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

As a business owner at Nine Ways, Kingsford, I am concerned about the negative impact the construction phase will have on my business.

Are you able to tell me when you predict, pending approval, construction at Nine Ways will commence and how long the contruction phase will take to complete?

Also, are there any plans for compulsory takeovers of any of the existing commercial properties at Nine Ways to make way for the Light Rail?

Finally, are businesses being compensated for loss of business during the construction of the Light Rail.

Thank you

In the document there is mention of the canopies that will protect the passengers from the weather. I would like to suggest that they provide proper protection from the weather (not just if the rain is falling straight down for example). The protection should extend to the bus stops and train stations so the passengers will be protected from the weather when they transfer from one form of transport to another.This may seem obvious but this has been overlooked in recent constructions (eg the new Chatswood and Macquarie University stations). This protection is particularly important at the Kingsford, Randwick, Central Station and Rawson Place stops.

Has any thought been given to extending the light rail down Parramatta Road? I've noticed when travelling on any bus that goes down Parramatta Road that about half the passengers get off the bus before it leaves Parramatta Road.

We support the overall goal of the project to provide reliable public transport for commuters and improve and expand public space and amenity. We do not, however, support the means you propose of achieving this. We believe that most the your goals could be achieved with a less costly and disruptive scheme, particularly to the South East suburbs.

The main issue that the CSELR seeks to address seems to be congestion in the CBD caused by buses, especially in George Street. The buses removed by the CSELR do not travel along George Street, as far as we know by checking the bus route maps. They mostly use Elizabeth Street. You say that you intend to make Elizabeth St the main N-S bus route with higher bus priority levels.

Alternative proposal for trial
We suggest that, prior to implementing the CSELR proposal, a one to two year trial is conducted with buses only instead of light rail in George St (except for commercial vehicles) from, say, Liverpool St or Rawson Place to, say Grosvenor or Bridge Sts, in peak hour. Outside peak hour, normal traffic could be resumed except for the pedestrian/bus only precinct in George St between Hunter and Bathurst St. Any decisions on light rail should be made after completion and assessment, and extensive community and passenger consultation, of such a trial.
This could be combined with a move to gas-powering all buses, and utilising more 'bendy' and double-decker buses. This proposal would reduce pollution, costs and be far less disruptive to the SE suburbs. It would also save hundreds of significant trees.

Consultation with community and stakeholder throughout the year.
As residents of Randwick, we have only recently become fully aware of the extent and potential impact of the project, and we know many other in the same position. We do not think that there has been enough time or information for affected residents to update themselves and respond. We therefore respectfully request that you lengthen the timeframe for information sessions and response to allow for proper and informed consultation.

Buses v CSELR
Your justification for the change from buses to light rail for the SE is that there are unreliable journey times and a confusing network of buses. What is your evidence for this? By what means did you ascertain this? Surveys of passengers? Complaints?

Loss of trees
We object to the loss of trees and wildlife habitat along the LR corridor, especially old and significant trees in High Cross Park (Cook pines and figs) and along the Allison Road and Anzac Pde corridors (especially along Wansey Road - palms, and figs in the Racecourse; figs along Allison Road; and figs in the UNSW grounds in Anzac Pde). The figs are important to the threatened grey-headed flying fox.

Parking
We object to the loss of parking in Randwick, and do not accept that there are sufficient spaces to take up the slack. The suburban streets in Randwick-Kensington-Kingsford are currently parked out by UNSW students, and your plan will exacerbate this, as will increased on-campus accommodation about to come on stream. UNSW should be persuaded to provide sufficient parking on campus for all their staff and students prior to any development that will exacerbate the current parking issues.

Traffic
You state that the CSELR will not have a significant impact on the performance of the broader road network. We believe the current route for the LR in the SE will cause traffic congestion at key points, especially the 5-way junction of High, Belmore and Avoca, the junction of Anzac And Allison, and wherever the LR crosses the road at Anzac Pde (2 places at UNSW) and Allison (at Doncaster Ave).
We also think that most of the car drivers will not move the LR. Apparently Infrastructure NSW said in October that "private road transport is - and will remain - the only viable option for most journeys in Sydney most of the time". This is so in the SE, where not all commuters are travelling to the CBD, but many are travelling across the SE to reach other destinations.

Pollution
You claim that LRVs are less polluting. Surely they just move the pollution elsewhere, to the source of the electricity which is, for the most part, coal fired power stations outside Sydney which are over producing carbon dioxide. Moving the bus fleet to all gas-powered vehicles, with more 'bendy' buses and double-deckers would be less polluting.

Community values and local economic benefits
You outline some community values you believe will be fulfilled by the CSELR. What is your evidence for your statements in relation to the SE suburbs? How will it enhance access to public spaces and community facilities? How will it enhance urban connectivity and liveability? How will it improve social sustainability?
How will it increase business activity in Randwick? Where is your evidence for the need for urban renewal and a UAP in Randwick?

We strongly support further investigation and ongoing and meaningful consultation with affected councils and local residents prior to any final decision.

I object to the light rail plan as it stands. Access to the hospitals will be much more difficult for staff and patients with no stop outside the POWH or Sydney Children's Hospital. It is a long way for disabled or elderly patients to walk from high cross park where the interchange will be located. Also, there is very little parking on the hospital site and introduction of the light rail will lead to a huge decrease in on street parking. Many parents attending the children's hospital travel some distance and need somewhere to park. There is already enormous congestion around high cross park in the mornings. Locating the light rail interchange there will only make this worse. Also, this part of Randwick is dominated by buildings. The loss of so many trees to accommodate the light rail will tip the balance further in that direction. I believe that having green space, or at least trees, in areas where there are large numbers of people is important for the well being of those people.

High Cross Park, Randwick. I strongly object to any change of use to Hign Cross Park. It is a haven for residents, staff of various organisations and for many folk, just a green beautiful oasis for a quiet reflection. There are many units in the area, without gardens, so this park is used for their enjoyment. The Park is very speciial. A Victorian 1858 park, Mayor Simeon Pearce thought the vacant land had air of an english village and began to called the area High Cross. Simeon Peace and his fellow alderman proclaimed the Municipality of Randwick in March 1859.at High Cross Park. Mayor Pearce came from Randwick in Gloucester in England, and always held High Cross Randwick close to his heart - how wonderful and from that time, High Cross has been the heart of City of Randwick, and remains close to its residents and visitors alike. Hence the War Memorial and its delightful gardens.. HIGH CROSS PARK IS SACRED LAND. PLEASE LEAVE THE PARK AS IS.I thank you for your assistance.
CARS SPACES IN ALISON ROAD. P:lease do not take away car parking in Alison Road, Randwick, between Darley Road and Cowper Street. It would be dangerous not having a line of vehicles protecting persons from the roadway. Also parking is now a premium, especially on TAFE and UNSW days (King St).
I support the concept of light Rail.. Maurfeen Norbury.