Refer attachment

The Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue (the Dialogue) welcomes the publication of the ‘Sydney Metro West – Rail infrastructure, stations, precincts and operations’ environmental impact statement and the opportunity to comment on this critical planning document.

Sydney Metro West (SMW) is an essential piece of infrastructure that will change how transport and movement will happen within and between the Central and Eastern Cities. The Western Rail line has been the backbone of Sydney’s economy for generations, and by effectively doubling passenger capacity between Parramatta and Sydney, SMW will unlock tremendous economic opportunity for future generations, particularly in fast-growing Greater Western Sydney.

The placement of each of the Sydney Metro stations, and the precincts that will evolve around them, will play a large role in the customer experience and transform the areas where they will be located. As such, the Dialogue appreciates the opportunity to comment on this city shaping project.

Given the scale of the Sydney Metro West project, as well as the amount of investment set to occur surrounding station areas, there is an opportunity to capture social value along the SMW corridor to ensure a substantial community dividend is realised from one of the largest dollar-value investments in public infrastructure. As such, the Dialogue has recommended the below to government in our discussion paper, ‘Humanising Infrastructure’, with the SMW providing the perfect opportunity to introduce a new, deliberate and coordinated approach to social procurement.

The Dialogue welcomes the inclusion of the (planned) Parramatta Light Rail – Stage 2 (PLR2) station into the Sydney Olympic Park Sydney Metro station plan (section 9.2.2 and 9.3.3). Due consideration has been given to the design of the Sydney Olympic Park Metro station as a transport interchange between the Metro West and PLR2, and given the necessity of the PLR2 to Western Sydney, the Dialogue welcomes this. We note, however, the PLR2 project has been deferred indefinitely.

The Dialogue also notes that there has been no specific consideration given to housing, and more importantly social and affordable housing, within each station precinct plan in the EIS. While perhaps beyond the scope of the EIS, the volume of development generated by this project will demand further discussion around the scale and nature of residential development that is provided, and the opportunity for the project to catalyse new supply of social and affordable housing.

The Dialogue recommends a 30% inclusionary zoning mandate within a 1km radius of new metro stations, including the full range of “affordable” housing typologies (including key worker and student housing, sub-market rental, rent-to-buy, shared equity ownership, etc.) as well as build-to-rent housing. The Dialogue would greatly welcome this being considered in the future when planning over and adjacent-station developments, and related developments (sections 5.4.4 and 5.4.5). You can read more about it in ‘The Dialogue’s Five Point Plan for Social & Affordable Housing in GWS’.

Again, the Dialogue welcomes the substantial progress on delivering SMW in the publication of the rail infrastructure, stations, precincts and operations EIS, and the hard work of the Sydney Metro team in getting the EIS to this point. We look forward to further discussions with the team over the coming months as the EIS is refined and finalised.

Please see attached submission on behalf of White Bay Stratas

Burwood North station:There should be a new cycleway along the Parramatta Road between the exit and Neich Parade
There should be an off-road cycleway at Concord Oval next to Loftus Street
Advantage:Improve the bicycle network between Burwood North/Canada Bay and Burwood Park
Parramatta Station:There should be an underground connection between the future metro station and the exisiting train station to improve the connection between the exisiting bus interchange and train service
Hunter Street station: There should be a bus layover bay at the O'Connel Street exit under the future commercial building

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.