Sydney Metro West - Rail infrastructure, stations, precincts and operations

I fully support public transport and the new metro line. My submission is in regard to the lack of active transport facilities with the new stations.
The latest policy direction from the NSW State Government is for active transport to be given an equal or greater consideration when creating new transport and housing infrastructure. Looking at the access plans for the Metro stations I see a largely car centric design. These is little thought about how to make the stations accessible by cycling and walking. For instance, in regard to my local stop, Five Dock Station:
- There is one 100m bicycle route proposed. A 100m bicycle route makes no sense whatsoever - what does this even mean?
- There is planned bicycle parking outside the station, probably enough for 10-20 bikes. This is very poor infrastructure. Instead we should have secure, underground bicycle parking for up to 100 bikes.
- There is no plans to minimise the effect off traffic in the surrounding streets. The new station will boost the amount of people who come to the Five Dock village area to commute and travel, but there is no plan to slow or limit automobiles. Cars create pollution and are dangerous in built-up areas with high pedestrian volumes.
- There is no consideration to how walkers and cyclists will arrive at the station from surrounding suburbs. It's no wonder that the estimate is for only 2% of customers to access the station by cycling when nothing has been proposed to make cycling safe and convenient. The gold standard is to implement separated infrastructure. I understand that this project has limited control over the council area's infrastructure, but separated cycling infrastructure could be provided on access roads in the scope of this project that can be connected to local councils bicycle infrastructure when developed.

As general comments to all of the stations:
- There is poor pedestrian and cycle access to stations - still prioritising vehicles. This is not helpful in suburbs already bedeviled by noisy dangerous cars
- There should be public squares outside every station, not a roads
- There should be bike routes and walking routes planned to and from stations
- Commuter car parks are a terrible use of space and encourage the continued congestion and dangerousness of our roads and suburbs

I am a local business and property owner and support the project.

Hi
I have read Sydney Metro West - Rail infrastructure, stations, precincts and operations
Chapter 7 - Westmead
While the construction impact focuses on the construction site, the surrounding areas and roads where our property is located will be significantly impacted.
The trucks are supposed to access the site on the Hassall street from Alexandra Av however there is no guarantee that they wont use the other side of the Hassall street?
This including contractors and staff accessing the site will impact our property extremely negatively on the Hassall Street.
The impacts extend to Noise, Air Pollution, cleanliness and negative impact on the properties in the areas including our property, during and after the constriction phase.
This is documented in your assessment in Tables 7.32 & 7.33
Way of life, livelihood and Health and Wellbeing all are impacted negatively during and after the construction.
This will reduce our ability to enjoy the area as we anticipated since our property purchase - a quiet locality yet close to all the amenities.
I oppose the project on this basis and sever negative impacts in the categories mentioned above, including our property value.

During covids last lockdown we had major digging & vibration through our houses down Merton st Rozelle digging trenches for cables for the Sydney Metro project.
The cables are presently (April 22-29) being laid down into the conduits in trenches.
When the boring machines start later in year or next year directly below we request a dilapidation report be done prior.
The digging a few houses up was enough to blatantly disrupt our properties with windows rattling & needing to be covered up, let alone more digging below proposed.
A number of older although renovated properties need assurance here.
I've asked my solicitor, Diamond & Conway if this is necessary & been advised to request one for our property as we will certainly be directly impacted again despite Sydney Metro avoiding the issue with an excuse not to do one despite feeling the vibration through our houses down the whole street.
Have spoken to a structural engineer who said within a six square meter parameter one should be offered.

For peace of mind & our ongoing insurance we request a dilapidation report at 5 Merton st, Rozelle 2039.
We're told 50 metres for boring machine below 2022-23 directly below but know this will likely be shallower. We are on the parameter of the borers hole which apparently is within a stress line area & does warrant checking prior & after.

Appreciate recognition of this email & a response please.

Regards

Bil Hebden
0404102763

I object to the use of Type 2 track this project is using under my house and request that it is changed to Type 3A track.

Amendment 2: Update the design to show the track form under Lancelot Street to be Type 3A (Isolated Slab Track)
Key concerns addressed by this amendment:
⦁ Reduce the noise and vibration experienced by The Residents resulting from trains during operation of the Metro

Sydney Metro is proposing to use the Type 2 track form under Lancelot Street which reduces ground-borne vibration as trains pass along the track. The modelling from Sydney Metro shows that this track form reduces the predicted noise to 30-35 dBA which is marginally below the NSW Environment Protection Authority maximum of 35 dBA for residential properties.

Lancelot Street is a quiet street with low levels of ambient noise and very little road traffic. I am concerned that models used to predict noise levels from ground-borne vibration, such as the model used by Sydney Metro, have inherent risk of inaccuracy, and designing the tunnels to be so close to the 35 dBA maximum would result in the sound levels exceeding 35 dBA. This would be noticeable to the residents in both daytime and night time. Of particular concern, is the model used by Sydney Metro do not appear to take into consideration the increase in noise resulting from dual tunnels under each property at close distance, and also the increase in noise levels as the train wheels and tracks start to wear, which could increase sound levels by up to 10 dBA each (ref Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, FTA Report No. 0123, dated September 2018).

The modelling by Sydney Metro also showed the predicted ground-borne noise levels if the Type 3A track form was used. This would result in much more acceptable sound levels of 25-30 dBA.

As a resident of the street I call for the Type 3A track form as a minimum requirement to be used in the tunnels under Lancelot Street to ensure vibration and sound levels remain at an acceptable level both when the Metro becomes operational, and also in future when the train wheels and tracks start to wear.

I object to the use of Type 2 track this project is using under my house and request that it is changed to Type 3A track.

Amendment 2: Update the design to show the track form under Lancelot Street to be Type 3A (Isolated Slab Track)
Key concerns addressed by this amendment:
⦁ Reduce the noise and vibration experienced by The Residents resulting from trains during operation of the Metro

Sydney Metro is proposing to use the Type 2 track form under Lancelot Street which reduces ground-borne vibration as trains pass along the track. The modelling from Sydney Metro shows that this track form reduces the predicted noise to 30-35 dBA which is marginally below the NSW Environment Protection Authority maximum of 35 dBA for residential properties.

Lancelot Street is a quiet street with low levels of ambient noise and very little road traffic and my home is over 100 years old and on piers. I am concerned that models used to predict noise levels from ground-borne vibration, such as the model used by Sydney Metro, have inherent risk of inaccuracy, and designing the tunnels to be so close to the 35 dBA maximum would result in the sound levels exceeding 35 dBA. This would be noticeable to the residents in both daytime and night time. Of particular concern, is the model used by Sydney Metro do not appear to take into consideration the increase in noise resulting from dual tunnels under each property at close distance, and also the increase in noise levels as the train wheels and tracks start to wear, which could increase sound levels by up to 10 dBA each (ref Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, FTA Report No. 0123, dated September 2018).

The modelling by Sydney Metro also showed the predicted ground-borne noise levels if the Type 3A track form was used. This would result in much more acceptable sound levels of 25-30 dBA.

As a resident of the street I call for the Type 3A track form as a minimum requirement to be used in the tunnels under Lancelot Street to ensure vibration and sound levels remain at an acceptable level both when the Metro becomes operational, and also in future when the train wheels and tracks start to wear

I'm suggesting IMPROVEMENTS TO TRANSPORT LINKAGES FOR THE BAYS STATION. Currently, the major transport system funnelling through Rozelle is the bus system and there used to be a bus stop on Victoria Road opposite Hornsey Street. The Metro plans indicate that this stop will be reinstated but with WestConnex we've lost the pedestrian/bike bridge over Victoria Road so it's now a longer walk for pedestrians via an underpass.
My suggestion is that the space where the old White Bay Hotel was situated should be utilised for a pull-over space for buses and that a lift with significant capacity should be available alongside to take people from the level of Victoria Rd to the level of The Bays Station entrance. Yes stairs are proposed but it's very high and stairs/ramps will be very difficult for disabled people.....and very slow even for those not disabled.
Also covered walkways should be available from the lift to the station so that travellers don't have to run through rainstorms to get to the metro from the buses. Likewise covered walkways should be available from Metro Station to the westbound bus stop at Hornsey Street. (Same logic......you shouldn't have to walk in rain to move between transport modes).
The Bays station will be a logical transfer point for metro travellers from city who are bound for destinations to the north east (Drummoyne, Ryde, Balmain etc) or for those travellers to switch to metro when city bound. Some metro passengers from west may also wish to transfer to buses here. So basically, you need to ensure that the transfer arrangements work smoothly, rapidly, and travellers can transfer without having to brave Sydney downpours.
Having buses pull off Victoria Road to drive down Roberts street to The Bays is not a sensible option; it takes too long, adds too much time to travel, out of way for most passengers.

To Whom It May Concern,

I support the project and in general approve of the design with setbacks, walkthroughs and the unpaid access below the north and south of Parramatta rd.

I would like to make 2 recommendations for consideration.

Firstly, parking on Broughton St between Gipps St and Parramatta Rd is particularly difficult (including surrounding streets) normally. This due to a number of factors:
- parking required for St Marys primary school staff
- parking required for St Marys primary school drop-off and pick-up times
- parking required for St Marys church events
- parking required for St Marys aged care staff and visitors
- parking required for local residents
- parking required for public transport commuters
- organised and social sport and leisure access to green space and play areas of Goddard and Queen Elizabeth parks.
- ongoing construction at Concord Oval
- and unfortunately, parking that is taken long term by local motor vehicle repairers (e.g. Darkos Aoutomotive Services), whereby the cars they are servicing are parked on Broughton st and surrounding streets for extended periods (sometimes several weeks).
With the introduction of many more construction workers the problem will only be exacerbated. I would like to recommend during the construction phase (or permanently), unrestricted parking for residents only with restricted parking for non-residents (e.g. maximum parking to accommodate a typical work day).

Secondly, Broughton st residents have endured many years of heavy vehicle traffic from the early hours through until night time. This has been due to surrounding developments including Breakfast Point, Burwood and Drummoyne (traffic coming from Lyons Rd and then into Broughton St and vice-versa). Not only is this a noise issue, it is also a safety issue, especially so with access to Goddard and Queen Elizabeth Parks required and cyclists/pedestrian using the new Broughton st cycleway. This problem is only exacerbated by ongoing development in surrounding suburbs. Frequently heavy vehicles park in either Broughton St or Park Ave in the early morning and then travel to a construction site once it has opened.
I would like to recommend that heavy vehicle construction traffic does NOT use Broughton St. I suggest:
- incoming heavy vehicle construction traffic from the west utilise Parramatta rd and then onto Loftus st and Burton st depending on what entrance is used to the site. I believe most incoming heavy vehicle traffic will arrive from the west, otherwise routes can be developed to avoid Broughton St.
- outgoing traffic to the west to utilise Loftus st then onto Gipps st, Patterson st, Concord rd and then either Parramatta rd or directly onto the M4. This is a more direct route to the main thoroughfares of Parramatta rd and the M4 while avoiding daily traffic build-up on Parramatta rd from Broughton st through to the entrance of the M4.
- prevent heavy vehicle traffic from parking in local streets with the possible exception of the area between Goddard and Queen Elizabeth parks on Gipps st. I'm not aware if it is already illegal to use local streets to park heavy vehicle traffic, but if so, it is not being actively enforced.

In summary, the above are suggested actions to:
- support parking for local residents north of Parramatta rd and in particular Broughton St between Gipps St and Parramatta rd, either during construction or permanently.
- restrict heavy vehicle construction traffic using Broughton st.
I appreciate that there may be alternate ways to achieve the above aims.

Sincerely,

Matthew Holani.

Appreciate that the project is going ahead with government support and financial backing. However not building stations between Parramatta and Olympic Park (Camellia, Newington, etc) and between Five Dock and Bays Precinct (Lilyfield, Leichhardt, etc) is a major missed opportunity that will prove to be a costly mistake in the future. It is an opportunity especially for Camellia to accelerate urban renewal after being a industrial and waste site for so many decades. Otherwise the area will continue to sit in decay. I would rather the project cost more now and take a few more years to construct than trying to have a costly infill station in the future. A quick journey aimed at 20 minutes is good but missing out on building stations for thousands of potential commuters is a missed opportunity. A journey that takes around 22-23 minutes is a small loss compared to the entire suburbs that are ignored and miss out on public transport. The line should also extend to the east towards Randwick/Maroubra sooner rather than later. Maybe having Metro West stage 1 and stage 2 for the eastern suburbs. Perhaps considering sky rail over tunnel may even be a cheaper option.
Westward expansion should also be planned to connect to the outer Western suburbs (Bonnyrigg, Prariewood, etc) before extending to the new airport. This connects the 3 cities of Sydney to one singular line.

I object to North Strathfield Metro Station - There is a rail Station at North Strathfield!

There is no rail station at Newington - why not??

Amendment 2: Update the design to show the track form under Lancelot Street to be Type 3A (Isolated Slab Track)
Key concerns addressed by this amendment:
⦁ Reduce the noise and vibration experienced by The Residents resulting from trains during operation of the Metro

Sydney Metro is proposing to use the Type 2 track form under Lancelot Street which reduces ground-borne vibration as trains pass along the track. The modelling from Sydney Metro shows that this track form reduces the predicted noise to 30-35 dBA which is marginally below the NSW Environment Protection Authority maximum of 35 dBA for residential properties.

Lancelot Street is a quiet street with low levels of ambient noise and very little road traffic. The Residents are concerned that models used to predict noise levels from ground-borne vibration, such as the model used by Sydney Metro, have inherent risk of inaccuracy, and designing the tunnels to be so close to the 35 dBA maximum would result in the sound levels exceeding 35 dBA. This would be noticeable to the residents in both daytime and night time. Of particular concern, is the model used by Sydney Metro do not appear to take into consideration the increase in noise resulting from dual tunnels under each property at close distance, and also the increase in noise levels as the train wheels and tracks start to wear, which could increase sound levels by up to 10 dBA each (ref Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, FTA Report No. 0123, dated September 2018).

The modelling by Sydney Metro also showed the predicted ground-borne noise levels if the Type 3A track form was used. This would result in much more acceptable sound levels of 25-30 dBA.

The Residents call for the Type 3A track form as a minimum requirement to be used in the tunnels under Lancelot Street to ensure vibration and sound levels remain at an acceptable level both when the Metro becomes operational, and also in future when the train wheels and tracks start to wear.

I object to the use of Type 2 track this project is using under my house and request that it is changed to Type 3A track.

Amendment 2: Update the design to show the track form under Lancelot Street to be Type 3A (Isolated Slab Track)
Key concerns addressed by this amendment:
⦁ Reduce the noise and vibration experienced by The Residents resulting from trains during operation of the Metro

Sydney Metro is proposing to use the Type 2 track form under Lancelot Street which reduces ground-borne vibration as trains pass along the track. The modelling from Sydney Metro shows that this track form reduces the predicted noise to 30-35 dBA which is marginally below the NSW Environment Protection Authority maximum of 35 dBA for residential properties.

Lancelot Street is a quiet street with low levels of ambient noise and very little road traffic. I am concerned that models used to predict noise levels from ground-borne vibration, such as the model used by Sydney Metro, have inherent risk of inaccuracy, and designing the tunnels to be so close to the 35 dBA maximum would result in the sound levels exceeding 35 dBA. This would be noticeable to the residents in both daytime and night time. Of particular concern, is the model used by Sydney Metro do not appear to take into consideration the increase in noise resulting from dual tunnels under each property at close distance, and also the increase in noise levels as the train wheels and tracks start to wear, which could increase sound levels by up to 10 dBA each (ref Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, FTA Report No. 0123, dated September 2018).

The modelling by Sydney Metro also showed the predicted ground-borne noise levels if the Type 3A track form was used. This would result in much more acceptable sound levels of 25-30 dBA.

As a resident of the street I call for the Type 3A track form as a minimum requirement to be used in the tunnels under Lancelot Street to ensure vibration and sound levels remain at an acceptable level both when the Metro becomes operational, and also in future when the train wheels and tracks start to wear.

I write objecting to this Five Dock Metro West project as my family is directly impacted and significantly affected by the Five Dock Station eastern site station services located on the corner of Second Avenue and Waterview Street.

The concerns I have are listed below:

1. Building height and Council deliveries - I have significant concerns around the moderate adverse visual impact to views toward the station services building on the eastern site, which would be of a larger scale than former low-rise residential buildings in this location.
The eastern site would accommodate station related plant and emergency egress stairs from the eastern end of the platforms.
The aboveground station infrastructure (including the station services and space for non-station use) would rise about five storeys from street level. Station building heights would consider the local planning controls subject to ongoing consultation with Canada Bay Council.

I object to the height five storeys from street level and the significant impacts of overshadowing on the residential building on the corner of Great North Rd and Second Ave. Local residents have had no communication or consultation from Council in relation to the height of this station building.

Nor have local residents directly affected been advised by Council regarding the design that would provide part of the future north-south connection from Second Avenue to the planned ‘new town square’ (to be delivered by Council) and provide opportunities for potential ground floor retail activation at the eastern station services building along the future east-west laneway (to be delivered by Council).

2. Parking Loss - I have significant concerns around the temporary conversion of parts of Waterview Street and Second Avenue to one-way operation and loss of parking on adjacent streets including:
• temporary removal of about 12 on-street parking spaces along the western side of Great North Road.
• temporary removal of about 10 on-street parking spaces along the western side of Waterview Street and southern side of Second Avenue.
• Waterview Street one-way northbound from main car park to Second Avenue
• Second Avenue one-way westbound from Second Avenue to Great North Road.

I have significant concerns that no dedicated parking capacity would be provided as part of this proposal and that customers who choose to drive to the station would be dependent on the availability of existing parking spaces in the local area.

Parking strategies would be developed in consultation with City of Canada Bay Council to manage the potential impacts associated with customer parking near the station.

Five Docks existing parking is at best very limited. There is no consistent parking enforcement by Council so often the available car spaces do not turn over and there is ongoing illegal parking that blocks access to local residents driveways.

Given the above loss of parking spaces I have significant concerns that both Metro and Council don’t have any current plans to address this loss of parking for local residents. In particular the impacts on businesses surrounding the construction sites who are already experiencing the impacts associated with loss of parking.

I see no proposal that addressees the future short term closures of some on- street parking spaces on Great North Road, East Street, Second Avenue, Waterview Street, and Garfield Street.

This loss of parking will absolutely reduce convenience for customers visiting businesses within the area around the Five Dock Station construction sites and I fear they will shop elsewhere where parking is more assessable.

3. Construction noise and wellbeing impacts - I have significant concerns around my families wellbeing impacts associated with ongoing construction activity given my children's sensitivity to loud noise and vibration.

My family is already suffering the social impacts from work carried out under the previous Sydney Metro West planning application, and this EIS represents a continuation of these sufferings.

I have significant concerns around the impacts of moderate’ to ‘high’ construction noise during outside work, particularly when noise-intensive equipment, such as rockbreakers, is being used as part of excavation work. Rockbreakers are expected to be used intermittently throughout a three-month excavation period. This is a long time for my family to be directly affected by this high level of construction noise.

I strongly disagree that the impacts to my families health, wellbeing, and way of life would be temporary and short term given during the daytime, the highest construction noise impacts are predicted during excavation and station/facility construction when noise-intensive equipment such as rockbreakers or concrete saws would be in use. The highest impact work is expected to last for around 80 days for intermittent use of a rockbreaker for excavation (not continuous) and around 30 months for use of a concrete saw for station/facility construction concrete work, however concrete saws would only be used intermittently when concrete slabs are poured.

Further the night-time, the majority of internal construction and fit-out work during station/facility construction would occur inside the built station structure and does not require noise intensive equipment. The highest impact work is expected to last for around 30 months for station/facility construction.

Given Moderate’ sleep disturbance impacts are predicted. I disagree that these impacts would be managed to an acceptable level through proven mitigation measures as identified in Chapter 20 (Synthesis) of this Environmental Impact Statement.


4. Traffic and Pedestrian safety. I have significant concerns around the location of the egress from the eastern construction site via left-out onto Second Avenue. Further that the Eastern construction site will have:
• about 224 daily heavy vehicle movements
• about 226 daily light vehicle movements.

Construction-related traffic has the potential to temporarily increase road traffic noise levels at receivers that are adjacent to the construction sites and haul routes. The forecast construction traffic volumes outlined in Section 12.4.2 have been used to determine where potentially noticeable increases in road traffic noise (i.e. a greater than 2 dB increase above the existing noise level) is likely.

Second Avenue east of Great North Road is anticipated to have a 3 dB increase above the existing noise level during the day. My family will be directly affected by this.

I have concerns for the safety of the local community given Sydney Metro is also investigating options for a pedestrian crossing near Second Avenue at Great North Road.

There is a pedestrian crossing on Great North Rd and Henry St and it is very difficult to cross now at the best of times. A push button traffic light crossing would be a much safer option for the local community instead of a proposed pedestrian crossing at this location.

5. I am very much opposed to over development in Five Dock and the village feel is such an important reason why I choose to purchase my property 14 years ago. I agree and am very happy to read that Over and/or adjacent station development is not proposed at Five Dock Station and I hope that there are no changes to this in future for the community of Five Dock.

Kind Regards

Suggestion 2022
Westmead to Sydney (CBD) metro infrastructure.

There would be very little parking for cars. My suggestion is to unlock isolation of Olympic park. It should be considered at Sydney Olympic Park Station that a large car park (multi-storey) for those travelling on the metro etc.

Also for convenience of access for those in the north a new bridge should be built over Parramatta river. It could connect Hill Road in south with Wharf Road in north or Hughes Avenue - Kissing Point In North.

I fully support the direction of this Metro but encourage more thinking upfront about;
The transport linkage and inter connectivity tor existing routes for eg Burwood to Burwood North
Bike and car movements around the stations including parking options (drop and pick, short stay for lunch/shopping to longer use to airports)
Density of development surrounding (not too high, shadowed with lack of green space, not sympathetic to area)
Cultural and heritage preservation of district (Victorian/federation era with multicultural feel)

please find my submission attached. thanks

Please ensure a CRG is established so that the community has a day in all aspects of the Pyrmont Station.

Also please design a London tube like of Paris metro type entrance not a skyscraper!

Regards the Sydney Metro West station name "Burwood North", it is a very strange name. Firstly, we don't have a place called "Burwood North"; Secondly, it is very confused because the next station is "North Strathfield"; the "North" are in different places for the two station nearby; Thirdly, the "Burwood North" is a station in Concord in fact, and all the future precinct buildings (both commercial and residential) addresses are with Concord postcode. In future, people come to Concord addresses (places) via so called "Burwood Noth" station. so people will ask "are we going to Concord or Burwood?".
And the alternative name I suggest is "Concord Oval", using the significant building name next door.

Please ensure there is safe and plentiful bicycle parking. As a local resident it would be good to be able to cycle to the station and have decent lockup facilities.

Also, while moving billboards are okay can they be silent? Loud billboards are an unpleasant experience within some train stations.