Application Number SSI5414

Please do not publish our name's, contact numbers or addresses of properties mentioned in this submission.

Attention: Director , Infrastructure Projects.
We support the proposal as a whole. Our growing community needs choice/options for transport to the Sydney CBD.

Our concern: Due to the recent decision made to move the location of the now known Showground station (formerly Hills Centre) to the Council Chambers/Hills Centre location. The impact of the site development will have a large impact on our potential prospects of renters & the rental income of our property situated at XXXXXXXXX, Castle Hill. We are very reliant on the rental return from this property in order to pay the mortgage. Increasing our concern is the duration of time this will cause impact. If I was looking for a rental property, I would certainly not find this property appealing during the many years of construction that will need to occur.

Regards,
XXXXXXXXXXX

Residential Address: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

While my wife and I generally support the constriction and operation of the NWRL, our concerns relate to the proposal in the EIS to ban/restrict parking in Franklin Road when the railway is operational.
.
Currently parking in the vicinity of the Tangara School can overflow into nearby streets. When this school holds a special event (a number of times each year), cars park on both side of all nearby streets including Fernleigh Close.
.
As the road width of Fernleigh Close is only 5 metres we have already experienced delivery trucks unable to make deliveries to addresses in the street as there was insufficient clearance for their vehicles to pass with vehicles parked on both sides of the street.

With the proposed parking restrictions on Franklin Road, the problem of cars parking in other streets off Franklin Road will occur more frequently and parking generally in the vicinity fo the Tangarara School will only get worse

I don't understand why Cherrybook station is above ground. Underground stations are warmer in winter and cooler in summer and they protect from the elements.

I think there should be a covered walkway from the station to Castle Towers. I think it should be part of the construction of the railway and not an afterthought otherwise it
will never be built.

A lot more thought should be given a to how people arriving on foot will access the stations. This is always neglected in these plans. Also, there should be cover between the stations and the bus interchanges.

One of the major problems with the ECRL is that there isn't enough cover over the station exits. When it's raining the escalators and lifts deposit people under an awning that is
only about a metre wide. I would like to see more thought given to this.

As part of this construction I would like to see a covered walkway from the Macquarie University station to the Macquarie Centre.

I am extremely concerned with the pedestrian traffic that already exists in the streets and on intersections that will be affected by the increaset of commuters getting to the railway station at Cherrybrook. Especially in the morning period several schools have children mobile around the intersections attached to Neale Avenue and Franklin Road (for Tangara School, Inala premises, Cherrybrook Public, Pennant Hills High and Cherrybrook Tech High as these roads are not only used for walking to these schools but also to the bus runs for these schools and also a few other private schools a little further away). Children are often not accompanied along the way and crossing the roads is already difficult without hundreds of extra vehicles using the roads. At the very least, I believe it is your duty of care to these children to supply TRAFFIC LIGHTS at the top of Neale Ave intersecting with Franklin Rd to ensure the safety of these children as they make their way to and from school and buses.

As a resident of Cherryybrook with a house on Franklin Road, we object to the use of quiet local streets for carrying traffic to and from the station. Castle Hill Road should be used by either widening it or adding an extra lane in the peak direction as is done on other srterial roads in Sydney.

Besides affecting the quality of life for residents living on or near Franklin Road and Robert Road, property prices will be significantly reduced.

The EIS2 makes a bunch of lame excuses for not using Castle Hill Road. In planning station precincts and access arrangements it has no taken into account the convenience of residents adjoining the station precincts.

Tjere has been no consultations held with residents of Kayla Way regarding placement of a car park and the plan to use Franklin Road and Robert Road as the access Roas.

Overall I am quite dissappointed with the Cherrybrook Station plans.

North West Rail Link
submission by Hunter Transport Consulting Pty Ltd
3 December 2012


The NSW Government is to be congratulated on it's initiative to deliver rail transport to the North West however a fundamental flaw has been made in planning to build it as an isolated link and to go back to the operation of single-deck rolling stock.

The decision by the NSW government to deliberately limit the height of the NWRL tunnels to prohibit operation of double deck trains will go down in history as a misjudgement on the scale of the choice by the colonies to build train tracks to different gauges.

The claim that single-deck trains, with fewer seats, can somehow carry more passengers than double-deck trains is not properly justified by the EIS and is not borne out by European practice.

By way of example, RATP (The Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiens or `Autonomous Transit Operator of Paris') is currently increasing capacity on Line A of the Paris RER by replacing single-deck M184 trains (432 seats, total capacity 1,684 passengers) with double-deck M109 trains (948 seats, total capacity 2,600 passengers).

The NSW Government should exercise extreme caution in adopting an approach that is the exact opposite of that being taken by a leading European transit operator.

In Sydney terms the best analysis of why double-deck trains carry more passengers was provided by Alex Wardrop in Appendix C of the 2010 Christie Report. His conclusions included:

"What all this illustrates is that single deck trains, with their significantly lower seating capacities, cannot meet the transportation duties expected of Sydney suburban trains which need to carry passengers long distances".

The so-called Three-Tier system contradicts itself in terms of segregation of rolling stock. Single deck trains better suited to short inner city Metro-style journeys will run from Rouse Hill, a predominantly dormitory outer suburb, taking commuters on a long distance commute to Macquarie Park and Chatswood, whilst double deck trains supposedly no longer suitable for short distance journeys will collect passengers off the NWRL and take them for the last few kilometres all stations to the City.

The decision to institute the NWRL as an isolated shuttle train prior to the second Harbour crossing on the grounds that the North Shore line is at capacity has been contradicted by the recent statement by Minister for Transport Hon Gladys Berejiklian that "We will be increasing the number of services from the North Shore to the City to 24 an hour; currently we are getting about 17 or 18 across, so that will increase substantially by the time the (NWRL) line is open."

(SMH 2/10/2012)

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/chatswood-will-cope-with-rail-link-passengers-minister-20121002-26wq3.html

Therefore this proves that there is already capacity to run 6 new trains per hour from the NWRL direct to the City, i.e. a train every 10 minutes, which would be adequate capacity until the second Harbour crossing was built. (Additional trains could terminate at Chatswood to provide a 5 minute peak service from the North West).

It also needs to be remembered that the limitation on line capacity across the Harbour Bridge only occurs at the height of the peak, for a period of a little over 60 minutes. Outside of that time there is ample capacity for trains from the NWRL to run through to the City. The decision to build a shuttle service will result in passengers travelling during the off-peak, at night and on weekends being forced to change from one train to another for no benefit whatsoever.

The operation of the NWRL as a shuttle train to Chatswood will significantly reduce the attractiveness of not only the NWRL but also the existing line it replaces through Macquarie and North Ryde. Passengers from stations north of Epping will have to change trains twice to reach destinations such as St Leonards, North Sydney and Wynyard. The slow travel times already faced by passengers from the North West (because of the historical decision to go under rather than over the Lane Cove River) will be exacerbated by the forced change of train at Chatswood.

For many residents of the North West, even west of Castle Hill, buses will remain the fastest way to the City and will certainly be more convenient under the planned NWRL shuttle because of an almost door-to-door service by bus without changing, compared to a 3 mode bus-train-train journey via the NWRL.

Whilst it is commendable that the EIS recognises the need for a second Harbour rail crossing it is a high risk strategy to base the only possibility of a direct train service from the North West to the City on the construction of this new line, particularly whilst ever the Government persists with an exorbitantly expensive and impractical deep level option under the harbour.

The more cost-effective and obvious solution is to reinstate the rail tracks which were removed from the eastern side of the bridge in the 1950's and bring the NWRL into Wynyard in the first stage, and further south under the city as funds permit, however this is still an expensive project that may well be deferred further into the future, leaving the NWRL as a white elephant shuttle in the long term.

Lastly, planning for the North West rail line seems to assume that the line will not be opened until the entire route is constructed. As this is an expensive and long term project such an approach denies rail transport to the Hills District for much longer than necessary. It would be quite feasible to open the line in stages from Epping, even one or two stations at a time, using temporary turn back arrangements and a temporary maintenance system via a connection at the Chatswood end.

In conclusion the following changes to the EIS are recommended:

1. The NWRL tunnels should be built to a diameter suitable for Sydney's double-deck rolling stock;

2. Services from the NWRL should operate directly through to the City from the opening of the line, using spare peak hour paths identified by the Minister's statement (SMH 2/10/2012) and the ample capacity available outside of peak hours.

3. The NWRL should be opened in stages, one or two stations at a time, to bring forward the availability of at least a partial rail service to the North West.

Glen E Hunter
Director
Hunter Transport Consulting Pty Ltd
3 Chadworth Place
BAULKHAM HILLS NSW 2153
Phone: +61 2 9686 6556
Fax: +61 2 9688 7556
Mobile: +61 411 106 556
mailto:[email protected]
www.h-t-c.com.au

1. The combination of John Road and Robert Road is not a suitable route to be used as the major vehicular approach to Cherrybrook Station.
2. Robert Road is a quiet and in places very narrow suburban residential street with the driveways of more than 100 houses running off it - as well a further 100 plus houses in the various cul-de-sacs accessible only via Robert Road and Dalkeith Road.
3. Robert Road is not constructed to withstand constant use by heavy vehicles.
4. Residents of Robert Road rely on on-street parking for visitors' cars as many residents have limited parking on their properties.
5. John Road is the current route of 632 buses to Pennant Hills Station and 642 buses to the City via M2. Most of the function of the 642 route will be duplicated by the NWRL. The increasingly unpredictable road travel time will compare unfavourably to a known rail timetable and will result in passengers effectively abandoning the 642 service if it is continued.
6. Regular traffic congestion in John Road has been the subject of intense dissatisfaction for several thousand residents of surrounding streets due to Hornsby Council's incompetent management of traffic flow in County Drive.
7. Future residential development of Dural and Galston will result in increased reliance on the NWRL and Cherrybrook Station. If John Road remains as the main vehicular approach to Cherrybrook Station it is certain that within a short time, traffic jamming will cause significant problems to the thousands of residents living in the cul-de-sacs on either side of the road. Past experience shows that their resentment will be deep and ongoing towards the developer and the Government responsible for making such a foolish decision.
8. Both County Drive and Castle Hill Road have been constructed to a standard which allows long-term heavy vehicle use.
9. From the past 6 years' experience using this intersection in peak times and the past few months' close observation, I can confirm the left turn from County Drive onto Castle Hill Road (travelling east) has consistently low use during peak traffic times.
10. Congestion at the right turn from County Drive onto Castle Hill Road (travelling west) can be relieved by proper management of County Drive as a major four lane connector road (as it was designed) during peak times - and by proper management of the County Drive/Treetops Rd corner.
11. Traffic congestion is currently not significant in peak traffic times on Castle Hill Road between County Drive and Edward Bennett Drive.
12. The only viable vehicular access to Cherrybrook Station from Dural and the North-West is south along County Drive then east along Castle Hill Road to a new slip road entrance into the station from Castle Hill Road.
13. Most Route 642 services will terminate at Cherrybrook Station in future rather than provide a duplicated service to the City.
14. Route 642 services which continue to exist should be diverted from John Road/Franklin Road/Neale Avenue/Edward Bennett Drive onto Castle Hill Road.
15. Route 632 services to Pennant Hills Station should continue to use the existing route, with passengers who wish to access Cherrybrook Station alighting on John Road or Edward Bennett Drive to walk the short distance to the station. If they are strongly opposed to walking they can change to the 642 service at an earlier stop.
16. Justifications given by NWRL representatives at community information sessions for the need to use John Road and Robert Road to access Cherrybrook Station have been implausible and based on erroneous information. If the plan for local traffic movement is not amended immediately there will be traffic chaos in the surrounding streets forever as a legacy of the failure to properly consider this seemingly minor aspect of the NWRL project.

Re North West Rail Link- Resumption of Underground Land for Tunnelling
Lot 24/DP23858 86 Hannah Street, Beecroft 2119



I am the owner of the above property and have been informed by you of the resumption of underground land for the purpose of building underground rail tunnels.

I would like to table my concerns relating to the impact on my property of the:
1. technical construction issues
2. consultation process
3. ongoing operational impact and future tunnel maintenance commitments

1. Technical Construction Issues
I was first informed by letter dated 15 September 2011 of geotechnical investigations to be carried out in Hannah Street.

Upon receipt of this letter, I made verbal inquiry to Rebecca Saunders and was informed verbally that the tunnels would be at a depth of 27.2 metres below my property. This was followed up with a confirmation email dated 27 September 2011 at 12.38pm, stating:
"As discussed, the current proposed alignment does run under the
front corner of 86 Hannah Street, Beecroft. The proposed tunnel
would be at a depth of 27.2 metres."

On 8 November 2012, I received a letter dated 1 November, Reference A 2021769, providing details of the rail tunnel construction, resumption of underground land, and website address and login details to view the proposed tunnel depth.

To my absolute dismay and shock, I noted that the depth of the tunnels under my property had been substantially reduced from the previous formal advice of 27.2 metres depth to a revised depth of only 12 metres.
From the website that has been provided, the information contained therein has not taken into account the natural fall of land from the front of my property to the lowest point of my land. There is a fall of approximately 5 metres from the front of my property to the creek line. Assuming that your calculation of 13metres at the high point of my property is correct, this would mean that the available land for my future use between the land resumed for the tunnel (being 8m) and the proposed level remaining at creek level is zero, based on the calculations offered by your own website. This obviously implies that this will not comply with the objectives previously advised in your communications that there will be the capacity as an owner of property to be able to develop land, install a swimming pool, or to construct extensions, as there will be no depth of private land available upon which to do these activities.

I have received no information, consultation, or advice before receiving this letter referring me to a web address and discovering the revised tunnel depth; which constitutes a concerning gap in communication and customer service.

I request a revision of the tunnel depth below my property, to that of the original communication being 27.2 metres, and would be grateful for personal communication and written confirmation advising me of this revision to the tunnel depth.

In your November 2012 fact sheet, "Building the North West Rail Link tunnels", it is stated in a paragraph headed "Does tunnelling affect properties?" that
"properties above the tunnel alignment will undergo
condition surveys before and after tunneling to establish
the condition of buildings."

I request to be informed of the tender and selection process being used to contract the specialists conducting these condition surveys and a timeframe for when these surveys will be undertaken. I also wish to be informed about the actual surveys to be conducted. Please confirm that this will include a detailed surveyor's report, noise level readings and vibration readings at 86 Hannah Street, Beecroft.

I further request to be informed of the independence and objectivity of the selected contractor to Transport for NSW and the North West Rail Link project in the carrying out of this important "control" function, including the:
(i) governance process ensuring the integrity of process and measurement, and
(ii) availability and accessibility to the public of these condition survey results.

Also in your November 2012 fact sheet, "Building the North West Rail Link tunnels", it is stated in a paragraph headed "Will I hear noise and feel vibration when trains are running in the tunnels?" that:
"Transport for NSW does not expect that you will
hear noise and feel vibration as trains pass through
the tunnels. This is because of the engineering design
of tracks to reduce noise and vibration."

In the recent construction of the Epping Chatswood Rail Link tunnels, subsequent work needed to be done to replace mats and relay track to abate noise. Additionally, in October 2008, measures had to be taken after construction, due to excessive sound levels experienced by passengers in the trains. Reference Wikipedia. This noise has the potential to regenerate to surrounding properties, as explained in the Operatoinal Noise Update issued by Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation in June 2006.

I request to be informed of the engineering design being adopted to abate noise and vibration under my property at 86 Hannah Street Beecroft, NSW 2119, and the measures being adopted to ensure the ongoing integrity of the tunnels and tracks to ensure the abatement of noise and vibration over the long term operation of trains in these tunnels.

I further request to be informed of the independence and objectivity of the selected contractor to Transport for NSW and the North West Rail Link project in the carrying out the operational noise assessment in the Environmental Impact Statement for Stations, Rail Infrastructure and Systems, including the:
(i) governance process ensuring the integrity of process and measurement, and
(ii) availability and accessibility to the public of these operational noise assessments.


2. Community Consultation Process
I was very pleased to learn of the Community Consultation Process strategy adopted to inform residents and interested parties of the North West Rail Link project, and commend the Project Director for undertaking such an intensive program in the interests of clear, transparent and informative communication.

However, my personal experience on 10 November 2012, was extremely disappointing due to the rudeness and non-productive behaviour of Tim Cressy, Project Manager, supported by the equivalent arrogance and dismissive behaviour of Richard Heggie.

What should have been a positive and reassuring experience for affected property owners and potential future customers was an appalling display of practises resembling those of China's approach to infrastructure development, as portrayed in the media.

This information and feedback is provided to you in the event of any future Community Consultation process strategies to be performed, that the people hosting the sessions have some training in how to respond to affected parties.

3. Ongoing operational impact and future tunnel maintenance commitments
A great deal of effort and energy has been invested in advising affected parties of the issues to be expected during construction of the North West Rail link tunnels. However, there has not been an equivalent level of information and advice, based on real experience from other rail tunnel projects regarding the:
(i) impact of operations on tunnel integrity,
(ii) commitment to an ongoing maintenance plan to ensure the longevity, safety and integrity of the rail tunnels, and
(iii) the component projects within the maintenance plan and the frequency of their completion to ensure the longevity, safety and integrity of the rail tunnels.

I request to be informed of the program and frequency of maintenance works planned to ensure the ongoing abatement of noise and vibration under my property at 86 Hannah Street Beecroft, NSW 2119 over the long term operation of trains in these tunnels.

I further request to be informed, in the event of an outsourced maintainer being selected to carry out the maintenance program on the North West Rail Link tunnels, of the:
(i) governance process ensuring the provision of regular maintenance services to the owner of the North West Rail link rail tunnels, and
(ii) availability and accessibility to the public of the maintenance service level agreements.

Yours sincerely



Urda Herbst

1. In principle we accept that a railway station is needed.

2. Franklin Road is not a very good option as a major transport route into the railway station, it was never meant to be a major road. Franklin Road has a high volume of children from Tangara school, as well as handicapped adults at the Inala school who constantly are crossing the road. Exposing these at risk demographics to increased vehicular access would be madness in our opinion and a recipe for disaster.

3. Edward Bennett Drive is a far better option due to minimal intervention being needed for its use as a major thoroughfare. The connection of Edward Bennett Drive and New Line Road would require absolutely minimal changes to the road. The obvious thing to do both from a practical and financial point of view would be to use Edward Bennett Drive and County Drive as a loop to gain access to the railway station via Castle Hill Road.

4. To alter Franklin Road will impact many in the street in a significant manner. I assume road widening would have to occur, with resultant reclamation of some of the frontage of my land at 116 Franklin Road. This would have a profound effect on our house and its value, as we would have people looking straight into our living room. Please advise what consideration has been done to compensate for the significant downward impact on the value of our property.

5. Our family owns 3 homes in Franklin Road and we will be the most affected group of people if this road widening occurs. In regard to this impact, it is essential that we are advised of what future changes are anticipated for our land especially regarding zoning. We believe the zoning within 800 meters of the railway station is NOT under the jurisdiction of the local council - in this case Hornsby Shire Council, but is under the discretion of the NSW Government. Please advise what the zoning changes if any - are to be so that we can plan for the future.

We would very much like to discuss these options with a member of the Department at your earliest convenience.