To whom it may concern, i m writing to support the option 1b. for the Light Rail Project Because, I beleive it will have the least amount of impact on the enviroment.

Please don't cut down the old trees, they are what make our suburbs beautiful. New trees won't be able to replace their majestic presence.

Dear NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure,

This submission is in response to the Sydney CBD and South East Light Rail Project design EIS currently on exhibition.

The following information, which has been carefully compiled by some concerned citizens in order to assist others in formulating a coherent response, comprehensively expresses my own concerns about the issue, and I therefore wish for you to regard this submission as an individual response.

***I object to the removal of a large number of trees, including significant trees

⁃ The current design would involve the removal of a total of up to 760 trees (including 280 in Randwick and 160 along the Kensington/Kingsford corridor). Such tree removal would result in significant losses of heritage & amenity value for these areas and residents. The psychological benefits these trees currently provide would also be lost.

⁃ Such tree loss would also present a significant loss of habitat for the endangered grey-headed flying fox, and other native wildlife.

⁃ Light rail design should be reviewed and adjusted to avoid the loss of existing mature, healthy trees, especially in the areas of High Cross Park, Alison Road/Randwick Racecourse, Anzac Parade/Alison Road, and Wansey Road/Randwick Racecourse.

⁃ Trees along Alison Road/Randwick Racecourse, which are mature (around 100 years old) & healthy, and which provide significant visual, amenity & heritage value for residents and visitors, are set to be almost wholly and permanently removed. This is unacceptable. This can and should be avoided with repositioning of the Light Rail alignment.

⁃ Wire-free running (as planned for the George Street alignment) should be applied wherever possible, to avoid impacts on tree canopies and wildlife.

⁃ Qualified arboricultural advice should be employed during design and construction and the most recent methods for assessing trees & impacts should be employed (not such superseded methods as SULLE).

***I object to any loss of trees for the purposes of establishing construction compounds at High Cross Park, Tay Reserve and Wansey Road

The Light Rail EIS appears not to have addressed the cumulating effect of Randwick Urban Activation Precinct adequately. Technical Paper 4 states on page 31 that,
A contributing factor in selecting this [Randwick Urban Activation] Precinct was NSW Government`s commitment to providing light rail from Central Station to Moore Park and the University of NSW.
It follows logically that the Randwick Urban Activation Precinct (RUAP) is not just another development whose cumulative effects the EIS needs to consider. Rather, a consequence of the NSW Government's policy arising from the decision to link the RUAP to the CSELR is that the effects of the two need to be considered together. This has not been done except cursorily.
While the positive affects of this urban consolidation have been assessed, there does not appear to be any serious assessment of adverse economic and environmental effects, such as: -
* Increased traffic on main roads, particularly along routes not serviced by the CSELR. The densification of residences in nearby Waterloo and Alexandria are a case in point. Traffic has now become so congested that there are traffic jams in the middle of the day, well outside the peak hours. Similar congestion from the RUAP could be expected.
* Increased traffic in neighbouring suburban streets (also known as `rat running'). The CSELR is likely to result in an increase in rat-running as drivers seek to avoid the reduced capacity of Anzac Parade and other streets traversed by the CSELR. Rat running is already a major concern in Kensington and West Kingsford (Zones 2 and 3 of Figures 6-18 and 6-19 of Technical Paper 1 and further west), and a current issue being addressed by Randwick Council. It is surprising that the traffic experts do not seem to have become aware of this.
* Increased pressures on street parking in neighbouring suburban streets. Zones 2 and 3 of Figures 6-18 and 6-19 of Technical Paper 1 are too small. They do not take account of the substantial parking problem in residential streets resulting from cars of students attending UNSW. This parking extends westward to Tunstall Ave, and on university days, parking is extremely difficult. If surveys were done on days when the university had a student holiday, these cars would not have been seen. Was this the case for this EIS? It is of concern that the traffic experts may not have ascertained the existence of this problem.
It would appear that the EIS does not consider the cumulative effects of the east-west traffic resulting from the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Built Environment Plan - Stage 2, together with those of the RUAP at all.
These deficiencies in the EIS, found within a few minutes of starting to examine the EIS are disappointing. While the CSELR is a project with much to commend it, oversights such as these do not inspire confidence that all other adverse effects have been dealt with.

The assessment of aboriginal significance is good as far as it goes. However, it may have missed one important item of aboriginal infrastructure, namely the aboriginal road or roads used to connect Botany Bay with Port Jackson. These were noted by the crew of Captain Cook's voyage. It may be that some of the routes of the CSELR follow or traverse the line of these roads, and this possibility should be investigated.

It would appear that the estimates of the effects of the CSELR on traffic have not allowed for the impacts of the Randwick UAP. If this is correct, the EIS will remain deficient and prone to successful legal challenge, unless the NSW Govenment formally removes the linkage between the CSELR and the RUAP, or the effects of the congestion induced by the RUAP are also modelled and incorporated into the EIS.

For the same reason, the laudable cost-benefit ratio of 2.5 cited for this project must be set aside, and a new ratio must be estimated for the CSELR combined with the RUAP, unless the government removes the RUAP from consideration as justified by the CSELR.

The mature fig trees are a very significant part of Randwicks amenity. I object strongly to the removal of so many to bring in a public transit system that replicates existing bus routes.

Trees must be saved. If more than 100 are lost I would feel the area has been significantly scarred.

I would rather lose parking spaces. Take as many of those as you like. Trees are attractive, beneficial, valuable. Car parking is good only for cars. Let us walk to the shops from the light rail.

The light rail must go all the way to the beach at Coogee. Coogee Bay Road can certainly contain it - must be made to contain it. More Sydneysiders must have the opportunity to access the beach.

Western Sydney has surely as strong a claim for public transport infrastructure. Make it the legacy of this time that governments state and local worked to solve transport across Sydney.

At the corner of Flinders & Albion Sts Surry Hills we have an excellent bus service now. We can get all the Coogee and Marourbra Bus services. I am concerned that as a Senior Citizen I'll have to walk all way to Taylors Sq to catch my bus to Sydney
CBD. The proposed light rail stops are too far for me to walk as I age. I request you keep the Metro #10 buses and Coogee #373. Your plans for light rail through Surry Hills, will destroy our present excellent bus services

Hi There,

I am writing to show my support for option 1b for light rail project in the CBD ans South East Area. I support option 1b, as well as 1a (being my second preference), as they have the straightest run, which results in less noise.

Kind regards,
Andrew

To the Department of Planning and Infrastructure,

My submission is based on my support of option 1b, as outlined in the EIS, together with option 1a, as they are the two most cost effective options. As a tax payer and local resident, I would ask the State Government to choose the most cost effective options. Option 1c has been outlined as the most expensive option, so I would not support option 1c being chosen over option 1b and 1a.

Kind Regards,
Michael

Hi there,

I am writing to you to express my support for option 1b, as outlined in the EIS because it will mean that the house located at 625-629 South Dowling Street, Surry Hills (which is located on option 1c) will remain;

it would be a great loss to lose this house as it will be truly unique and iconic for Sydney's architecture industry.

Kind regards,
Annabelle

I am supporting option 1b, because this option will have the least impact on the environment.