I am very disappointed with this ridiculous idea of a light rail through surry hills. I do not want my home and neughbourhood destroyed. I will not benefit in any way and as a taxpayer the burden is shared by me. Homes near the city are difficult to get and the government plans to destroy beautiful apartment blocks for a service that has no chance if success. Why not try alleviating areas that are congested and improving the current rail system?? This is simply an unecessary waste of funding with no real thought to the utility of such a project. The most congested area is linking the city to the west and alleviating the huge traffic backlog.

I recently learned that a light rail service will be running along Anzac Parade, Kensington.
Even though I am not a resident of the Municipality of Randwick, my daughter has lived in the area since 1986 and I frequently visit her.
I was astounded to hear the excellent bus service that has been in operation will now be replaced by a service that will affect the area adversely.
The residents are already affected when football games, cricket and the races are held, the light rail will cause much more turmoil as it will be every day and every night. Also, the trees that now supply shade in the area, will be removed resulting in loss of habitat for native birds and animals. Parking will be non-existant.
You already have an extremely good bus service so hope you can see the logic in retaining the existing service.

I support light rail in the CBD, but as a resident of Surry Hills I am concerned that the project will have a negative impact on our neighbourhood which is one of the best in the world. (Surry Hills ranked number 23 on the list of "The 50 Most Stylish Neighbourhoods in the World" published by American lifestyle magazine Complex). There are no positives for Surry Hills in this project. The Devonshire Street surface route will cause major disruption during and after construction. Devonshire street is too narrow to sustain two light rail tracks as well as local traffic. The loss of trees, car parking spaces and public park land in Moore Park, Wimbo Park & Wark Park will cause significant loss of amenity for residents. Local residents on and around Devonshire Street (including myself) will have restricted or no vehicular access to their houses. The tram stop at Ward park is pointless as it is only 4 minutes walk from Central station and the city bound trams will already be full in peak hour. Four major north-south roads will be impacted by trams every 2-4 minutes causing ongoing traffic chaos. This transport infrastructure project is short sighted as it will reach full capacity within three years of completion. The Foveaux Street subsurface route is far superior as it will cause less disruption, greater capacity (allowing for three tracks), it will be faster and provide a more useful service for Surry Hills residents. I am appalled that Transport for NSW has rejected this option without considering it. I am appalled that City of Sydney council has abandoned the Surry Hills "village" as collateral damage in their quest to get Light Rail established in the CBD.

- The light rail should be extended to Maroubra Junction and Eastgardens to support exponential growth of population moving into newly built high rises. Particularly, up to 14 stories high blocks will be built next to Eastgardens on the former BATA site. NSW government approved the development; the government should provide additional public transport as well!

- The light rail will only deliver efficient fast transport if it will be fully isolated from cars to avoid light rail carriages getting stuck in general traffic.
The documentation does not provide information about track separation from the general traffic in Kensington and Kingsford areas.
If cars will be allowed to drive on light rail tracks, particularly during peak hours light rail carriages will lose intended advantage of fast public transport!

I would like to object to the proposed speed of the LRVs through the Surry Hills area. I believe the proposed speed of 45km per hour should be reduced to 20km per hour as it will be on George st. My grandchildren will be living metres away from the track and I would like them to be able to play safely in the park which will be created in the area surrounding the tracks which is currently Olivia Gardens. It is also proposed the LRVs will be between 45m and 90m long and this speed is too fast for such large vehicles. There is also a school metres down the road so such large speeding vehicles will pose a danger for the children within the area.

I disagree with the proposed route on the surface of Devonshire Street in Surry Hills. Devonshire Street is a narrow, tree-lined residential street. The road is not wide enough to take a light rail as well as two lanes of traffic (one in each direction) unless all the trees are felled and the pavements narrowed. If pavement widths are to be maintained then property boundaries would have to be moved and properties made smaller.

A subsurface track is required if the route must follow Devonshire Street. Alternatively Albion Street could be used as the route because this is a much wider street and so it could accommodate both traffic and a light rail across the current width of the road without any pavements to be narrowed or property boundaries to be moved.

A subsurface light rail below Albion Street has been proposed because of the gradient of the road surface and, given the information for and against this proposal in terms of cost and other factors, I support the subsurface Albion Street proposal.

Dear Sir / Madam

I object to this project on a number of grounds, however, I would like to highlight that it will have a significantly negative impact on the existing 373 and X73 bus services.

It is my understanding that the 373 and X73 services will be cancelled. These bus services are critical for Coogee residents and the tram will be a very poor substitute.

I would encourage greater use of bus lanes and removal of on-street parking on Belmore Road, Randwick (substituted by construction of more parking stations near Belmore Road if required) as better solutions for residents of Coogee and surrounding areas. Such developments provide a relatively cheap and effective solution for improving the journey to the City for residents of Coogee and surrounds on the 373 and X73 buses.

It is clear that this project has been designed to accommodate the needs of visitors to the area (primarily UNSW, Randwick Racecourse and More Park) and ill-conceived plans to ramp up further development of an already medium/high-density region. However, it is unnecessary as buses already provide a good service for visitors to the area, particularly special event services which can be ramped up as required. Further development of the area is also unwarranted and a poor excuse for the project as any benefit of additional infrastructure will be offset by further overcrowding (the focus should be on providing solutions for existing residents).

The proposal completely ignores those residents who live on the fringe of the project in the Coogee area and ultimately will be cut-off from any net benefits which will supposedly accrue.

Travel times will significantly increase against a journey on the X73 and 373 buses. These buses connect Coogee with the North of the CBD (by-passing Central and the Southern CBD).

To get to the North of the CBD via the tram, Coogee residents will need to find their way to the tram at Randwick this may take circa 20-25 mins for an able-bodied person. Wait for a tram (5 mins), then travel to the City North, via Central and a trip through the entire Sydney CBD (34 mins per the State's expected travel time). This journey is at least 1 hour (best case scenario). I expect that this will be a very conservative estimate.

I also cite the following objections to the project:
* Destruction of George Street as a thoroughfare through the City resulting in diversion of traffic (particularly buses) to roads such as Elizabeth Street and Castlereagh Street. Elizabeth Street and Castlereagh Street will not be able to cope with increased traffic. They are already struggling.
* Negative impact on streetscape (particularly George Street streetscape). The electrical wiring required to power the network is unsightly.
* Contrary to claims that trams will not be more reliable than buses. If the tram breaks down, the whole network will shut down. If a single bus breaks down a replacement can be found relatively easily with limited network impacts.
* Price tag for this infrastructure project is outrageous.
* Construction works will take too long and will have a significantly negative impact on the entire transport network.
* Trams have been tried in this part of Sydney and failed. Let's not repeat the mistakes of the past. We need solutions that are suitable for the peculiarities of this region of Sydney, we don't need to import another Edinburgh experience.

In summary please make better use of bus infrastructure as a better alternative to this project. Please also ensure that the 373 and X73 services are not cancelled or frequency reduced as a consequence of this disastrous project.



Thanks

I support an extension from Kingsford to Maroubra beach.
Maroubra is a suburb that is continuing to expand in density and has a high car population.
At present bus services are unreliable and can take between 40 and 75 mins to reach the city. In off peak times (weekends) bus services are particularly unreliable, forcing people to use cars as a primary mode of transport.
If removing car congestion is a primary goal, then providing a reliable alternative is worth the additional investment. I would like to know what feasible reasons there are to not extend the additional 4km of track down Anzac Parade?

I strongly submit in favour of this project. Through this project, transportation to the south east suburbs will greatly improve, which will provide cascading benefits to a plethora of individuals and businesses.

The positives of this project include: improving the current bus-focused public transport system, minimising congestion and increasing the sustainability of the city.

I further submit that the stabling facilities should not impact the local housing market in Randwick and I trust that the location will be appropriate.

15th December, 2013



Development Assessments Systems and Approvals
Department of Planning and Infrastructure
CBD and South East Light Rail project
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2000

Attention: Director, Infrastructure Projects Branch

FAX (02) 9228 6366


Department of Planning and Infrastructure
Re: CSELR - response to Environmental Impact Statement

As a resident of Surry Hills for over 20 years and a business owner for nearly 30 years, I wish to voice my strong opposition for the proposed design of the CBD and South East Light Rail project (CSELR) as described in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) dated November 2013. I do not agree with the proposal as stated in the EIS document.
I have several concerns in relation to the CSELR project and the EIS, particularly in relation to the Surry Hills to Moore Park West Route in relation to light rail travelling along Devonshire Street. Over the past few months I have attended many local resident meetings and sourced any information that has been provided by way of media releases and the like, but still remain bemused as to why despite overwhelming public objection and viable alternatives that are equally cost effective being suggested, the current route appears to have been decided upon by officials involved in the CSELR's planning.
No genuine community consultation by Government Officials has been afforded to residents and parties affected and many residents and business owners are feeling their opinions aren't being considered. I have also discussed this matter with some of my staff members who are not residents but frequently choose to visit the area socially and they are in total agreement with the issues we are raising.
I will personally be affected by the current proposal as it stands in many ways, for example -

1. Specific to Parkham Street -
I request Parkham Street be kept open to allow access by service vehicles from Nobbs Street. This will allow traffic dropping off at the school to exit up onto South Dowling not back into the heavily restricted Surry Hills area.

This will also greatly reduce noise pollution into property along Parkham Street.
This is not modelled on EIS noise impact statement and in the EPA guidelines noise levels prior to a road alteration can be compared with noise afterwards, this is not true for train lines.

If Parkham Lane is open we insist on a right turn onto Burke St from Parkham Lane as well as a left, ie open up Bourke to two-way from Parkham Lane to Devonshire St.
This will again reduce traffic being forced into the very congested Bourke and Cleveland junction. Also this will be safer by reducing the traffic passing the front of the school.

2. Unacceptable noise levels and the size and frequency of the light rail vehicles as they travel through a densely populated area - the noise analysis does not include increased traffic noise from cars now travelling down Parkham Lane. We need maximum noise attenuation.

3. Road closures and access to my property during and after the construction process, including traffic congestion.

4. A devaluation of my property with no future compensation from the Government.

5. Loss of Amenity and car parking.

6. Loss of existing parkland which I have for many years enjoyed with other residents, personal friends, business associates and family members.

I am also deeply concerned as to the dislocation this is causing amongst other residents which for many many years have provided a sense of community that is fast disappearing in Australian Municipalities. A great deal of anxiety has, and will continue to impact on not only those elderly and family groups that will be required to lose their homes and relocate to other areas against their wishes (including financial and long term mental health issues that will be experienced), but also local residents who remain and other visitors and tourists who enjoy the current amenities available.

During her term as Shadow Minister for Mental Health, I am certain The Honourable Gladys Berejeklian, MP would have acquired an extensive knowledge that issues such as those being raised by residents and stakeholders can also become a long-term cost to the Government and the community itself. I agree that the CSELR will be an asset for the City of Sydney and it's residents and visitors but its planning and consultation methods have not met the standards required or deserving of such a substantially important project.

I am one of the thousands of people who have previously signed the PUSH Petition requesting an alternative Surry Hills route and I therefore urge your Department to genuinely engage in further community consultation before a final decision is made.


Yours faithfully,


M Bowen
Surry Hills Resident