I wish to voice my 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.

My concerns in relation to the CSELR project and the EIS, with particular interest with the Surry Hills to Moore Park West route, are summarised below:

Lack of business case for overall project and cost benefit of possible routes through Surry Hills
Devonshire street is not capable of being the spine of the SE Network / not sustainable
Vastly superior alternative routes has been identified - Foveaux and Devonshire sub-surface
No genuine community consultation has been engaged in.
Unacceptable noise levels, and times through a densely populated suburb
Size, speed and frequency of the light rail vehicles (LRV's)
Construction impact on small businesses and residents
Road closures during and post construction
Acquisition of 69 homes
Dislocation of Surry Hills
Loss of Amenity
Traffic congestion
Loss of large historic trees
Impact on parklands
Access to properties along the route - businesses, residents, elderly and disabled will be completely removed. How are we to get deliveries
Significant devalue on properties along the route with no compensation from the Government
Loss of car parking


If the project is to proceed then at a minimum the following should be adhered to:

The LRV's are no longer than 29m long if traveling through residential areas at the surface level. If the LRV"s are longer than 29m, then they are only to travel along specifically tailored routes (such as a sub-surface or tunnel) and or dedicated rights of way (not on residential streets).
Speed to be reduced to 20km from South Dowling Street to Elizabeth Street
Operational times through Surry Hills must limited to 05:30 to 23:30
No light rail movement between 23.30 and 5.30
Frequency limited to a minimum of 5 minutes gap of both LRV's
Noise and vibration levels delivered well within the EPA guidelines
Continuous rail to reduce noise at expansion joints to be used between South Dowling Street to Elizabeth Streets
Maximum noise reducing beds to be installed below the tracks
Base to be constructed in a way that limits vibration
Significant screening in residential areas must take place
All parklands should be replaced 1:1 with improvements on facilities
The Government has suggested they will replace trees 1:7 - this should be enforced with a at least 1:10 in the Surry Hills area
Light rail and electrical cables to be placed underground to reduce the visual clutter and enable trees to be planted to replace those being cut down
All substations must be below ground
Those residents financially impacted by the development of the light rail should be compensated for the loss of value; including acquisition and properties along the route affected.
Genuine consultation with business owners and operators about the construction of the light rail, with immediate support in the event of an incident.
Compensation to business for loss of income due to the construction and long-term impact of the light rail.
Compensation for all those residents living on Devonshire Street or on street level where the route passes in front of their residence
The frequency of LRV's should be limited to a minimum of 5 minutes to ensure a suitable gap to allow pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles to cross in safety
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.
The safety issues need to be fully reviewed by independent consultants and the full reports made available
Frequency limited to a minimum of 5 minutes gap between both LRV's

I totally oppose this ridiculous 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.

My concerns in relation to the CSELR project and the EIS, with particular interest with the Surry Hills to Moore Park West route, are summarised below:


Lack of business case for overall project and cost benefit of possible routes through Surry Hills
Devonshire street is not capable of being the spine of the SE Network / not sustainable
Vastly superior alternative routes has been identified - Foveaux and Devonshire sub-surface
No genuine community consultation has been engaged in.
Unacceptable noise levels, and times through a densely populated suburb
Size, speed and frequency of the light rail vehicles (LRV's)
Construction impact on small businesses and residents
Road closures during and post construction
Acquisition of 69 homes
Dislocation of Surry Hills
Loss of Amenity
Traffic congestion
Loss of large historic trees
Impact on parklands
Access to properties along the route - businesses, residents, elderly and disabled
Significant devalue on properties along the route with no compensation from the Government
Loss of car parking


If the project is to proceed then at a minimum the following should be adhered to:

The LRV's are no longer than 29m long if traveling through residential areas at the surface level. If the LRV"s are longer than 29m, then they are only to travel along specifically tailored routes (such as a sub-surface or tunnel) and or dedicated rights of way (not on residential streets).
Speed to be reduced to 20km from South Dowling Street to Elizabeth Street
Operational times through Surry Hills must limited to 05:30 to 23:30
No light rail movement between 23.30 and 5.30
Frequency limited to a minimum of 5 minutes gap of both LRV's
Noise and vibration levels delivered well within the EPA guidelines
Continuous rail to reduce noise at expansion joints to be used between South Dowling Street to Elizabeth Streets
Maximum noise reducing beds to be installed below the tracks
Base to be constructed in a way that limits vibration
Significant screening in residential areas must take place
All parklands should be replaced 1:1 with improvements on facilities
The Government has suggested they will replace trees 1:7 - this should be enforced with a at least 1:10 in the Surry Hills area
Light rail and electrical cables to be placed underground to reduce the visual clutter and enable trees to be planted to replace those being cut down
All substations must be below ground
Those residents financially impacted by the development of the light rail should be compensated for the loss of value; including acquisition and properties along the route affected.
Genuine consultation with business owners and operators about the construction of the light rail, with immediate support in the event of an incident.
Compensation to business for loss of income due to the construction and long-term impact of the light rail.
Compensation for all those residents living on Devonshire Street or on street level where the route passes in front of their residence
The frequency of LRV's should be limited to a minimum of 5 minutes to ensure a suitable gap to allow pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles to cross in safety
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.
The safety issues need to be fully reviewed by independent consultants and the full reports made available
Frequency limited to a minimum of 5 minutes gap between both LRV's

As an owner/occupier of a unit in the Tower Apartments(,68-70)
Market Street I was invited to attend the presentation of the
George Street Light Rail Update. No present or future traffic data were presented, ,which made it difficult for all residents
present to judge the impact on the accessibility of our parking garage/. Having had this property for thirteen years, I am familiar with the enormous traffic flow on George Street which peaks during the early mornings and late afternoons, when arrow of approx.80 busses is proceeding to and from Circular Quay.
By making space for light rail and creating larger pedestrian ways chaos will be the result which may take years to correct.
Already now, when part of George Street is closed for the City of Sydney's many celebrations, I am often delayed for quite some time before able to park my car.
And all of this mainly to create a festive zone in a wider circle around Town Hall.
Stores like Myer and Dymocks, the many offices on the stretch between Market and King Street, they all need two lanes on both sides to avoid constant traffic jams.
I also have safety concerns with cars and trucks sharing and crossing pedestrian space.
Your own data on traffic movements must suggest that creating a boulevard is a dream, which willcost billions of dollars to correct.
All these reasons force me to object in the strongest possible terms to the present plan. I trust that you see the enormous problems it would create and I hope that you will give it your unbiased consideration.

I am writing to support option 1b for the light rail project, together with option 1a. They have the straightest run, there for resulting in less noise and impacts.

I am writing to oppose the South East Light Rail project as it represents a very poorly thought out project that will not provide any real benefits to residents of south east Sydney over that available via the existing bus transport network.

In summary, my objections are:

* It will be slow
* the route is not convenient
* it will be easily disrupted by vehicular traffic
* it will have significant impact on the streetscape
* it will provide no real additional capacity over that of the existing bus network
* the proposed tram stops are completely over the top and there will be too few stops especially since the existing bus routes are to be discontinued
* the concept will have significant impact on vehicular traffic
* forcing people to change at Randwick and Kingsford is madness

The EIS acknowledges that the network will operate at near 100% capacity from day one. Population density in the South East is increasing and any enhancement to public transport needs to plan for more capacity, not commit to a project that only keeps capacity the same as at present. The South East tram is not a plan, but more like a misguided, poorly thought out, half baked scheme dreamed up by someone who has very little knowledge of what is required to provide a workable public transport network.

The route across Moore Park, through the Olivia Gardens apartment block, to Central and down George St is a very poorly thought out route. This route is not a convenient way to get to the city from the south east and without a tram along Parramatta Road, will also disrupt bus travel from the inner west from Parramatta Road. The journey time along George St from Circular Quay to Central will be woefully slow as the trams will be restricted to around 20kmh along the pedestrianised George Street.

If the tram is to proceed, the 19th century route from the south east and Moore Park via Taylor Square and Elizabeth St is a much better thought out route and imposes less overall disruption to existing services. The old inner west tram route along Parramatta Road, Broadway and down George St also worked. The present plan will cause major disruption to lots of people with few benefits. Our forebears knew what they were doing, which is more than can be said for our present planners.

Street based trams are very susceptible to being disrupted by motor vehicles. Street based routes will of necessity require numerous traffic lights at intersections and 45 metre long trams will not be easy to get around. Whilst accidents should not occur all that often, when they do, the impact will be significant and the disruption will bring the entire tram network to a halt. It is worth remembering that the existing Lilyfield trams were recently cancelled for several WEEKS due to a couple of relatively minor derailments.

FORCING people to interchange at stops in Randwick and Kingsford is not a good solution as this will INCREASE overall travel time from Maroubra, Pagewood etc to the city and provide a DISINCENTIVE for use of the system. Journey times will increase rather than decrease when the journey time of the slower tram, the inconvenience of having to interchange and the less convenient route to the city is considered. Any system that FORCES people to change is not a step forward. A public transport system that provides an INCENTIVE (via a potential quicker journey) works. FORCING people to interchange does not.

The proposed tram stops are completely over the top in concept and look like those that would be used for a metro rail network rather than a hop on hop off low floor tram stop. The stops will need to be 45 metres long. Having fewer access points to the trams through Randwick, Kensington and the inner city will reduce access to public transport, not improve it.

The tram stop at Randwick in the park near Avoca St will have a significant impact on the park itself. The proposed route along Wansey Road will require a significant number of trees to be removed.

The disruption while constructing the tram tracks along George St will be enormous. Has any real thought been given to the practical implications that construction will have on the existing electricity, water, gas, sewerage and telecommunications infrastructure below the street in George St? There is a lot of existing infrastructure that will need to be relocated prior to tracks being able to be laid. This will mean that several years of disruption will occur while services are being relocated in which existing George St bus traffic will have to be relocated away from George St without any benefits accruing to anyone while construction is underway.

What then is my preferred position?

There is a need to improve public transport in Sydney's South East as the existing bus network is overcrowded. There have been well thought out published plans developed by the NSW Government in recent years. These plans include the Eastern Suburbs Railway extension and the South East Metro.

One better solution as identified in the 2001 Ron Christie developed Long Term Strategic Plan for Rail was to build the south east extension to the Eastern Suburbs Railway. This was planned to have stops at Charing Cross, Frenchmans Road, Randwick, UNSW and Kingsford and thus serve a number of the locations that the proposed tram network would serve. It would provide significantly more capacity and being built underground, it would be vastly less disruptive to construct. The dedicated route would also provide a quicker journey time to that of the proposed tram network. The Eastern Suburbs Railway extension would also obviously integrate very well with the existing rail network. The tram network will not integrate all that well with other public transport and will require passengers to pass through ticket barriers each time they change.

Another better solution is the South East Metro project as also proposed in the 2001 Long Term Strategic Plan for Rail. Ron Christie knew what he was doing when putting the Long Term Strategic Plan for Rail together, he understood rail transport and understood how to develop a well thought out rail project. An underground metro scheme could provide operational benefits through driverless trains as currently proposed for the North West rail network.

The 2001 Long Term Strategic Plan for Rail metro rail plan with stations at St James, Taylor Square, Moore Park, UNSW, Randwick, Kingsford and Maroubra could be developed as an underground cut and cover type tunnel with driven tunnels into the city. This scheme would also link up with Moore Park and the existing rail network at St James and potentially Wynyard. As such, it would impose minimal disruption to existing street based traffic in the long term, it would provide substantially quicker journery times and would be easier to construct. The stations, being underground would have minimal impact at street level.

The South East Metro is potentially a better solution than the ESR as it could increase the "reach" of rail transport into more areas of Sydney presently not presently served by rail, especially if it was developed as part of a wider network. The Long Term Strategic Plan for Rail was well thought out and is well worth adopting. It is acknowledged that it would be a more expensive than the ESR or the tram network, though would provide more benefits to Sydney than the huge amount of money proposed to be squandered on the Westconnex 1950's mentality motorway.

Both the ESR extension and the South East Metro can happily coexist with street level bus networks.

I urge you to reject the South East tram network entirely and invest in a better, more worthwhile public transport scheme as described in the Long Term Strategic Plan for Rail.

Regards,

Stephen Hodgkinson

I do not support the proposed plans

In general I support the CSELR project and believe it is a necessary project for Sydney's long-term traffic management strategy, but I have several concerns with the EIS as submitted and cannot support certain aspects of the project.

Construction impacts are never easy and must be considered a necessary evil of infrastructure projects. As a resident, I am willing to sacrifice short-term inconvenience for long-term benefit, and I encourage other residents to adopt a similar viewpoint.

I support the plan to run down Devonshire Street, and accept the government's statements that underground routes along Foveaux or Devonshire Streets are not feasible primarily due to interference with the Eastern Distributor..

My concerns are with the permanent, ongoing operational impacts, especially in Surry Hills.

Specifically, in rank order, I am concerned with the following:
Use of overhead lines for the majority of the route (except certain CBD areas)
inclusion of "property treatments" as a noise mitigation proposal
long term viability of the project, especially given the failures of other Sydney transport options such as the existing light rail and monorail.

I strongly object to the proposal to rely on overhead power lines for the majority of the route. This is not best practice globally and has significant negative visual impact along the entire route. Every effort should be made to use wireless power options, similar to what is proposed for the CBD sections along George Street. Do not permanently sacrifice our cityscape to save money or effort in the planning and development stages. You must eliminate overhead wiring as much as possible.

"Property treatments" should be used as an absolute lsat resort in noise mitigation strategies. Reduce the noise impact in the design and planning phases using some of the other options proposed in the EIS. I support the use of vegetated trackforms as that will have the greatest positive impact on the appearance of the project, as well as being eco-friendly. As mentioned in the EIS, it has been done successfully in Europe and I have no doubt it can be successfully adapted for this project here in Sydney.

Lastly, this project needs to be priced right, fulfil the promise of reliable and efficient transport to and from the CBD and offer clear advantages over the existing transport options. This project must be a commercial and absolute success to not follow the ill-fated light rail system into uselessness and waste of money.

I wish to voice my 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.

My concerns in relation to the CSELR project and the EIS, with particular interest with the Surry Hills to Moore Park West route, are summarised below:

Lack of business case for overall project and cost benefit of possible routes through Surry Hills
Devonshire street is not capable of being the spine of the SE Network / not sustainable
Vastly superior alternative routes has been identified - Foveaux and Devonshire sub-surface
No genuine community consultation has been engaged in.
Unacceptable noise levels, and times through a densely populated suburb
Size, speed and frequency of the light rail vehicles (LRV's)
Construction impact on small businesses and residents
Road closures during and post construction
Dislocation of Surry Hills
Loss of Amenity
Traffic congestion
Access to properties along the route - businesses, residents, elderly and disabled
Significant devalue on properties along the route with no compensation from the Government
Loss of car parking


If the project is to proceed then at a minimum the following should be adhered to:

The LRV's are no longer than 29m long if traveling through residential areas at the surface level. If the LRV"s are longer than 29m, then they are only to travel along specifically tailored routes (such as a sub-surface or tunnel) and or dedicated rights of way (not on residential streets).
Speed to be reduced to 20km from South Dowling Street to Elizabeth Street
Operational times through Surry Hills must limited to 05:30 to 23:30
No light rail movement between 23.30 and 5.30
Frequency limited to a minimum of 5 minutes gap of both LRV's
Noise and vibration levels delivered well within the EPA guidelines
Continuous rail to reduce noise at expansion joints to be used between South Dowling Street to Elizabeth Streets
Maximum noise reducing beds to be installed below the tracks
Base to be constructed in a way that limits vibration
Significant screening in residential areas must take place
All parklands should be replaced 1:1 with improvements on facilities
The Government has suggested they will replace trees 1:7 - this should be enforced with a at least 1:10 in the Surry Hills area
Light rail and electrical cables to be placed underground to reduce the visual clutter and enable trees to be planted to replace those being cut down
All substations must be below ground
Those residents financially impacted by the development of the light rail should be compensated for the loss of value; including acquisition and properties along the route affected.
Genuine consultation with business owners and operators about the construction of the light rail, with immediate support in the event of an incident.
Compensation to business for loss of income due to the construction and long-term impact of the light rail.
Compensation for all those residents living on Devonshire Street or on street level where the route passes in front of their residence
The frequency of LRV's should be limited to a minimum of 5 minutes to ensure a suitable gap to allow pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles to cross in safety
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.
The safety issues need to be fully reviewed by independent consultants and the full reports made available
Frequency limited to a minimum of 5 minutes gap between both LRV's

The current proposals for the parking spaces on Alison Road which are situated outside my apartment block are to be transformed into road traffic lanes. As a resident who possesses a car and is lucky enough to have a garage with the dwelling I have Major Safety concerns with this proposition. I currently back onto Alison Road from the garage which has the protective parking lane. With the new proposed changes I would reverse out onto a blind corner and into heavy oncoming traffic.
I consider that parking for residents, deliveries and visitors has not been considered for either.

1. Travel time will take longer on light rail. I can catch an express bus from Duffy's corner Matraville (cnr of Anzac Pde and Beachaump Rd) at 8am and get to Chifley square in 37 minutes. To do this on light rail I will have to catch a bus to Kingsford (approx 15 min), switch to light rail with thousands of people (approx 10min) and then take 37 min on light rail to Wynyard then walk to Chifley Square (20min). In total this trip would take 82 min almost 3 times the travelling time.
2. The light rail should be extended to at least Malabar or La Perouse.
3. The proposed stop at the UNSW will not be feasible. Light rail crossing 4 lanes of traffic that is fully congested during peak time will cause super congestion.
4. There was no consideration given to bus users along Bunnerong Rd and how they will interchange with the light rail at Kingsford.
5. There was no consideration given to the amount of bicycles that use the current bus lanes. The buses do not use bus lanes because they are full of slow bicycles. The bus then uses a normal lane shared with cars. There will be one less lane due to the light rail so effectively cars and buses will just have access to one lane for the entire trip along Anzac Pde from Kingsford to the city.
6. There was no consideration given to people with a disability, parents with prams or the elderly. Forcing people to get off the light rail and switch to buses at Kingsford where it will be extremely busy is lacking in vision.
7. It will probably cost more and take longer to get to the city.
8. The bus strategy should not be separate to light rail and I am still waiting to hear from the bus expert on what the strategy will be.
9. There has been no communication on which buses will be terminated.
10. I still cannot understand how congestion will not increase with buses, light rail, cars and bicycles all on the roads.
11. I live in Randwick area and I am really frustrated when Light rail enthusiats comment on how good it will be for people travelling to the footy or to the races. These people generally travel on weekends or very rarely. I travel on public transport approximately 480 times during the year and there has been no consideration to the inconvenience I will experience.