See attached submission

As a resident of Five Dock, I right this submission in relation to the Five Dock Station. I find the application for the major civil construction a farcical process. You have people being paid to paint the project in the best light possible. Everything is always a minor or moderate beneficial, or adverse impact. What does it take for something to be considered a major impact? Most of the station designs are shown as indicative only, so how can someone reach a reliable conclusion as to the impact the project will truly have. In point, from the beginning of the project the Artist Impression has shown Five Dock Station (Indicative only) as a three story unintrusive building. However, in the current report they suggest it could rise to seven storeys. How can you rely on a report that is basically giving an opinion on designs that will look nothing like the indicative picture provided in the documents? What this shows is the opinions in the reports have been skewed to show the project in the best light and all adverse issues minimised to only a minor or moderate impact just to have the project approved. Once the approval is provided, Metro West can then change the designs to what every they want. To say that there will only be minor or moderate impact shows that the people preparing the report have lost any empathy due to the pay-packets they receive. The Metro West project Is a decade long project and to say it will mainly have minor or moderate impacts is ridiculous. The people who have been paid to prepare this document are promoting it like a Lyle Lanley spruiker wearing rose coloured sunglasses and blinkers, just to get the project approved.
For the current EIS I feel it is only worthwhile to comment on the information relating to when the project is finally operational. The reason for this is because the construction is approximately a decade long and it has already started and the issues, I raised in my original submission regarding the civil construction including station excavation and tunnelling work are the same. So, since the issues I raised in the first EIS hasn’t changed anything what’s the point of raising them again. I simply must accept that mine and my family’s quality of life will be just collateral damage resulting from the construction of the Metro West.
The main issue with construction is what impact it has on people’s quality of lives. Does it improve or add to people’s lives that currently reside in the surrounding area? Currently it doesn’t, 8 years or more of construction basically the final years of my daughters’ educations. This construction has nothing but a huge negative impact on my quality of life. Such things as difficulties getting in and out of our residents, ongoing noise, dust, incurring additional personal expenses, late night work, made to feel like an inconvenience by the people doing the construction. I suppose the people writing the report can make something up to indicate that mine and my family’s quality of life has improved.
In relation to when the project is finally operational I have concerns with what the buildings will look like and the height they will have on in the visual impact for the area. How can you say visual impacts will only have minor or moderate impact based on a photomontage that is said to be only indicative? Based on Metro West use of the term indicative the actual design can look completely different to what is indicated as indicative. By using indicative pictures no one knows what the actual building will look like, so the true impact isn’t known, it is only guessing.
My second major issue is the design layout and concerns relating to pedestrian safety and the Kiss and Drive locations. In Figure 98 of Technical Paper 1 it shows the integrated access plan which I have several concerns with.
If there are more traffic going on side roads there will be greater traffic congestion and bottle necks on the side roads. For example, as was provided in the report Second Ave it is a two-lane, two-way undivided local road and mainly provides access from low and medium density residential dwellings to Great North Road. Parking of vehicles on both sides of the road reduces the ability for vehicles to pass concurrently, requiring one direction to give way. If more traffic will be using Second Ave and Kiss and Ride areas located on both sides of the road and so close to Great North Rd it will create traffic congestion near the corner which might back on to Great North Road slowing down traffic flow.
In addition, the location of the Kiss and Ride spot located on the south side of Second Ave is right in front of a buildings driveway and the proposed service laneway, blocking entry and exit from these locations.
Another concern is the corner of Second Ave and Great North Road. It is a hard corner to cross at the best of times. It’s part of the major pedestrian flow up and down Great North Road. With more cars coming off Great North Road, it will make it even more unsafe to cross once the Station becomes operational.
Finally, the Kiss and Ride locations for traffic travelling South on Great North Road seem to work with traffic flow, however for traffic flow going North on Great North Road, there seems to be limited options. If convenient places are not provided to drop people off or pick people up from the Station it will result in people double parking, holding up traffic and thus increasing traffic congestion. More consideration must be made for Kiss and Ride locations so not to reduce traffic flow.

I live in Malta St at North Strathfield and so, as the crow flies, some 250m from your proposed Metro station. Whatever way I look to your proposal it will bring with it a massive change to my living arrangements.

In my area the City of Canada Bay Council propose as follows:

SYDNEY METRO WEST NORTH STRATHFIELD LOCAL CHARACTER STATEMENT DRAFT
The proposed interchange at the heart of the character area offers an opportunity for increased development and will transform the existing local character into an active and lively precinct. The proposed density will be focused around the station and transition sensitively to local character areas and heritage items.

AREA 11 (Pomeroy to Allen St – now low density residential R2)
Defined as an area that can support medium density residential development.

(3) SCHOOL DISTRICT
This character can be improved upon with future development providing a better interface with the street providing more amenity and character along George St.
A change of land use or future redevelopment should facilitate improved pedestrian connections to the Metro/train station and the provision of a plaza/civic space. Up to 10 storeys will be permitted for new development and it should also seek to ensure that significant trees are retained on site. Student drop off and pick up times also need to be managed to mitigate congestion at peak hours.

This means that development in the school zone adjoining the station goes to 10 storeys and that houses in my street will be demolished to accommodate at least 5 storey high units.

CURRENT TRAFFIC ISSUES
Traffic in George St can even now be chaotic particularly in school drop-off and pickup periods. Unless the driver is early forget about Parking in Malta St during school hours.

FUTURE TRAFFIC ISSUES
McDonald College up to 10 storeys (and perhaps even the newly built Our Lady of the Assumption Primary School).
Five storey development between Pomeroy St and Allen St.
The proposal to construct a new Woolworths supermarket at the corner of Allen St (DA2021/0366).

SO WHAT RESEARCH HAS THE METRO UNDERTAKEN INTO GEORGE ST TRAFFIC VOLUMES?
Nil. Not a thing. It’s almost as though the area (being on the western side of the project) is comparatively unimportant.

THE SCHOOLS DISTRICT
Suddenly we have Council and the McDonald College amenable to an increase in height limits.
Question: Where did this proposal germinate?
Did it come courtesy of the State Government, Council, the Metro or the College.
I include the Metro because of detail contained within the Transport Administration Amendment (Sydney Metro) Bill 2018.
This legislation details the ‘orderly and efficient development of land’ near Metro Stations.

With the coming of the Metro (and maybe within 5 years) North Strathfield will lose its identity and become just another high-rise suburb. That is something that I do not support.

Providing comments in the attached document for review and amendment to the EIS before approval.

The Metro rail tunnels run directly under our family home of 63 years in Lancelot St, Five Dock, and this is causing great concern regarding the noise and vibrations to our property when the Metro is in use. Therefore we propose the following -

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.

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.

Please see attached a submission on behalf of Brookfield Properties regarding the development of Hunter Street (Sydney CBD) Station as part of Sydney Metro West.