To whom it may concern,

I am 100% support of such metro upgrade project. Although there are
some sort of disruptions, however, I feel it is worth the pain.
Sydney, as a world class-city seems to lack a world class
infrastructure. Therefore, an upgraded metro is much needed in this
city and it should expand beyond.
Regarding the Canterbury station upgrade, I strongly suggest that an
additional entry should be built around Charles street.
Currently, a new path has been built there, however there is a fence
built on the other side of the station and it seems stupid as the new
path can be easily joint with the station access just by simply
removing the fence. (Photo attached for your reference)
Building a new entry not only can it help diverting the flow of
commuters during peak hour, it also create easy accessibility for the
people with disability as this new entry can access to platform
without using lifts.

I hope this project could be fast tracked and carry out ASAP as
driver-less train has been adopted in other world-class city and the
benefits it brings has been shown.

I am an owner/resident of Wiley Park, i support the metro however i
believe it must include active transport along the metro line. myself
and the community are screaming out for walking/bicycle tracks with
improved connection in the areas.

the proposal should be reconsidered to include walking and bicycle
tracks. I believe that this will also reduce the demand of cars in the
area. because people living in wiley park can walk to centers such as
punchbowl or lakemba for their needs.

The creation of a metro is another excessive waste of taxpayer dollars.
The current Bankstown line is capable of serving the current and
growing population. Funding should be allocated to ensure the
accessibility of the current stations through the installation of
lifts, as well as the removal of the S and C Set trains which pose
significant risks to commuters through their lack of safety mechanisms
such as emergency help points. Implementing the metro will displace
tens of thousands of commuters who have already been inconvenienced
through the removal of the inner west line. There has been no clear
explanation of replacement services meaning that commuters will face
excessive travel times as well as a disconnected service once the
metro is in place.
The metro will also increase the locality's population however roads,
hospitals and schools are currently not coping with the existing
population however no funding has been allocated to account for this

I object to the privatisation of public transport. This will benefit
developers and corporations at the expense of the citizens of NSW. I
object to the proposed rezoning of land around the Sydenham to
Bankstown railway line, which has the potential to create a high wall
across the city and destroy our suburbs, again benefiting developers
at the expense of the public interest. It is such a significant threat
to the heritage of our suburbs as to amount to vandalism.
If a private Metro line is to be built, it should be created from
scratch on a new line through suburbs which are not currently well
serviced by public transport. The private operators should be buying
the land themselves and taking on the risks themselves. It should not
be achieved through giving away publicly owned treasures like our
heavy rail line.

The Bankstown central branch of the Australian Labor party moved a motion
to make a submission opposing the Sydenham to Bankstown Metro. The
members of the branch raised the following concerns.

Currently a perfectly good service, residents do not want it changed.

Inconvenience to commuters whilst line is shut down, with poor
alternatives offered. I.e buses

No direct access to the city circle

Commuters from Yagoona and beyond will need to change trains twice to
reach the city circle

Safety and security concerns with driverless trains, especially when
travelling at night.

Limited seating compared to existing trains.

increased building densities around stations would further increase
pressure on already struggling infrastructure.

Lack of commuter parking would result in increased parking in
residential streets and town centres.

I am writing to you to express my dismay at plans to convert and
'privatise' the existing Sydenham to Bankstown Line to the Metro SW.

WE WANT Public transport NOT privatised rails. We want to keep and
SAVE the 9 stations for direct route to the city. We don't want the
struggle of changing trains 3 times to get to the CBD. I refuse this
plan for the sake of all my family and friends. We can't afford to
lose our direct link to the city.

My son lives in Yagoona and his children (my grand kids) travel to and
from school by train and will take longer if the changed take effect.

Not only will the plans see journey times increase for many commuters
by removing our direct link to Redfern and the City Circle but it will
also see tens of thousands of people displaced during the construction
phase.

I am also concerned about the government's plans to significantly
rezone suburbs along the line. This will see our population increase
by tens of thousands of people, spoiling the character of our local
areas. It will increase the equity divide we already experience in
terms of green space and community facilities, and see long standing
communities pushed out of areas that currently provide more affordable
housing. Our communities deserve far better!

What we need is restoration of the existing line !
WE DO NOT SUPPORT ANY PART OF THIS METRO !

I urge your government to reconsider its plans.

Thank You
Zena Farhat

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

Dear Sir/Madam

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

Regards

Kinsi Roberts

I raise my objection to the Sydenham to Bankstown Metro project for the
following reasons:

- Metro is going to cost a lot of pain and suffering for our community
especially commuters travelling to the city to work or to study.
- We have a good rail line with direct access to the City Circle ( T3
train line). The Metro will be a waste of money. That money can go
towards upgrading already existing infrastructure such as roads,
bridges, hospitals and schools.
- It will be a disaster to rely on buses to shift an enormous amount
of people from trains and for how long ..... Especially on Canterbury
Road as it is already congested with traffic.
- One of the main concerns is this Metro will come along with high
rises around the Metro. It is going to drown the Canterbury- Bankstown
area with population hard to handle which we are already one of the
most populated area in Sydney & NSW.

I will also object to this NSW State Government's disastrous project
because this will affect our small businesses along the railway
stations or close by.

Finally I do not trust this Government regarding the completion date
of this project, as I can see with the project happening on George St,
Sydney it is still to date not been completed.