
"catalyst" for growth; the strategic context of the metro and its
relationship to Future Transport 2056 (which supports the concept of
property value-capture), the Greater Sydney Commission (seeking to
integrate land use and transport planning), and the Sydenham-Bankstown
Urban Renewal Strategy (widely condemned by communities for its
indiscriminate up-zoning plans; the invitations to stakeholders such
as the Australian Turf Club and the NSW Property Council and the
awarding of metro operations in northern Sydney to MTR Honk Kong with
its "rail plus property" business model). The project will promote
growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning process
and poor quality development without benefits such as affordability,
green space and amenity. An article on 10 July 2018: Don't give rail
giant MTR Corp property development rights at new stations, former
Hong King housing chief urges government in "South China Morning Post"
makes this very point.

7.The decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important (Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate. Canterbury Station is an
old station whose heritage must be preserved.

8.At no stage in the report is there a guarantee that there will not
be a franchising of the line to a private operator. This has not been
good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it in Sydney. In
particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage-rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor.

We look forward to a significantly changed plan for the corridor and
an alternative solution posed.

Sincerely

Jane Hunter and Laura Hart
For the Close Street Liveability Group
16 July 2018

PROJECT STAGING

The Sydenham to Bankstown metro would be a great infrastructure
project only if it achieves the stated objectives, minimises
disruption and minimises risk (timeline, budget). Based on current
performance of and approach to state transport projects there is
concern that this project will follow a similar path.

Take the example of the Light Rail project from George to Randwick /
Kingsford. Somehow the state allowed a tear up everything then build
the light rail infrastructure and utilities access without forethought
on how it would residents, travellers and businesses. It was a big
bang approach with big bang failures. As anyway can see on the light
rail route there are maximum disruptions, somewhat minimal work
leaving everyone exasperated. Why was not a staged approached taken?
That is, why was not one part of route finished before another part
started?

A staged approach should be the recommended approach for Sydenham to
Bankstown metro.

The main report (Submissions and Infrastructure Report Vol 1) does NOT
state a staged report. It does not even propose a timeline other than
1 to 2 years. It does highlight possible approaches at a high level
with no indication of preferential approach - staged or big bang.
However, the construction methodology as stated in Section 10.2 seems
to indicate a big bang approach - setup, teardown, build, test and
fix, and run - across the whole route. This approach will just
maximise disruption for all along the route and follow the same errors
as with the Light Rail project.

We just don't learn from previous project mishaps and how to improve.

The project planning team should consider the following:

> Two major stages - A. Sydenham to Campsie and then B. Campsie to
Bankstown. Or the opposite.
> Each stage comprises of setup, teardown, build, text and operate at
the end.
> Turnaround circuit or switchback of trains at Campsie station (or
Belmore Station).
> The other section of the route can continue operating with current
train infrastructure.

Each stage should take 1 year only to operational stage.

Priority should be on track infrastructure followed by station
infrastructure. Any stations that cannot finished on time can continue
its upgrade while operating that section.
The intent is to make operational the metro on this line as soon as
possible. It minimises disruption, minimises opportunity loss,
maximises revenue and maximises learning. It also reduces risk.

STATION LEVELLING

On another point related to station levelling the report does not
explain which stations need to be raised or lowered in height.
Especially of concern is raising of platform height whilst maintaining
heritage station buildings. In heavy rains it would be mean water
flowing back onto the station premises and with insufficient drainage
it would result in water pooling / flooding. Furthermore, increasing
the gradient from platform centre to platform edge would make it more
difficult for the embarkation of people utilising wheelchair aids. In
some cases the raising of the platform will introduce unintended
consequences down the track (no pun intended).

To overcome this possible risk the team should consider this following
option: Adjust the track height to reduce the amount of levelling work
at stations. This will require for trench work which should be easier
as well sturdier sleepers. It is easier to move earth than to
accommodate a sag curve for a 100 year old platform.

If the situation where the platform edge requires a decrease in height
to level it with the carriage then this should assist drainage as well
as all types of people (dis)embarking the carriage
.
DULWICH HILL STATION

The platform design of Dulwich Hill station is an issue. Currently the
platform accommodating westbound trains has a high curvature which
affects the distance of carriage door to platform. There is no mention
in the report on how this current issue will be resolved with the
proposed project. In fact the main report states that most station
infrastructure will stay the same. With the introduction of metro
train the carriages are supposed 2 to 3 metres longer than current
rolling stock. If that is the case then the current station will pose
a significant problem for passengers embarking and disembarking
irrespective of platform height.

Consideration should be given to move the station platform a few
metres closer to Hurlstone Park to where the land and line is
straighter. The station building and street entrance does not need to
move however the platform would be straighter to enable easier
embarkation / disembarkation.

PARK `N' TRAIN

The report mentions current car parking arrangements on certain
stations are planned to remain but there is no mention of enhancing or
increasing parking facilities. As you are aware the Bankstown line
corridor is planned to accommodate more residents on the line and in
the vicinity. Some will use their bicycle to get to the stations,
others public transport, and others will walk. There are people who
will need to use their cars to get to the station as part of their
trip to work or whatsoever other reason. Therefore, the project needs
to consider with Canterbury Bankstown City council the construction
and operation of one to two parking stations at key stations. Options
could be Canterbury and Lakemba or Campsie and Wiley Park. Wherever
these car park stations are located it should be part of the transport
integration strategy for the area and includes rail, bus (public and
community), interconnects, car, bicycle and paths. This is an
opportunity for the state government and local government authorities
to work together on a complete transport approach for the area.

Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
17 July 2018

I appreciate the opportunity to give feedback on the preferred
project.
I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. However detail is lacking about how much of this can be
achieved and I lack confidence that the contracted builder would agree
to some of the changes, especially in regard to station design. In
addition the changes do not convince me of the need for a metro
conversion and most of my previous concerns remain.
I am very dissatisfied for the short response time allowed. Many
residents, even those who attended information sessions, have not
realised that submissions can be made again. For those who do, the
time to digest and respond to the changes has been inadequate. I note
that Canterbury Bankstown Council has been able to secure a brief
extension. Even this has not been made available to community groups
or individual residents.
My submission follows:

The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:

1. The response to concerns about the justifications for the project
(Part B, Submissions Report p 14-15) does nothing to convince the
community of its need, especially in the context of poor transparency
regarding business cases, and political agendas relating to
privatisation and property development.. The justifications have been
contradicted by independent rail experts and Sydney's Rail Future 2012
("In the Sydney context an independent metro system would deliver few
benefits in terms of service enhancement, capacity improvements or
better operating efficiency on the existing rail network". P24,
Sydney's Rail Future 2012). Alternatives must be addressed to improve
the heavy rail network's capacity (such as tunnelling options if the
City Circle and Sydenham sites are problematic, and improvements in
signalling and timetabling, now). Metro trains are designed for short
distances with frequent stops; the capacity argument is based on most
people standing.
2. The response has failed to acknowledge community concerns about the
supposed benefits( Part B, Submissions Report p30-35):
-more direct access will not occur - the popular stops of St Peters,
Erskineville, Redfern and City Circle will be lost. Commuters west of
Bankstown will be worse off with many facing longer commuting times
and less direct connections. Despite the assurances of more rapid
transit to the city, members of my family and many others in the
community will be disadvantaged by lack of direct access to Redfern
and Circular Quay in particular.
-opal ticketing is not a benefit - we already have it.
- the response to submissions fails to explain why a metro is needed
for accessibility upgrades at stations (Part B, Submissions Report
p29); many heavy rail stations have had such upgrades over time; there
remains plenty of room for improvement for accessibility in the
existing network, such as improved acoustics of announcements for the
visually impaired. In addition, metro trains will have significantly
reduced seating capacity, which is inappropriate for a 66km railway
with an ageing population.
-the response addresses specific benefits for Hurlstone Park (Part B,
Submissions Report p 36) The preservation of our railway heritage is
welcome, but as mentioned earlier little detail is provided about how
this can be achieved, especially in regard to platform height and
gradient. The pressure for high-rise development triggered by a metro
would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. I am aware of the
major aim of the Sydney Metro Corporation to provide a profit to pay
for the cost of the conversion and its powers to acquire land in the
vicinity of stations. In addition the contracted company would be able
to value capture. Communities and their elected local government
representatives would have little say in the planning of the centres
of their suburbs.
An increased number of services must be seen in the context of this
government incrementally reducing the number of services to the suburb
since 2013 and metro trains having significantly fewer seats. The
claim of better connections to "key employment and service centres" is
arguable, as current popular stops will be lost.
3. The response to concerns about development is dismissive (Part B,
Submissions Report p36-39). The link to development has been made
repeatedly, with the exhibited project acting as a"catalyst" for
growth; the strategic context of the metro and its relationship to
Future Transport 2056 (which supports the concept of property
value-capture), the Greater Sydney Commission (seeking to integrate
land use and transport planning),and the Sydenham-Bankstown Urban
Renewal Strategy (widely condemned by communities for its
indiscriminate up-zoning plans; the invitations to Stakeholders such
as the Australian Turf Club and the NSW property Council and the
awarding of metro operations in northern Sydney to MTR Honk Kong with
its "rail plus property" business model. The project will promote
growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning process
and poor quality development without benefits such as affordability,
green space and amenity.
4. The response to some of the negative consequence of the metro has
been welcome:
-the decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important. Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate. At Hurlstone Park Station,
the use of traditional hand rails for the stairs would be welcome.
Hurlstone Park Station was recommended for state heritage listing in
2016. The community supports this and hopes that works for the metro
would not impede such a listing. In the report's Non-Aboriginal
Heritage Assessment , Appendix F, it is admitted that some "items or
fabric (are) proposed for removal and ....the historic character of
the line...would be altered by the contemporary metro". (p93). This is
of some concern and is another area requiring clarification.
-the decision to abandon the inappropriate design plans for station
precincts is also welcome. It is disappointing that community input
into station precinct and open space planning is given such a low
priority, especially in the context of multiple submissions critical
of the consultation process to date (Part B, Submissions Report p
51-53 and p 58-70). "Place-making" should begin with the people who
live in and know in the places.
The Hurlstone Park Association should be one of the stakeholders
consulted in the development of the "integrated urban and place making
outcome" for Hurlstone Park Station.

5. Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. The gas leak in the city on
7th July 2018 due to metro construction work is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instil public confidence. The predicted exceedences of operational
noise criteria due to increase in train speeds are a significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, where many residences back directly onto
the line, locals would welcome noise attenuation in the form of denser
vegetation or other heritage sympathetic attenuation measures.

6. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it here.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
garden suburbs in this corridor
7. The loss of the previously planned active green strip takes away
one of the few benefits of the project.
8. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used, and measuring
success by the number of encounters, does not address the lack of
engagement with, and failure to prioritise the input of, the
communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are opposed to
the project. In addition, the continued use of biased glossy brochures
lacking in detail, which have replaced transparency and meaning,
reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
9. I remain concerned about the loss of mature trees and tree canopy
during construction, for example around Lakemba, Wiley Park and
Punchbowl stations. There will be significant loss of vegetation from
council-owned land along the corridor. ( Appendix G 'landscape and
visual' section).

In summary, this project should not be approved because it lacks
bipartisan and community support, and is the product of process that
has lacked democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be :
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
17 July 2018

I appreciate the opportunity to give feedback on the preferred
project.
I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. However detail is lacking about how much of this can be
achieved and I lack confidence that the contracted builder would agree
to some of the changes, especially in regard to station design. In
addition the changes do not convince me of the need for a metro
conversion and most of my previous concerns remain.
I am very dissatisfied for the short response time allowed. Many
residents, even those who attended information sessions, have not
realised that submissions can be made again. For those who do, the
time to digest and respond to the changes has been inadequate. I note
that Canterbury Bankstown Council has been able to secure a brief
extension. Even this has not been made available to community groups
or individual residents.
My submission follows:

The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:

1. The response to concerns about the justifications for the project
(Part B, Submissions Report p 14-15) does nothing to convince the
community of its need, especially in the context of poor transparency
regarding business cases, and political agendas relating to
privatisation and property development.. The justifications have been
contradicted by independent rail experts and Sydney's Rail Future 2012
("In the Sydney context an independent metro system would deliver few
benefits in terms of service enhancement, capacity improvements or
better operating efficiency on the existing rail network". P24,
Sydney's Rail Future 2012). Alternatives must be addressed to improve
the heavy rail network's capacity (such as tunnelling options if the
City Circle and Sydenham sites are problematic, and improvements in
signalling and timetabling, now). Metro trains are designed for short
distances with frequent stops; the capacity argument is based on most
people standing.
2. The response has failed to acknowledge community concerns about the
supposed benefits( Part B, Submissions Report p30-35):
-more direct access will not occur - the popular stops of St Peters,
Erskineville, Redfern and City Circle will be lost. Commuters west of
Bankstown will be worse off with many facing longer commuting times
and less direct connections. Despite the assurances of more rapid
transit to the city, members of my family and many others in the
community will be disadvantaged by lack of direct access to Redfern
and Circular Quay in particular.
-opal ticketing is not a benefit - we already have it.
- the response to submissions fails to explain why a metro is needed
for accessibility upgrades at stations (Part B, Submissions Report
p29); many heavy rail stations have had such upgrades over time; there
remains plenty of room for improvement for accessibility in the
existing network, such as improved acoustics of announcements for the
visually impaired. In addition, metro trains will have significantly
reduced seating capacity, which is inappropriate for a 66km railway
with an ageing population.
-the response addresses specific benefits for Hurlstone Park (Part B,
Submissions Report p 36) The preservation of our railway heritage is
welcome, but as mentioned earlier little detail is provided about how
this can be achieved, especially in regard to platform height and
gradient. The pressure for high-rise development triggered by a metro
would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. I am aware of the
major aim of the Sydney Metro Corporation to provide a profit to pay
for the cost of the conversion and its powers to acquire land in the
vicinity of stations. In addition the contracted company would be able
to value capture. Communities and their elected local government
representatives would have little say in the planning of the centres
of their suburbs.
An increased number of services must be seen in the context of this
government incrementally reducing the number of services to the suburb
since 2013 and metro trains having significantly fewer seats. The
claim of better connections to "key employment and service centres" is
arguable, as current popular stops will be lost.
3. The response to concerns about development is dismissive (Part B,
Submissions Report p36-39). The link to development has been made
repeatedly, with the exhibited project acting as a"catalyst" for
growth; the strategic context of the metro and its relationship to
Future Transport 2056 (which supports the concept of property
value-capture), the Greater Sydney Commission (seeking to integrate
land use and transport planning),and the Sydenham-Bankstown Urban
Renewal Strategy (widely condemned by communities for its
indiscriminate up-zoning plans; the invitations to Stakeholders such
as the Australian Turf Club and the NSW property Council and the
awarding of metro operations in northern Sydney to MTR Honk Kong with
its "rail plus property" business model. The project will promote
growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning process
and poor quality development without benefits such as affordability,
green space and amenity.
4. The response to some of the negative consequence of the metro has
been welcome:
-the decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important. Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate. At Hurlstone Park Station,
the use of traditional hand rails for the stairs would be welcome.
Hurlstone Park Station was recommended for state heritage listing in
2016. The community supports this and hopes that works for the metro
would not impede such a listing. In the report's Non-Aboriginal
Heritage Assessment , Appendix F, it is admitted that some "items or
fabric (are) proposed for removal and ....the historic character of
the line...would be altered by the contemporary metro". (p93). This is
of some concern and is another area requiring clarification.
-the decision to abandon the inappropriate design plans for station
precincts is also welcome. It is disappointing that community input
into station precinct and open space planning is given such a low
priority, especially in the context of multiple submissions critical
of the consultation process to date (Part B, Submissions Report p
51-53 and p 58-70). "Place-making" should begin with the people who
live in and know in the places.
The Hurlstone Park Association should be one of the stakeholders
consulted in the development of the "integrated urban and place making
outcome" for Hurlstone Park Station.

5. Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. The gas leak in the city on
7th July 2018 due to metro construction work is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instil public confidence. The predicted exceedences of operational
noise criteria due to increase in train speeds are a significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, where many residences back directly onto
the line, locals would welcome noise attenuation in the form of denser
vegetation or other heritage sympathetic attenuation measures.

6. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it here.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
garden suburbs in this corridor
7. The loss of the previously planned active green strip takes away
one of the few benefits of the project.
8. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used, and measuring
success by the number of encounters, does not address the lack of
engagement with, and failure to prioritise the input of, the
communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are opposed to
the project. In addition, the continued use of biased glossy brochures
lacking in detail, which have replaced transparency and meaning,
reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
9. I remain concerned about the loss of mature trees and tree canopy
during construction, for example around Lakemba, Wiley Park and
Punchbowl stations. There will be significant loss of vegetation from
council-owned land along the corridor. ( Appendix G 'landscape and
visual' section).

In summary, this project should not be approved because it lacks
bipartisan and community support, and is the product of process that
has lacked democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be :
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
17 July 2018

I appreciate the opportunity to give feedback on the preferred
project.
I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. However detail is lacking about how much of this can be
achieved and I lack confidence that the contracted builder would agree
to some of the changes, especially in regard to station design. In
addition the changes do not convince me of the need for a metro
conversion and most of my previous concerns remain.
I am very dissatisfied for the short response time allowed. Many
residents, even those who attended information sessions, have not
realised that submissions can be made again. For those who do, the
time to digest and respond to the changes has been inadequate. I note
that Canterbury Bankstown Council has been able to secure a brief
extension. Even this has not been made available to community groups
or individual residents.
My submission follows:

The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:

1. The response to concerns about the justifications for the project
(Part B, Submissions Report p 14-15) does nothing to convince the
community of its need, especially in the context of poor transparency
regarding business cases, and political agendas relating to
privatisation and property development.. The justifications have been
contradicted by independent rail experts and Sydney's Rail Future 2012
("In the Sydney context an independent metro system would deliver few
benefits in terms of service enhancement, capacity improvements or
better operating efficiency on the existing rail network". P24,
Sydney's Rail Future 2012). Alternatives must be addressed to improve
the heavy rail network's capacity (such as tunnelling options if the
City Circle and Sydenham sites are problematic, and improvements in
signalling and timetabling, now). Metro trains are designed for short
distances with frequent stops; the capacity argument is based on most
people standing.
2. The response has failed to acknowledge community concerns about the
supposed benefits( Part B, Submissions Report p30-35):
-more direct access will not occur - the popular stops of St Peters,
Erskineville, Redfern and City Circle will be lost. Commuters west of
Bankstown will be worse off with many facing longer commuting times
and less direct connections. Despite the assurances of more rapid
transit to the city, members of my family and many others in the
community will be disadvantaged by lack of direct access to Redfern
and Circular Quay in particular.
-opal ticketing is not a benefit - we already have it.
- the response to submissions fails to explain why a metro is needed
for accessibility upgrades at stations (Part B, Submissions Report
p29); many heavy rail stations have had such upgrades over time; there
remains plenty of room for improvement for accessibility in the
existing network, such as improved acoustics of announcements for the
visually impaired. In addition, metro trains will have significantly
reduced seating capacity, which is inappropriate for a 66km railway
with an ageing population.
-the response addresses specific benefits for Hurlstone Park (Part B,
Submissions Report p 36) The preservation of our railway heritage is
welcome, but as mentioned earlier little detail is provided about how
this can be achieved, especially in regard to platform height and
gradient. The pressure for high-rise development triggered by a metro
would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. I am aware of the
major aim of the Sydney Metro Corporation to provide a profit to pay
for the cost of the conversion and its powers to acquire land in the
vicinity of stations. In addition the contracted company would be able
to value capture. Communities and their elected local government
representatives would have little say in the planning of the centres
of their suburbs.
An increased number of services must be seen in the context of this
government incrementally reducing the number of services to the suburb
since 2013 and metro trains having significantly fewer seats. The
claim of better connections to "key employment and service centres" is
arguable, as current popular stops will be lost.
3. The response to concerns about development is dismissive (Part B,
Submissions Report p36-39). The link to development has been made
repeatedly, with the exhibited project acting as a"catalyst" for
growth; the strategic context of the metro and its relationship to
Future Transport 2056 (which supports the concept of property
value-capture), the Greater Sydney Commission (seeking to integrate
land use and transport planning),and the Sydenham-Bankstown Urban
Renewal Strategy (widely condemned by communities for its
indiscriminate up-zoning plans; the invitations to Stakeholders such
as the Australian Turf Club and the NSW property Council and the
awarding of metro operations in northern Sydney to MTR Honk Kong with
its "rail plus property" business model. The project will promote
growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning process
and poor quality development without benefits such as affordability,
green space and amenity.
4. The response to some of the negative consequence of the metro has
been welcome:
-the decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important. Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate. At Hurlstone Park Station,
the use of traditional hand rails for the stairs would be welcome.
Hurlstone Park Station was recommended for state heritage listing in
2016. The community supports this and hopes that works for the metro
would not impede such a listing. In the report's Non-Aboriginal
Heritage Assessment , Appendix F, it is admitted that some "items or
fabric (are) proposed for removal and ....the historic character of
the line...would be altered by the contemporary metro". (p93). This is
of some concern and is another area requiring clarification.
-the decision to abandon the inappropriate design plans for station
precincts is also welcome. It is disappointing that community input
into station precinct and open space planning is given such a low
priority, especially in the context of multiple submissions critical
of the consultation process to date (Part B, Submissions Report p
51-53 and p 58-70). "Place-making" should begin with the people who
live in and know in the places.
The Hurlstone Park Association should be one of the stakeholders
consulted in the development of the "integrated urban and place making
outcome" for Hurlstone Park Station.

5. Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. The gas leak in the city on
7th July 2018 due to metro construction work is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instil public confidence. The predicted exceedences of operational
noise criteria due to increase in train speeds are a significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, where many residences back directly onto
the line, locals would welcome noise attenuation in the form of denser
vegetation or other heritage sympathetic attenuation measures.

6. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it here.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
garden suburbs in this corridor
7. The loss of the previously planned active green strip takes away
one of the few benefits of the project.
8. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used, and measuring
success by the number of encounters, does not address the lack of
engagement with, and failure to prioritise the input of, the
communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are opposed to
the project. In addition, the continued use of biased glossy brochures
lacking in detail, which have replaced transparency and meaning,
reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
9. I remain concerned about the loss of mature trees and tree canopy
during construction, for example around Lakemba, Wiley Park and
Punchbowl stations. There will be significant loss of vegetation from
council-owned land along the corridor. ( Appendix G 'landscape and
visual' section).

In summary, this project should not be approved because it lacks
bipartisan and community support, and is the product of process that
has lacked democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be :
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
17 July 2018

I appreciate the opportunity to give feedback on the preferred
project.
I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. However detail is lacking about how much of this can be
achieved and I lack confidence that the contracted builder would agree
to some of the changes, especially in regard to station design. In
addition the changes do not convince me of the need for a metro
conversion and most of my previous concerns remain.
I am very dissatisfied for the short response time allowed. Many
residents, even those who attended information sessions, have not
realised that submissions can be made again. For those who do, the
time to digest and respond to the changes has been inadequate. I note
that Canterbury Bankstown Council has been able to secure a brief
extension. Even this has not been made available to community groups
or individual residents.
My submission follows:

The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:

1. The response to concerns about the justifications for the project
(Part B, Submissions Report p 14-15) does nothing to convince the
community of its need, especially in the context of poor transparency
regarding business cases, and political agendas relating to
privatisation and property development.. The justifications have been
contradicted by independent rail experts and Sydney's Rail Future 2012
("In the Sydney context an independent metro system would deliver few
benefits in terms of service enhancement, capacity improvements or
better operating efficiency on the existing rail network". P24,
Sydney's Rail Future 2012). Alternatives must be addressed to improve
the heavy rail network's capacity (such as tunnelling options if the
City Circle and Sydenham sites are problematic, and improvements in
signalling and timetabling, now). Metro trains are designed for short
distances with frequent stops; the capacity argument is based on most
people standing.
2. The response has failed to acknowledge community concerns about the
supposed benefits( Part B, Submissions Report p30-35):
-more direct access will not occur - the popular stops of St Peters,
Erskineville, Redfern and City Circle will be lost. Commuters west of
Bankstown will be worse off with many facing longer commuting times
and less direct connections. Despite the assurances of more rapid
transit to the city, members of my family and many others in the
community will be disadvantaged by lack of direct access to Redfern
and Circular Quay in particular.
-opal ticketing is not a benefit - we already have it.
- the response to submissions fails to explain why a metro is needed
for accessibility upgrades at stations (Part B, Submissions Report
p29); many heavy rail stations have had such upgrades over time; there
remains plenty of room for improvement for accessibility in the
existing network, such as improved acoustics of announcements for the
visually impaired. In addition, metro trains will have significantly
reduced seating capacity, which is inappropriate for a 66km railway
with an ageing population.
-the response addresses specific benefits for Hurlstone Park (Part B,
Submissions Report p 36) The preservation of our railway heritage is
welcome, but as mentioned earlier little detail is provided about how
this can be achieved, especially in regard to platform height and
gradient. The pressure for high-rise development triggered by a metro
would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. I am aware of the
major aim of the Sydney Metro Corporation to provide a profit to pay
for the cost of the conversion and its powers to acquire land in the
vicinity of stations. In addition the contracted company would be able
to value capture. Communities and their elected local government
representatives would have little say in the planning of the centres
of their suburbs.
An increased number of services must be seen in the context of this
government incrementally reducing the number of services to the suburb
since 2013 and metro trains having significantly fewer seats. The
claim of better connections to "key employment and service centres" is
arguable, as current popular stops will be lost.
3. The response to concerns about development is dismissive (Part B,
Submissions Report p36-39). The link to development has been made
repeatedly, with the exhibited project acting as a"catalyst" for
growth; the strategic context of the metro and its relationship to
Future Transport 2056 (which supports the concept of property
value-capture), the Greater Sydney Commission (seeking to integrate
land use and transport planning),and the Sydenham-Bankstown Urban
Renewal Strategy (widely condemned by communities for its
indiscriminate up-zoning plans; the invitations to Stakeholders such
as the Australian Turf Club and the NSW property Council and the
awarding of metro operations in northern Sydney to MTR Honk Kong with
its "rail plus property" business model. The project will promote
growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning process
and poor quality development without benefits such as affordability,
green space and amenity.
4. The response to some of the negative consequence of the metro has
been welcome:
-the decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important. Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate. At Hurlstone Park Station,
the use of traditional hand rails for the stairs would be welcome.
Hurlstone Park Station was recommended for state heritage listing in
2016. The community supports this and hopes that works for the metro
would not impede such a listing. In the report's Non-Aboriginal
Heritage Assessment , Appendix F, it is admitted that some "items or
fabric (are) proposed for removal and ....the historic character of
the line...would be altered by the contemporary metro". (p93). This is
of some concern and is another area requiring clarification.
-the decision to abandon the inappropriate design plans for station
precincts is also welcome. It is disappointing that community input
into station precinct and open space planning is given such a low
priority, especially in the context of multiple submissions critical
of the consultation process to date (Part B, Submissions Report p
51-53 and p 58-70). "Place-making" should begin with the people who
live in and know in the places.
The Hurlstone Park Association should be one of the stakeholders
consulted in the development of the "integrated urban and place making
outcome" for Hurlstone Park Station.

5. Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. The gas leak in the city on
7th July 2018 due to metro construction work is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instil public confidence. The predicted exceedences of operational
noise criteria due to increase in train speeds are a significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, where many residences back directly onto
the line, locals would welcome noise attenuation in the form of denser
vegetation or other heritage sympathetic attenuation measures.

6. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it here.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
garden suburbs in this corridor
7. The loss of the previously planned active green strip takes away
one of the few benefits of the project.
8. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used, and measuring
success by the number of encounters, does not address the lack of
engagement with, and failure to prioritise the input of, the
communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are opposed to
the project. In addition, the continued use of biased glossy brochures
lacking in detail, which have replaced transparency and meaning,
reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
9. I remain concerned about the loss of mature trees and tree canopy
during construction, for example around Lakemba, Wiley Park and
Punchbowl stations. There will be significant loss of vegetation from
council-owned land along the corridor. ( Appendix G 'landscape and
visual' section).

In summary, this project should not be approved because it lacks
bipartisan and community support, and is the product of process that
has lacked democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be :
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
17 July 2018

I appreciate the opportunity to give feedback on the preferred
project.
I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. However detail is lacking about how much of this can be
achieved and I lack confidence that the contracted builder would agree
to some of the changes, especially in regard to station design. In
addition the changes do not convince me of the need for a metro
conversion and most of my previous concerns remain.
I am very dissatisfied for the short response time allowed. Many
residents, even those who attended information sessions, have not
realised that submissions can be made again. For those who do, the
time to digest and respond to the changes has been inadequate. I note
that Canterbury Bankstown Council has been able to secure a brief
extension. Even this has not been made available to community groups
or individual residents.
My submission follows:

The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:

1. The response to concerns about the justifications for the project
(Part B, Submissions Report p 14-15) does nothing to convince the
community of its need, especially in the context of poor transparency
regarding business cases, and political agendas relating to
privatisation and property development.. The justifications have been
contradicted by independent rail experts and Sydney's Rail Future 2012
("In the Sydney context an independent metro system would deliver few
benefits in terms of service enhancement, capacity improvements or
better operating efficiency on the existing rail network". P24,
Sydney's Rail Future 2012). Alternatives must be addressed to improve
the heavy rail network's capacity (such as tunnelling options if the
City Circle and Sydenham sites are problematic, and improvements in
signalling and timetabling, now). Metro trains are designed for short
distances with frequent stops; the capacity argument is based on most
people standing.
2. The response has failed to acknowledge community concerns about the
supposed benefits( Part B, Submissions Report p30-35):
-more direct access will not occur - the popular stops of St Peters,
Erskineville, Redfern and City Circle will be lost. Commuters west of
Bankstown will be worse off with many facing longer commuting times
and less direct connections. Despite the assurances of more rapid
transit to the city, members of my family and many others in the
community will be disadvantaged by lack of direct access to Redfern
and Circular Quay in particular.
-opal ticketing is not a benefit - we already have it.
- the response to submissions fails to explain why a metro is needed
for accessibility upgrades at stations (Part B, Submissions Report
p29); many heavy rail stations have had such upgrades over time; there
remains plenty of room for improvement for accessibility in the
existing network, such as improved acoustics of announcements for the
visually impaired. In addition, metro trains will have significantly
reduced seating capacity, which is inappropriate for a 66km railway
with an ageing population.
-the response addresses specific benefits for Hurlstone Park (Part B,
Submissions Report p 36) The preservation of our railway heritage is
welcome, but as mentioned earlier little detail is provided about how
this can be achieved, especially in regard to platform height and
gradient. The pressure for high-rise development triggered by a metro
would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. I am aware of the
major aim of the Sydney Metro Corporation to provide a profit to pay
for the cost of the conversion and its powers to acquire land in the
vicinity of stations. In addition the contracted company would be able
to value capture. Communities and their elected local government
representatives would have little say in the planning of the centres
of their suburbs.
An increased number of services must be seen in the context of this
government incrementally reducing the number of services to the suburb
since 2013 and metro trains having significantly fewer seats. The
claim of better connections to "key employment and service centres" is
arguable, as current popular stops will be lost.
3. The response to concerns about development is dismissive (Part B,
Submissions Report p36-39). The link to development has been made
repeatedly, with the exhibited project acting as a"catalyst" for
growth; the strategic context of the metro and its relationship to
Future Transport 2056 (which supports the concept of property
value-capture), the Greater Sydney Commission (seeking to integrate
land use and transport planning),and the Sydenham-Bankstown Urban
Renewal Strategy (widely condemned by communities for its
indiscriminate up-zoning plans; the invitations to Stakeholders such
as the Australian Turf Club and the NSW property Council and the
awarding of metro operations in northern Sydney to MTR Honk Kong with
its "rail plus property" business model. The project will promote
growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning process
and poor quality development without benefits such as affordability,
green space and amenity.
4. The response to some of the negative consequence of the metro has
been welcome:
-the decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important. Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate. At Hurlstone Park Station,
the use of traditional hand rails for the stairs would be welcome.
Hurlstone Park Station was recommended for state heritage listing in
2016. The community supports this and hopes that works for the metro
would not impede such a listing. In the report's Non-Aboriginal
Heritage Assessment , Appendix F, it is admitted that some "items or
fabric (are) proposed for removal and ....the historic character of
the line...would be altered by the contemporary metro". (p93). This is
of some concern and is another area requiring clarification.
-the decision to abandon the inappropriate design plans for station
precincts is also welcome. It is disappointing that community input
into station precinct and open space planning is given such a low
priority, especially in the context of multiple submissions critical
of the consultation process to date (Part B, Submissions Report p
51-53 and p 58-70). "Place-making" should begin with the people who
live in and know in the places.
The Hurlstone Park Association should be one of the stakeholders
consulted in the development of the "integrated urban and place making
outcome" for Hurlstone Park Station.

5. Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. The gas leak in the city on
7th July 2018 due to metro construction work is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instil public confidence. The predicted exceedences of operational
noise criteria due to increase in train speeds are a significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, where many residences back directly onto
the line, locals would welcome noise attenuation in the form of denser
vegetation or other heritage sympathetic attenuation measures.

6. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it here.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
garden suburbs in this corridor
7. The loss of the previously planned active green strip takes away
one of the few benefits of the project.
8. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used, and measuring
success by the number of encounters, does not address the lack of
engagement with, and failure to prioritise the input of, the
communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are opposed to
the project. In addition, the continued use of biased glossy brochures
lacking in detail, which have replaced transparency and meaning,
reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
9. I remain concerned about the loss of mature trees and tree canopy
during construction, for example around Lakemba, Wiley Park and
Punchbowl stations. There will be significant loss of vegetation from
council-owned land along the corridor. ( Appendix G 'landscape and
visual' section).

In summary, this project should not be approved because it lacks
bipartisan and community support, and is the product of process that
has lacked democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be :
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
17 July 2018

I appreciate the opportunity to give feedback on the preferred
project.
I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. However detail is lacking about how much of this can be
achieved and I lack confidence that the contracted builder would agree
to some of the changes, especially in regard to station design. In
addition the changes do not convince me of the need for a metro
conversion and most of my previous concerns remain.
I am very dissatisfied for the short response time allowed. Many
residents, even those who attended information sessions, have not
realised that submissions can be made again. For those who do, the
time to digest and respond to the changes has been inadequate. I note
that Canterbury Bankstown Council has been able to secure a brief
extension. Even this has not been made available to community groups
or individual residents.
My submission follows:

The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:

1. The response to concerns about the justifications for the project
(Part B, Submissions Report p 14-15) does nothing to convince the
community of its need, especially in the context of poor transparency
regarding business cases, and political agendas relating to
privatisation and property development.. The justifications have been
contradicted by independent rail experts and Sydney's Rail Future 2012
("In the Sydney context an independent metro system would deliver few
benefits in terms of service enhancement, capacity improvements or
better operating efficiency on the existing rail network". P24,
Sydney's Rail Future 2012). Alternatives must be addressed to improve
the heavy rail network's capacity (such as tunnelling options if the
City Circle and Sydenham sites are problematic, and improvements in
signalling and timetabling, now). Metro trains are designed for short
distances with frequent stops; the capacity argument is based on most
people standing.
2. The response has failed to acknowledge community concerns about the
supposed benefits( Part B, Submissions Report p30-35):
-more direct access will not occur - the popular stops of St Peters,
Erskineville, Redfern and City Circle will be lost. Commuters west of
Bankstown will be worse off with many facing longer commuting times
and less direct connections. Despite the assurances of more rapid
transit to the city, members of my family and many others in the
community will be disadvantaged by lack of direct access to Redfern
and Circular Quay in particular.
-opal ticketing is not a benefit - we already have it.
- the response to submissions fails to explain why a metro is needed
for accessibility upgrades at stations (Part B, Submissions Report
p29); many heavy rail stations have had such upgrades over time; there
remains plenty of room for improvement for accessibility in the
existing network, such as improved acoustics of announcements for the
visually impaired. In addition, metro trains will have significantly
reduced seating capacity, which is inappropriate for a 66km railway
with an ageing population.
-the response addresses specific benefits for Hurlstone Park (Part B,
Submissions Report p 36) The preservation of our railway heritage is
welcome, but as mentioned earlier little detail is provided about how
this can be achieved, especially in regard to platform height and
gradient. The pressure for high-rise development triggered by a metro
would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. I am aware of the
major aim of the Sydney Metro Corporation to provide a profit to pay
for the cost of the conversion and its powers to acquire land in the
vicinity of stations. In addition the contracted company would be able
to value capture. Communities and their elected local government
representatives would have little say in the planning of the centres
of their suburbs.
An increased number of services must be seen in the context of this
government incrementally reducing the number of services to the suburb
since 2013 and metro trains having significantly fewer seats. The
claim of better connections to "key employment and service centres" is
arguable, as current popular stops will be lost.
3. The response to concerns about development is dismissive (Part B,
Submissions Report p36-39). The link to development has been made
repeatedly, with the exhibited project acting as a"catalyst" for
growth; the strategic context of the metro and its relationship to
Future Transport 2056 (which supports the concept of property
value-capture), the Greater Sydney Commission (seeking to integrate
land use and transport planning),and the Sydenham-Bankstown Urban
Renewal Strategy (widely condemned by communities for its
indiscriminate up-zoning plans; the invitations to Stakeholders such
as the Australian Turf Club and the NSW property Council and the
awarding of metro operations in northern Sydney to MTR Honk Kong with
its "rail plus property" business model. The project will promote
growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning process
and poor quality development without benefits such as affordability,
green space and amenity.
4. The response to some of the negative consequence of the metro has
been welcome:
-the decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important. Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate. At Hurlstone Park Station,
the use of traditional hand rails for the stairs would be welcome.
Hurlstone Park Station was recommended for state heritage listing in
2016. The community supports this and hopes that works for the metro
would not impede such a listing. In the report's Non-Aboriginal
Heritage Assessment , Appendix F, it is admitted that some "items or
fabric (are) proposed for removal and ....the historic character of
the line...would be altered by the contemporary metro". (p93). This is
of some concern and is another area requiring clarification.
-the decision to abandon the inappropriate design plans for station
precincts is also welcome. It is disappointing that community input
into station precinct and open space planning is given such a low
priority, especially in the context of multiple submissions critical
of the consultation process to date (Part B, Submissions Report p
51-53 and p 58-70). "Place-making" should begin with the people who
live in and know in the places.
The Hurlstone Park Association should be one of the stakeholders
consulted in the development of the "integrated urban and place making
outcome" for Hurlstone Park Station.

5. Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. The gas leak in the city on
7th July 2018 due to metro construction work is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instil public confidence. The predicted exceedences of operational
noise criteria due to increase in train speeds are a significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, where many residences back directly onto
the line, locals would welcome noise attenuation in the form of denser
vegetation or other heritage sympathetic attenuation measures.

6. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it here.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
garden suburbs in this corridor
7. The loss of the previously planned active green strip takes away
one of the few benefits of the project.
8. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used, and measuring
success by the number of encounters, does not address the lack of
engagement with, and failure to prioritise the input of, the
communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are opposed to
the project. In addition, the continued use of biased glossy brochures
lacking in detail, which have replaced transparency and meaning,
reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
9. I remain concerned about the loss of mature trees and tree canopy
during construction, for example around Lakemba, Wiley Park and
Punchbowl stations. There will be significant loss of vegetation from
council-owned land along the corridor. ( Appendix G 'landscape and
visual' section).

In summary, this project should not be approved because it lacks
bipartisan and community support, and is the product of process that
has lacked democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be :
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
17 July 2018

I appreciate the opportunity to give feedback on the preferred
project.
I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. However detail is lacking about how much of this can be
achieved and I lack confidence that the contracted builder would agree
to some of the changes, especially in regard to station design. In
addition the changes do not convince me of the need for a metro
conversion and most of my previous concerns remain.
I am very dissatisfied for the short response time allowed. Many
residents, even those who attended information sessions, have not
realised that submissions can be made again. For those who do, the
time to digest and respond to the changes has been inadequate. I note
that Canterbury Bankstown Council has been able to secure a brief
extension. Even this has not been made available to community groups
or individual residents.
My submission follows:

The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:

1. The response to concerns about the justifications for the project
(Part B, Submissions Report p 14-15) does nothing to convince the
community of its need, especially in the context of poor transparency
regarding business cases, and political agendas relating to
privatisation and property development.. The justifications have been
contradicted by independent rail experts and Sydney's Rail Future 2012
("In the Sydney context an independent metro system would deliver few
benefits in terms of service enhancement, capacity improvements or
better operating efficiency on the existing rail network". P24,
Sydney's Rail Future 2012). Alternatives must be addressed to improve
the heavy rail network's capacity (such as tunnelling options if the
City Circle and Sydenham sites are problematic, and improvements in
signalling and timetabling, now). Metro trains are designed for short
distances with frequent stops; the capacity argument is based on most
people standing.
2. The response has failed to acknowledge community concerns about the
supposed benefits( Part B, Submissions Report p30-35):
-more direct access will not occur - the popular stops of St Peters,
Erskineville, Redfern and City Circle will be lost. Commuters west of
Bankstown will be worse off with many facing longer commuting times
and less direct connections. Despite the assurances of more rapid
transit to the city, members of my family and many others in the
community will be disadvantaged by lack of direct access to Redfern
and Circular Quay in particular.
-opal ticketing is not a benefit - we already have it.
- the response to submissions fails to explain why a metro is needed
for accessibility upgrades at stations (Part B, Submissions Report
p29); many heavy rail stations have had such upgrades over time; there
remains plenty of room for improvement for accessibility in the
existing network, such as improved acoustics of announcements for the
visually impaired. In addition, metro trains will have significantly
reduced seating capacity, which is inappropriate for a 66km railway
with an ageing population.
-the response addresses specific benefits for Hurlstone Park (Part B,
Submissions Report p 36) The preservation of our railway heritage is
welcome, but as mentioned earlier little detail is provided about how
this can be achieved, especially in regard to platform height and
gradient. The pressure for high-rise development triggered by a metro
would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. I am aware of the
major aim of the Sydney Metro Corporation to provide a profit to pay
for the cost of the conversion and its powers to acquire land in the
vicinity of stations. In addition the contracted company would be able
to value capture. Communities and their elected local government
representatives would have little say in the planning of the centres
of their suburbs.
An increased number of services must be seen in the context of this
government incrementally reducing the number of services to the suburb
since 2013 and metro trains having significantly fewer seats. The
claim of better connections to "key employment and service centres" is
arguable, as current popular stops will be lost.
3. The response to concerns about development is dismissive (Part B,
Submissions Report p36-39). The link to development has been made
repeatedly, with the exhibited project acting as a"catalyst" for
growth; the strategic context of the metro and its relationship to
Future Transport 2056 (which supports the concept of property
value-capture), the Greater Sydney Commission (seeking to integrate
land use and transport planning),and the Sydenham-Bankstown Urban
Renewal Strategy (widely condemned by communities for its
indiscriminate up-zoning plans; the invitations to Stakeholders such
as the Australian Turf Club and the NSW property Council and the
awarding of metro operations in northern Sydney to MTR Honk Kong with
its "rail plus property" business model. The project will promote
growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning process
and poor quality development without benefits such as affordability,
green space and amenity.
4. The response to some of the negative consequence of the metro has
been welcome:
-the decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important. Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate. At Hurlstone Park Station,
the use of traditional hand rails for the stairs would be welcome.
Hurlstone Park Station was recommended for state heritage listing in
2016. The community supports this and hopes that works for the metro
would not impede such a listing. In the report's Non-Aboriginal
Heritage Assessment , Appendix F, it is admitted that some "items or
fabric (are) proposed for removal and ....the historic character of
the line...would be altered by the contemporary metro". (p93). This is
of some concern and is another area requiring clarification.
-the decision to abandon the inappropriate design plans for station
precincts is also welcome. It is disappointing that community input
into station precinct and open space planning is given such a low
priority, especially in the context of multiple submissions critical
of the consultation process to date (Part B, Submissions Report p
51-53 and p 58-70). "Place-making" should begin with the people who
live in and know in the places.
The Hurlstone Park Association should be one of the stakeholders
consulted in the development of the "integrated urban and place making
outcome" for Hurlstone Park Station.

5. Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. The gas leak in the city on
7th July 2018 due to metro construction work is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instil public confidence. The predicted exceedences of operational
noise criteria due to increase in train speeds are a significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, where many residences back directly onto
the line, locals would welcome noise attenuation in the form of denser
vegetation or other heritage sympathetic attenuation measures.

6. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it here.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
garden suburbs in this corridor
7. The loss of the previously planned active green strip takes away
one of the few benefits of the project.
8. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used, and measuring
success by the number of encounters, does not address the lack of
engagement with, and failure to prioritise the input of, the
communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are opposed to
the project. In addition, the continued use of biased glossy brochures
lacking in detail, which have replaced transparency and meaning,
reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
9. I remain concerned about the loss of mature trees and tree canopy
during construction, for example around Lakemba, Wiley Park and
Punchbowl stations. There will be significant loss of vegetation from
council-owned land along the corridor. ( Appendix G 'landscape and
visual' section).

In summary, this project should not be approved because it lacks
bipartisan and community support,+

While the Metro Preferred Infrastructure Report (PIR) is a scaled back
version of the originally exhibited project is a great improvement
however there are still some concerns regarding construction and
operation of the Metro.
Specific concerns are as follows:

1. Hurlstone Park west of the station on Duntroon Street, parking loss
for "kerbside facilities" and an accessible parking spot.
We already have 3 accessible parking spots in Hurlstone Park. As we
are a particularly small suburb, we really do not require additional
accessible parking spots. In any case, accessible parking spots should
be outside commercially zoned/business premises to help the less
mobile, not outside properties which are residential in zoning. . All
properties along Duntroon Street (where kerbside facilities are
indicated in your most recent publication) are residential (including
the converted shop front adjacent to the station) and do not have off
street parking - it is highly inappropriate to take away parking from
residents.

2. Noise during construction and operation of the Metro.
No details of noise mitigation measures have been detailed. There are
numerous residences in very close proximity to the railway stations
and railway lines that will experience excessive levels of noise
during construction and operation of the Metro. Many of these
buildings are circa early 1900s and do not have double glazed windows,
and the level of noise will be unbearable, particularly during the
evening hours. More detail with respect to measures that will be taken
to minimize noise and disruption to these homes needs to be made
available.
There is no information regarding the noise that will emanate from the
metro trains themselves once in operation or the security doors,
intruder detection systems etc that will no doubt keep residents up at
night.

3. Damage to buildings due to vibration.
There are concerns regarding damage to properties due to vibration
impacts. Most of the buildings in Hurlstone Park around the railway
station were built in the early 1900s and there is some concern
regarding possible damage from vibrations. Again, mitigation measures
need to be detailed prior any commencement of work

4. Dust/air pollution during construction.
What measures will be taken to protect the community from excessive
dust from construction and the pollution caused by diesel machinery?
There are also concerns of possible asbestos from brake dust being
disturbed and posing a risk to the community.

5. Length of construction.
Unfortunately this government does not have a great track record of
delivering infrastructure projects on time. There are concerns the
estimated 53 week close down of the line will extend far beyond this
anticipated time and go over budget (George Street light rail
project).

6. Privatisation and new Metro Bill.
We are vehemently opposed to the metro being passed on to private
operators. Refer to Melbourne and Newcastle as prime examples of why
privatisiation is not in the public interest. Additionally, the new
Metro bill gives the Metro the powers of compulsory acquisition and
therefore development of high rise towers surrounding the stations.
The Hong-Kong model of development is extremely inappropriate for many
of the heritage rich garden suburbs in the corridor. Decisions
regarding any developments should be left to residents living in these
communities and not be left to the greed of private corporations. We
still live in a democracy, correct?

7. Reduced seating on Metro trains.
It is highly inappropriate to reduce seating from 896 on our current
trains to 378 on the metro trains. You cannot expect people to stand
from Bankstown to the city. While the argument is that the metro
trains have the ability to run every 4 minutes, they carry less
passengers than the current Waratah trains, so in reality there is no
true increase to capacity (particularly in peak hour) when compared to
what could be readily achieved with improved timetables and signaling
to our current heavy rail and Waratah trains.

8. Justification for the project.
Justification for this project has not been convincing and has been
contradicted by many independent rail experts. Former Rail Corp and
State Rail Executives Ron Christie, Dick Day, Bob O'Loughlin and John
Brew wrote to the government in 2015 to advise that the conversion of
the rail line to the metro would remove "the relief valve for the
network and would result in the network having no escape route". They
also stated that "replacing one rail system with another when there is
so much to be done is wasteful of resources" and "Metro expansion
should supplement heavy rail, not replace it".

9. Safety ratings on carriage collision.
There has been no published information (to my knowledge) of the
safety rating of these driverless trains during a collision and
information regarding train derailments. Most passengers will be
standing and at risk of serious injury should there be a
collision/derailment. What safety mechanisms are in place, considering
the proximity to the cargo lines and homes along the rail corridor?

The project should not be approved because it lacks bipartisan and
community support. There are serious community concerns that the
project will promote growth in a climate of lack of community trust in
the planning process and poor quality development without benefits
such as green space, amenity and affordability.

The community would like to retain the heavy rail and keep it in
public hands - NO PRIVATE OPERATORS. Amend timetables, update
signaling and connections, upgrade station accessibility with lifts,
safety and landscaping and restore heritage railway elements. It would
also be an idea to allow people to use the rest rooms (possibly by
swiping their Opal Cards) and please remove the revolting orange signs
from the platforms and change the colours to fit in with the heritage
colour schemes of the stations.

A Metro would be ideal for short distances such as the city circle, as
seen many European cities. It is not ideal for longer distances.
Possibly it would suit areas that do not currently have access to
rail, however trains would need to have additional seating and any new
rail lines MUST remain in public hands.

Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018
To Whom it May Concern
Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback on the preferred
project.
I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.
I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:
The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:
1. The response to concerns about the justifications for the project
(Part B, Submissions Report p 14-15) does nothing to convince the
community of its need, especially in the context of poor transparency
regarding business cases, and political agendas relating to
privatisation and property development.. The justifications have been
contradicted by independent rail experts and Sydney's Rail Future 2012
("In the Sydney context an independent metro system would deliver few
benefits in terms of service enhancement, capacity improvements or
better operating efficiency on the existing rail network". P24,
Sydney's Rail Future 2012). Alternatives must be addressed to improve
the heavy rail network's capacity (such as tunnelling options if the
City Circle and Sydenham sites are problematic, and improvements in
signalling and timetabling, now). Metro trains are designed for short
distances with frequent stops; the capacity argument is based on most
people standing.
2. The response has failed to acknowledge community concerns about the
supposed benefits( Part B, Submissions Report p30-35):
-more direct access will not occur - the popular stops of St Peters,
Erskineville, Redfern and City Circle will be lost. Commuters west of
Bankstown will be worse off with many facing longer commuting times
and less direct connections (Part B, Submissions Report p74 and 108).
This is not an acceptable outcome and is contrary to one of the a
major strategic contexts - the "30 minute city" of the Greater Sydney
Commission.
-opal ticketing is not a benefit - we already have it.
- the response to submissions fails to explain why a metro is needed
for accessibility upgrades at stations (Part B, Submissions Report
p29); many heavy rail stations have had such upgrades over time; there
remains plenty of room for improvement for accessibility in the
existing network, such as improved acoustics of announcements for the
visually impaired. In addition, metro trains will have significantly
reduced seating capacity, which is inappropriate for a 66km railway
with an ageing population.
-the response addresses specific benefits for Hurlstone Park (Part B,
Submissions Report p 36) The preservation of our railway heritage is
welcome, but the pressure for high-rise development triggered by a
metro would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. An an
increased number of services must be seen in the context of this
government incrementally reducing the number of services to the suburb
since 2013 and metro trains having significantly less seats. The claim
of better connections to "key employment and service centres" is
arguable, as current popular stops will be lost.
3. The response to concerns about development is dismissive (Part B,
Submissions Report p36-39). The link to development has been made
repeatedly, with the exhibited project acting as a"catalyst" for
growth; the strategic context of the metro and its relationship to
Future Transport 2056 (which supports the concept of property
value-capture), the Greater Sydney Commission (seeking to integrate
land use and transport planning),and the Sydenham-Bankstown Urban
Renewal Strategy (widely condemned by communities for its
indiscriminate up-zoning plans; the invitations to Stakeholders such
as the Australian Turf Club and the NSW property Council and the
awarding of metro operations in northern Sydney to MTR Honk Kong with
its "rail plus property" Business model. The project will promote
growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning process
and poor quality development without benefits such as affordability,
green space and amenity.
4. The response to some of the negative consequence of the metro has
been welcome:
-the decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important. Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate. At Hurlstone Park Station,
the use of traditional hand rails for the stairs would be welcome.
Hurlstone Park Station was recommended for state heritage listing in
2016. The community supports this and hopes that works for the metro
would not impede such a listing. In the report's Non-Aboriginal
Heritage Assessment , Appendix F, it is admitted that some "items or
fabric (are) proposed for removal and ....the historic character of
the line...would be altered by the contemporary metro". (p93). This is
of some concern and requires clarification.
-the decision to abandon the inappropriate design plans for station
precincts is also welcome. It is disappointing that community input
into station precinct and open space planning is given such a low
priority, especially in the context of multiple submissions critical
of the consultation process to date (Part B, Submissions Report p
51-53 and p 58-70). "Place-making" should begin with the people who
live in and know in the places.
The Hurlstone Park Association should be one of the stakeholders
consulted in the development of the "integrated urban and place making
outcome" for Hurlstone Park Station.
5. Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. The gas leak in the city on
7th July 2018 due to metro construction work is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instil public confidence. The predicted exceedences of operational
noise criteria due to increase in train speeds are are significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, locals would welcome noise attenuation in
the form of denser vegetation or other heritage sympathetic
attenuation measures.

6. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it here.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
7. The loss of the previously planned active green strip takes away
one of the few benefits of the project.
8. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used, and measuring
success by the number of encounters, does not address the lack of
engagement with, and failure to prioritise the input of, the
communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are opposed to
the project. In addition, the continued use of biased glossy
brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning, reveals
little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
9. I remain concerned about the loss of mature trees and tree canopy
during construction, for example around Lakemba, Wiley Park and
Punchbowl stations. There will be significant loss of vegetation from
council-owned land along the corridor. ( Appendix G 'landscape and
visual' section).

In summary, this project should not be approved because it lacks
bipartisan and community support, and is the product of process that
has lacked democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be :
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways

Sincerely
Janice L
Sydenham to Bankstown Alliance

Please find the attached submission

While I note that some revisions to the Sydenham-Bankstown upgrade have
been made, they do nothing to address the most fundamental issues.

1. Extensive closures of the existing rail network. Though the time
period for closures has been reduced this does not preclude enormous
inconvenience to residents of the area. Given the government's record
in other areas with light rail, it is also likely that this disruption
will far exceed the indicated periods.
2. The economic and social absurdity of tearing up a functioning rail
line when there are significant areas of Sydney with NO railway at
all.
3. Rail experts also note that the existing Sydenham/Bankstown line
functions as a safety valve for the larger rail system. The proposed
changes will therefore likely degrade rather than enhance the capacity
and efficiency of Sydney's overall rail system.
4. Underscoring this degradation in rail services is the significant
reduction in seating on the proposed replacement light rail. This will
especially disadvantage the city's aging population and thus serve as
a major disincentive for public transport use by important sections of
the community.
5. The failure to seriously explore changes to the existing rail
system is thus to be utterly condemned and underscores the essentially
faux nature of the consultative process. There are concessions but not
to the most fundamental and thus controversial aspects of the new rail
service.
6. It is thus difficult to resist the conclusion that the entire
initiative is designed not to improve Sydney's public transport but to
facilitate foreign-backed real estate developments. On this issue,
above all, there is and has been no genuine consultation with the
community.