I support option 1b, as this route has the least environmental impact on the surry hills area

It will allow a strong physical and vegetation screening process through the residential area.

Surry Hills needs to be more Green.

I do not agree with the CSELR as stated in the CSELR EIS.

My primary concern is within the Surry Hills section. There has not been consultation with people effected in the area. This suburb has grown into one of the top listed suburbs for village living and this makes the suburb a spine for transport to outer lying area's.
The items need te be addressed as follows:
1. Why have the alternatives of Foveaux and Devonshire streets been overlooked. This is a major spine and will clog the city road. Let's face it we all use the car on the weekends and roads still need to be in place.

2. South Dowling - Is this going to be clogged up more.
3. How are residents in devonshire streets going to access, homes, move homes.
4. Safety vehicles, Ie devonshire street residents will be impacted.
5. Noice levels through a once quiet street will be impacted.
6. Business along the route.
7. Additional traffic congestion on side streets
8. Lack of parking

The impacts are immence for this suburb and we need a reliable service that will not be stopped on a regular basis for people accessing homes, business on devonshire and effectively closing down south dowling. The government has to seriously think of underground access as to not totally close off the streets of Sydney. We all still drive.........

To Whom it May Concern,

I am concerned about the Light Rail Project - in particular the planned route up Devonshire Street.

- I believe the size and frequency of the carriages through the heart of Surry Hills will dramatically effect in a negative way the quiet serenity and community feel of the suburb.

I therefore suggest the Foveaux sub-surface route, or indeed a surface route up Foveaux as it is a much busier, wider street with businesses that will effect less domestic residents including the residents of Olivia Gardens.

- I am concerned about the residents of Devonshire Street and what the effect will be to the trees on Devonshire Street.

I again suggest Foveaux St as a superior option as it negates this problem as it is more of a business district with less trees and indeed residents.

- As stated I am concerned about the residents of Olivia Gardens having to be forced to sell (at less than market prices).

I again suggest Foveaux St as a superior option as it negates the need to demolish an entire residential apartment block.

- I am concerned about the effect the Devonshire St route will have on Bourke Street Bakery, particularly the outdoor dining area.

I again suggest Foveaux St as a superior option as it negates the need to effect a business that has become an icon of the suburb.

- I am concerned as to what effect the Devonshire St route will have on Ward Park as it is very popular with residents, and dog walkers alike.

I again suggest Foveaux St as a superior option as it negates the need to effect a park that is essential to the suburb.

- I question the planned route up Devonshire Street as it results in tunnelling under a section of Moore Park at considerable cost.

I again suggest Foveaux St as a superior option as it negates the need to tunnel under Moore Park at significant cost.

I also suggest that if tunnelling under Moore Park is deemed as a financially viable option, why not tunnel under Foveaux Street?

If tunnelling under Foveaux Street is deemed impossible from an engineering perspective, surely a surface route up Foveaux is less expensive to taxpayers than tunnelling under Moore Park.

I therefore would like to know the costs of either route.

Overall, I feel that the planned route up Devonshire Street needs to be reconsidered as enormous 45 metre trains heading up and down what was a quiet, peaceful street in the heart of Surry Hills approximately every 5 minutes a street will effectively destroy the quiet community feel of the suburb forever.

I again seriously urge you to consider Foveaux Street as another option due to the reasons stated above.

Thank you,

Sean Masters

I wish to voice my opposition for the proposed design of the CSELR as described in the EIS. I do not agree with the proposal as stated in the document.

My high level concerns
1. No genuine community consultation
2. Devonshire street is not capable of being the spine of the SE Network / not sustainable
3. A vastly superior alternative route has been identified - Foveaux sub-surface
4. Unacceptable noise levels, and times through a densly populated suburb
5. Speed of the light rail vehicles
6. Construction impact on small businesses and residents
7. Dislocation of Surry Hills
8. Loss of Amenity
9. Acquisition of 69 homes
10. Traffic congestion
11. Loss of trees
12. Impact on parklands
13. Access to properties along the route - businesses, residents, elderly and disabled
14. Significant devalue on properties along the route with no compensation from the Government
15. Loss of car parking
16. Road closures during and post construction

In summary - a unique internationally renowned village becoming a major traffic corridor, with no net benefit

Business case - lacking in facts and data
The government has failed to provide a business case for the project as has been promised. Local engineers have developed an alternative cut and cover proposal for Foveaux St that delivers greater capacity to add another line, prevents traffic issues with major intersections, less residential impact, increased speed for light rail vehicles that will decrease travel times, less visual impact on the local area and no long term noise impact for residents.

The Government proposed route involves the demolition of 69 homes, impact on parklands and trees. It will also have the light rail having the right of way over 5 major roads and 17 minor roads. The light rail respects the existing traffic flow along the South East route until it does a bootleg from the Stadiums, under Anzac Parade/Moore Park, across the Ed, and then on grade across South Dowling, Bourke, Crown, Elizabeth and Chalmers Streets. A local engineer suggests that Foveaux Street is the most direct route.

The current plan details less buses and a reduction in current bus routes. The proposed light rail will not take the capacity and there are no plans for customers that utilise buses on the routes that will be stopped e.g. Foveaux St.

This route has short term construction issues as with any route selected but less impact longer term as it does not impede traffic or residential amenity. The Foveaux St route would also add a station in the centre of Surry Hills rather than one that is a 5 minute walk from Central station. The current route is not a sustainable route and I cannot offer my support. As a fallback I would request the Devonshire St route be a cut and cover. I do not however agree with the request for a second Surry Hills stop. The first is unnecessary due to the proximity of Central Station.
Transport for NSW should be required to demonstrate that these options were genuinely considered and provide comprehensive reasons as to why they were rejected. Transport for NSW should be required to provide a cost benefit analysis that compares light rail with other options such as more bus services. All documents used to determine the final route proposed by Transport for NSW including why other options were excluded, should be made public as a part of any approval, pointing out community concern that requests for associated documents under the Government Information (Public Access) Act have been refused. I also believe the proposed CSELR will reach capacity within a few years, precluding future expansions to other areas such as Maroubra and Botany. The final approved route must be able to expand services into the future.

Community consultation - complete lack of community consultation by all levels of government
There has been no community consultation apart from a resident-forced "information" session where the minister advised we had no choice but to accept the route and offered an A3 flyer as proof this was the best route. The community are not seen as stakeholders in relation to this project and have never been consulted. This is inappropriate.

Noise impacts on residents
Surry Hills is a quiet residential neighbourhood with occasional noise from traffic passing through, weekend visitors to the cafes/ shops on offer, and infrequent groups passing by to attend events at the SFS. The increased noise from these occurrences are explicable and do not last long, hence they feed the life of the suburb. The light rail proposal will see light rail vehicles passing every 2-3 minutes. This will see maximum noise of 75-83dB every time a vehicle passes. This is far in excess of the noises residents experience now.
The acceptable noise levels have also been changed by the state government to match those of heavy rail. This is hardly fair on residents and means there is no evening noise level where you would expect noise to ramp down. Residents are now expected to deal with "daytime" noise levels up until 10:00PM. The light rail is also expected to run until 1AM. This is unacceptable and stark difference to the current living conditions of resistants. We also understand the light rail vehicles may move all night to return to the opposite end of the line or for repairs. Again this is a very different prospect that is unfair to Surry Hills residents who enjoy a quiet suburban lifestyle despite being close to the city.
I also believe the noise levels measured by TfNSW were taken outside of a local pub. This is unacceptable as the premises in question has loud live music nights, salsa dancing and trivia nights with the windows open. This is not a fair representation of the usual amenity for locals.
Residents have also been advised they will be unable to install high, solid fences, double glazing, nor will there be any sound barriers. This is unacceptable, and TfNSW should bear this cost. Trains should also cease at 11:30PM. To reduce noise I also request trains be limited to 20KM per hour whilst traversing through this quiet, residential area, plus a continuous rail line to reduce noise at expansion joints and the maximum noise reducing beds be installed below the tracks.

With regard to construction noise I do not agree to 24 hour construction at any time. Surry Hills residents are already collateral damage for this project and should not be further subjected to round-the-clock construction.

Visual impact and loss of trees/ parklands
I am concerned with the large volume of trees that will removed along the route and in the parklands. There will also be a loss of parklands both following and during construction. Many people in the area either live in apartments or have very small yards. This loss of green space will hugely impact their living standards and wellbeing. All parklands should be replaced 1:1 with improvements.

There will be a large number of overhead cables introduced under the current plans. We request these cables (along with electrical cables) be placed underground to reduce the visual clutter and enable trees to be planted to replace those being cut down.

Residents in Surry Hills rely on parks and open space. Many properties have either a small or no yard, and require open space for health and fitness, for relaxation, for children to play, to exercise pets and for recreational sports.

Safety
Safety is a consideration in this built up area as; Devonshire Street has numerous licensed venues, there are 2 child care centres on Devonshire Street, a school on Bourke St, access required to the church for weddings/ services/ funerals, and 1,000 residents of Northcott building.

The safety issues need to be fully reviewed by independent consultants and the full reports made available. The trains must be restricted to a maximum of 20kmph through this section.

Parking
I an area where parking is at a premium, Surry Hills already has serious parking issues. The rail project looks to remove a further 155+ just on Devonshire Street alone. Whilst we wish to reduce reliance on cars, many residents do need them for work and family life. If the rail project is to proceed we request Resident/Commercial Only spaces in selected areas and temporary parking permits for the occasional visitors of residents and also for tradespeople. This allows those that have a genuine need to park in the area - residents and businesses - greater access to dedicated parking.

Traffic
The Devonshire route crosses a number of major arterial roads. It is planned that the trams will have uninterrupted priority at all crossings. Indications are that at peak times, when the roads are their busiest, there will be a 45m train every 2-3min in each direction. A simple calculation means that a train will cross the arterial road approximately every 90 seconds. The trains are stated to be doubled in length when there are events at the Sydney Cricket Grounds and Sydney Football Stadiums, thus reducing this gap. The number of vehicles that can then cross-junctions at South Dowling, Bourke, Crown, Elizabeth and Chalmers, will be significantly reduced and access between the city and the South severed! The frequency of trains should be limited to a minimum of 5 minutes to ensure a suitable gap to allow pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles to cross in safety. TfNSW has offered no resolution n to the traffic problems that will be caused by the light rail.

Loss of homes
This route see the loss of at least 69 homes with people unable to buy back in the area they have made their home. Many residents are elderly and will not cope with the stress of this type so late in their life. The value of other residences and commercial buildings along the route will also be devalued with some residents already finding they are unable to sell their home due to the stigma of being on a major transport corridor. If this project was to proceed those residents should be compensated for the loss of value.

Businesses
TfNSW claim they have spoken to all businesses along the route however this is not correct and many businesses claim they have never been consulted. TfNSW advertised figures show only 100 businesses along the entire route have been surveyed. There are over 60 along Devonshire St alone and the impact on these businesses will be immense with many not being able to survive the construction period alone. Cafes and restaurants will have difficult time as the streetscape and amenity will be changed permanently with customers not wishing to sit to "enjoy" a meal with noisy trains going past at 75-83dB. These businesses residents form the heart of Surry Hills and this will ruin the suburb.

I object on the following grounds:

* EIS full of conflicting numbers and assertions - how can the community form an opinion with conflicting information, assertions and claims?
* Major claims and assertions do not have any justification or evidence provided
* EIS does not reveal underlying assumptions used to create estimated journey times nor justify why times have been reduced since the April 2013 brochure
* LR capacity can never be increased due to shared carriageway (TNSW consultant 2012 report)
* EIS claims 9,000 max passenger capacity but states 20 trains/hour max frequency (20 x 300 = 6,000) on pg 28, Volume 5 TP10 sn 1.5.5.3
* Frequency can never be increased due to adverse impact on major intersections (South Dowling, Lang & Anzac, Elizabeth St, Crown St & Devonshire etc).
* Light rail ONLY cuts traffic congestion GROWTH by 1% compared to no light rail
* Bus capacity being cut is up to 3x the capacity of the LR service capacity.
* LR proposal states 220 buses eliminated from Central to CQ in am peak hours (as buses stopped at Rawson Place to transfer to the LR that is already carrying Randwick/Kingsford passengers). 220 bus capacity is over 13,000 passengers/hour. Forced to get on LR with max capacity of 6,000 if totally empty.
* Loss of over 1,000 parking places along the route for up to 24 hours a day.
* Forcing local and cross-region traffic to rat-run through local streets in Surry Hills, Kingsford & Kensington due to elimination of over 70% of right turns from Anzac Parade
* Reduced safety for local school children, especially primary age, who have been totally left out of impacts in EIS.
* Local schools NEVER consulted by project team, only Sydney Boys High & Sydney Girls High known of.
* EIS contains many conflicting and misleading statements, {such as location of cycleway in Wansey Rd said to be on west side in multiple sections and on the east side in other sections}.
* Forecast numbers for UNSW (some used for capacity modelling) claimed current students around 37,000 and future target growth to 50,000. Yet actual current students around 50,000 and targeted growth is to 90,000 (& mentioned in other sections of EIS.
* LR will be the slowest Light Rail in the world, Melbourne is around 17-18 kmh for its trips, CSELR projected journey time provides sub 16 kmh trip speed. Yet EIS constantly claims LR to be 'fast and efficient'.
* Deleting 135 all stops per peak hour bus services AS WELL AS all UNSW express buses (48 per hour currently) and all express buses from Central to SBHS & SGHS.
* Detailed parking space losses inaccurate, eg: claim of 173 spaces near Souths understate actual amount by over 80 car spaces - what else is understated.
* Loss of trees and tree counts severely understated (eg: mentions several trees to be removed from High Cross Park in one section, mentions 18 trees in total in High Cross Park, actual trees in/on High Cross Park >30) inaccuracies cause no confidence in assertions made
* EIS does not clearly state all road closures, right hand turn closures, road direction changes nor additional traffic light signalisation nor changes to traffic signal durations - in any one (or six even combined Technical papers). How can community possibly understand implications.

The noise levels measured by TfNSW along Devonshire Street were taken outside of a local pub. This is unacceptable as the premises in question have loud live music nights, salsa dancing and trivia nights with the windows open. This is not a fair representation of the usual amenity for locals. The other noise measurement was taken along Parkham Lane, which is a no through road and have very minimal traffic.

I object to the substantial loss of parking along Alison Road. As an Alison Road resident without a garage it is already difficult for me & my family to find parking in the area. Also, it is difficult for visitors to find parking. Retaining parking on Alison Road will be especially important for my elderly mother who regularly makes visits by car. There must be another way to design the Light Rail alignment or route so that parking can be retained. Any traffic issues can be worked out through creative thinking & planning I imagine. Also, the Light Rail is supposed to be taking a substantial number of cars off the road, so traffic should be less of an issue.

I object to the location of the Randwick Interchange at High Cross Park. This is a beautiful park which is enjoyed by many hospital workers & patients so it deserves to be kept that way. I thought, when the Light Rail was proposed, that the stop was going to serve the hospital. So the stop should be at the hospital. It could have been designed so that the interchange would be underneath that new building development that is going up in the hospital near the top of High Street. The building could have been designed to accommodate an interchange on the ground or underground level. Further consultation working with the various stakeholders involved could lead to a better solution like this.

I object to the loss of a large number of trees, particularly in Randwick and around the racecourse on Alison Road and Wansey Road. These trees add value to my property. They provide shade and shelter from the hot afternoon sun, which is especially important since the days are only getting hotter. I do not want to have to spend more money on my electricity bill because I have to pump my air conditioning full blast on every hot & sunny day. The light rail should be redesigned so that it avoids any significant impacts to, and the removal of, so many large & healthy trees -especially around the racecourse.

The light rail should run wire free in Randwick like it will in George Street. Alison Road is flat, and there is already a lot of visual pollution from the electrical wires running overhead. Adding more wires will add to the visual clutter, making our residential viewpoints ugly.

I support the light rail because it aims to improve public transport. But I do not support these negative impacts that are associated with the current design in the EIS. These negative impacts such as loss of parking, loss of trees and loss of recreation areas need to be avoided. I wonder why Australia seems to lag behind the rest of the world in terms of intelligent planning. Improved public transport should not need to take away so much from the existing environment. It should be able to add to the existing amenities, without taking anything important away (such as trees and parking). Surely there are enough intelligent designers who can be employed to work out a better way of implementing this light rail so that will ensure more long-term benefits rather than so many drawbacks.

Thank you.

I believe the south east light rail should be extended to at least maroubra junction as it has high density population and there are proposals to further build on the density of this area. This needs consideration to avoid frustrating many potential commuters in the future.

Whilst normally in favour of public spend on public transport, I strongly OPPOSE this proposal in its current form.

This is for a very simple reason - it does not provide any faster trips than the existing bus services. This proposal is proposing to spend large amounts of money and permanently disrupt traffic to the CBD, all to put a service in that will make public transport commuters no better off and other commuters worse off.

No matter which way you spin the message 34 mins from Kingsford to Circular Quay as outlined in the proposal brochure is actually SLOWER than the current bus service which takes 25-30 mins.

There is an alternative which is to do this properly, spend the additional money and build an UNDERGROUND HEAVY rail service from one of the CBD rail stations to Eastern Suburbs with stops at UNSW, Kingsford, Maroubra Junction and potentially La Perouse. That would mean significantly faster trips to the CBD for all concerned and no disruption to traffic. It would also mean no changing transport modes for commuters that need to get to different parts of the CBD. They could just get off the appropriate rail station such as central and change lines.

To give you an example of someone living in Kingsford travelling to CBD takes 25-30mins via bus, would take 34 mins via light rail (this proposal) but under my alternative this would be halved to approximately 15 mins without any disruption to traffic.

To give you an example of someone living in Maroubra travelling to CBD takes 40 mins via express bus. Under your proposal they cannot even make use of this service. Under my alternative they would be in the CBD within 20 mins.

Long overdue we urgently need this service.Public transport in Sydney has been treated as a dumping ground for bad policies .We who use Public transport are treated like inferior beings who have to accept bad service and lack of investment.
The opal card needs to be speeded up.Sydney is the biggest and most important city in Australia.
Stop the disrespect to sydneysiders and tourists alike.
Lets have a first class Transport service we can be proud of!!

I'm writing in reference to the Sydney Light Rail proposal for Pedestrian passage between Bathurst and Hunter St. on George Street.

I am a resident of the Tower Building in Market Street having parking access via George St entrance between Dymocks and Myers.

As I am sure you are aware this development impacts on the access to the car parking driveway entrance to the garage of this building.

I have a number of concerns regarding access to the car parking station.

My concern is that to get from George Street to Park street and then turning left towards the eastern suburbs towards William Street, the section between George and Pitt st is blocked to cars and only taxis and busses are allowed that short section of Park St. This small closed section would impact greatly on getting through to desired locations.

if residents were given special permission to drive along George Street, I have interstate and overseas visitors coming to stay and they would also need to have permission to enter George street and the car parking entrance. One or two local parking permits per apartment would not be sufficient to take care of the access towards the car park for visitors.

If the development goes ahead and the streets between Bathurst and Hunter will be closed for traffic and pedestrians will be rushing across George Street, how will any motorist avoid pedestrians being knocked over by passing cars, busses, trams(light Rail) delivery vans etc. Would it become a dangerous scenario.

In principle I don't have any objection to the light rail project but it has to be user friendly to the environment and to local residents. I believe that city living is encouraged by the city of Sydney local government and there are many residential buildings at present and new developments have been approved and being approved. Please have consideration towards the present residents and make sure they are equally satisfied with this new proposed project.

Regards
ERIKA KENNEDY

Contact:0411 300 055

As a resident who lives just outside of the area where CBD and South East Light Rail (CSLER) patrons reside, I looked at the 100s of pages within the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and was unable to find benefits of the project in the short or long term.

If this project goes ahead, the CSLER would be terrible for Sydney because the benefits to every day commuters are negligible and the cost and disruption of the CSLER project and ongoing operations do not outweigh the benefits. The following facts are the basis for this feedback:

- The 90% of commuters who will board the CSLER at the Randwick and Kingsford terminus points will have longer and more complex commutes.
- Communities that are not along the CSLER route were not consulted in the development of these plans. As a result, the net increase in commute times, complication and delay of commutes by requiring a bus to CSLER transfer rather than a direct bus ride in to town have not been correctly considered. In addition, the change of the 9 ways roundabout into an intersection which limits the directions which traffic can flow will rescue the quality of life in the area.
- Commute times for those in private vehicles and buses are likely to be significantly extended post construction of the CSLER (this in addition to the obvious extended commute times during construction).
- The benefit of mitigating the proposed 4% increase in traffic within the CBD is too small to actually count the change as a benefit.
- The CSLER only increases passenger capacity by 33%, which is only required for special events.
- The proposed bus lane and private vehicle lanes in Kensington/Kingsford on Anzac parade are inconsistent between the various diagrams and unclear. Therefore, it is not possible to assess the environmental impact of the CSLER in this area.
- It is unclear whether the revised road usage on Anzac Parade will continue to allow for safe joint usage of the roads for cyclists and motor vehicles. As Anzac Parade is a common cyclist route, it is key that the roads remain safe for combined usage.
- The attraction to tourists around the Circular Quay terminus will be reduced because of the sound pollution from a tram service.
- The CSLER will be going to locations where there is currently bus transportation only. However, only 24% of the overall public transport users ride buses. Therefore, the population to utilise this service is not significant.

Based on the above detriments of the CSLER I trust that the proposal will be reconsidered find a solution where the positive outcomes actually outweigh the negative outcomes of this public transport proposal.

Kind Regards

Maroubra Resident