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.

My objections to the EIS 2 are related to changes to the use of Robert Road.. I bought in Robert Road on the basis that the road would continue to be a low traffic street with close proximity to the upcoming Franklin Road Railway Station. Consequently, I have paid market value and I am concerned the increased noise from buses and trains will have an impact on the value of my property. I have had advice from Real Estate Agents in the area who have reported that it is entirely likely that the railway will have a negative impact on property values close to the Robert Road, Franklin Road area.
In relation to the NWRL proposal of running buses south on County Drive, left into John Road and right into Robert Road, the NWRL is trying to capture commuters to and from the city who are currently situated at the bus stops on John Road between County Drive and Robert Road. There are 2 in total, across the road from each other and metres away from the County Drive Bus Stop. Therefore, if these commuters were able to catch the bus situated at the County Drive Stop, this would alleviate the need for buses to turn left onto John Road. The result of this small change would have a positive impact on the lives and value of properties of some 265 residents on Robert Road and the surrounding streets.
County Drive and Castle Hill Road are built for the purpose of handling large volumes of traffic and large heavy vehicles including buses. They do not have the traffic hazards and weight restrictions that the narrow suburban street of Robert Road has.
Traffic currently heading south up County Drive to Castle Hill Road is free flowing in the mornings between John Road and Castle Hill Road. Shortly after John Road, county Drive heading south, expands to 4 lanes as traffic approaches the intersection of County Drive and Castle Hill Road. The left turn lane has only a small amount of traffic.
I am eager for the project to be underway as the construction period will be stressful and difficult. I am concerned that with lack of funding etc the construction will drag on for many years and the residents will be left in "limbo".
The residents of Robert Road from houses 1 to 5 have been offered a buffer zone if the proposed road into the station goes ahead. This will need to be wide enough to allow some privacy as we will have gone from a quiet street to a major interchange without any offer of compensation.
Vibration damage to my property is of course expected to be compensated.
Please leave Robert Road as it is now. County Drive and Castle Hill Road are the obvious links for traffic using the railway station.

My objections to EIS 2 for North West Rail link are the significant disruptions to Robert Road that have been planned, despite numerous objects from residents living in the narrow, quiet, suburban street.

We purchased our home 8 years ago with the understanding that Robert Road was adjacent to the proposed Cherrybrook station, however not to be impacted by the station. Robert Road is a narrow, quiet suburban street, not designed to carry the anticipated load of traffic proposed by the station, and houses over 300 residences, many of which are battle axe blocks with limited parking.

Country Drive and Castle Hill Road were built to manage such traffic and the notion that the NWRL has dismissed these roads and decided Robert Road, in its current state, is the most suitable option is disgraceful.

I do not feel that appropriate consideration has been taken into using Country Drive and Castle Hill road as access points to the Cherrybrook station, and it is just 'easier and simpler' for the planning stage to use a quiet narrow street. Making such significant adjustments to a road, such as those suggested in EIS 2 for Robert Road, could not prove to be cost effective, whereas the use of, already existing roads equipped to manage the suggested heavy vehicle use, would be considered the cheaper option.

Why spend more time, money and effort making such significant amendments to an ill equipped road when you have the means and appropriate passage ways available to you at no extra cost?! And this option would not have a detrimental impact on 300 plus residences.

Dear Sir / Madam,

There are 3 private Roads, off Robert Road. These private Roads are narrow and have no visitor parking. So all visitors park on Robert Road. The North West Railway project plans to use Robert Road as feeder Road to and from Cherrybrook Station. This will affect the community living in this area especially those living on Robert Road. One can imagine, the chaotic traffic and noise on Robert Road with haul trucks and buses and cars. One will also come across No Parking, No stopping and No standing signs. Visitors can no longer park on this Road and the Road itself is narrow. With the busy peak hour traffic residents of this area will find it extremely difficult to use the Road themselves.

I would suggest that Traffic from Cherrybrook station, not be allowed into Robert Road.

Buses not be allowed at all on Robert Road in either direction.

Kind Regards.

My concern is: will the size of the tunnels only accommodate single deck carriages. Transport issues are fluid, and in the future, the North west rail link might better serve the travelling public if it was to be integrated with the existing metro service.
As with the M2, we have seen how lack of forward planning has caused massive upheavels in bringing this road up to a level where it will handle the present vehicle requirement, let alone looking at the future.

I am totally opposed to the "metro" style poposal of this project. It will lead to overcrowding and inconvenience to passengers. The proposed trains will only have half the number of seats of the existing double deck trains, forcing many passengers to have to stand for long periods. It will be an "orphan" in the system. It also means that the Epping to Chatswood section will no longer be available as an alternative route to Hornsby in the event of major holdups on the North Shore Line. With all services terminating at Chatswood, rather than most proceeding through the CBD, peaik hour congestion at Chatswood will be come a nightmare. Having smaller close-fitting tunnels on the new line will not allow undoing of the mistake in the future.

Gladys Berejiklian,

I hereby, strongly object to the proposal for Robert Road to become a "Main Access road" into the future Cherrybrook Railway Station.

It is my understanding that to enable this narrow and busy road to accommodate buses, the intention is to create a "No stopping/No parking" zone the full length of the street and that widening will be carried out. Even if the road was widened the impact of buses moving along Robert Road during the peak hours of 0700 to 0900 & 1500 to 1800 would simply be flirting with danger. There have been several near misses at the John Rd / Robert Rd intersection without larger vehicles turning there and further restricting the vision of car drivers. I can not understand why the planners for this project have come to the conclusion that pushing buses up narrow Robert Road when well established routes along David Road, County Drive and Castle Hill Road provide numerous options on wider roads that have been designed for higher traffic flows.

I have been told by other residents that NWRL representatives had told them that buses must continue to travel up John Road so that the residents of John Road are not disadvantaged. If buses turn up Robert Rd (approximately half-way along John) does that mean that 50% of them will be disadvantaged anyway? I don't think so, at least 10% of passengers getting on buses at stops on John Rd drive from elsewhere and park in John Road. If buses continued up County Rd, passengers would simply walk (or drive) an extra 200 or 300 meters and get on at County Drive.

When my wife and I purchased our land at 17 Robert Road in 2009, the abundance of on street parking was a major factor to convincing us it was a sound investment. My family includes myself, my wife and three sons who all drive and own cars (a total of 6). Where do we park if Robert Road is made a No Parking zone? Or probably more to the point do the NWRL Authority, State Govt or Hornsby Council really care about the disadvantage, danger and inconvenience that this proposal will impose on the citizens of our street?

Before this ludicrous (and dangerous) proposal goes any further the citizens of Robert Road deserve explanations.

Please answer the following questions;

1. If parking is removed, how are the residents of Robert Road to be compensated for inconvenience caused by loss of parking for their family and visitors?
2. What studies were examined to determine that County Drive & Castle Hill Road are not suitable for buses from John Road to access Cherrybrook station?
3. What studies have been done to ascertain where passengers that board buses from stops on John Rd actually live?
4. How can widening Robert Road be more financially viable than simply redirecting buses from turning left into John Road, straight up County Drive and left into Castle Hill Road?


Regards,
Peter McCaffrey

17 Robert Rd,
Cherrybrook.
N.S.W. 2126

am writing this email with respect to NWRL decision to designate Robert Rd
as the station access road. I live in Dalkeith Rd which is a no through road.
Robert Rd is the only access rd available to residents of Dalkeith Rd and oher residential roads linked to it
There are more than 100 dwellings on both sides of Dalkeith rd. The residents
in those dwelling including ourselves will be severely inconvenienced if Robert Rd
is designated to be a Station Access Rd.

While we are very happy and grateful that O'Farrell government is committed to build NWRL,
I do not understand the thinking behind the NWRL planners to designate Robert Rd
as the Station Access Rd. I don't understand why the station access could not be provided
via County Drive and Castle Hill rd. These roads are wider and designed to accommodate buses
and heavy vehicles. Even during busy hours traffic turning left to castle Hill Rd from County Drive
is very very light.

I believe NWRL planners are wrong and urge NWRL
to reconsider the decision to designate Robert Rd as the access road.

I wish to submit my strong objection to Robert Road, Cherrybrook, being used as an artiliary road for buses en route to Cherrybrook Station instead of them travelling
along County Drive which already has two lanes and was
originally planned and built as a feeder road.
Robert Road is in a neighbourhood area and it would
need upgrading which would necessitate 'no parking' being
allowed, which, in turn, would impact greatly on all the small
off-shoot streets (e.g. Oliver way) which already have no parking facilitite for visitors and visiting tradesmen who all currently park in Robert Rd.
Also other residents in surrounding streets would be heavily impacted by having the invasion of extra cars parking in their
streets.
Safety issues are also a prime factor as even now it is difficult
for us to exit Oliver way into Robert Rd. and this situation would only be compounded by having buses and extra other
traffic on Robert Rd.
Also the corner of John Rd. and Robert Rd. is not wide enough for buses to turn into Robert Rd. safely.
We are vermently against Robert Road being used in this way
as we feel our lives are going to be impacted by the situation
of the proposed Cherrybrook Station and we do not consider that we should simply be classified as necessary 'collateral damage' by the NWRL personnel. At least spread some of the pain and do not give us the full impact.


.

My comments relate mainly to the development of the Cheltenham Services facility. Whilst still feeling very sad that the site was chosen I wish to compliment the NWRL on the way the plans have progressed. The concerns that many showed at the loss of bushland and recreational facilities have obviously been heard. My understanding is that by repositioning the tunnel to go under Cheltenham oval instead of under Castle Howard rd it has made it possible to reduce the amount of bush lost and to relocate the Services facility further away from houses. (Any further realignment away from Castle Howard Rd would be even more welcome.) I also support combining the service facility, and promised new community facilities and am delighted that many of the current recreational facilities will be returned to the public with improvements.
I thank you for making minimal changes to Castle Howard Rd and promising that only light traffic will use the road. I request that an additional sign is placed at the bottom of the steep hill saying 'give way to oncoming traffic.This currently happens with local residents, a sign would be an additional safety strategy.
The reason for the necessity to remove bushland to build a temporary heavy vehicle access to the site was explained satisfactorily to me at the information night. I am delighted and fully support the plan to re vegetate that area after construction. I was also satisfied with the plans for the safe entry and exit from Kirkham street that are being planned.
The disruption during the construction phase is of concern. Again I am delighted that work on the excavation of the emergency shaft will not occur at night. The necessity to work 24hrs on the actual tunnel was explained satisfactorily. I was reassured that there will be no adverse consequences from vibration either during construction or after completion, which is another positive.

I understand that there have been discussions with sports groups who use the facilities. I request that every effort is made to preserve the use of Cheltenham oval during the construction phase. I ask that consideration is given to relocating the small children's playground to the opposite side of the oval. I often witness small children using the current children's playground safely whilst their older siblings are playing competitive sport. This seems to be a small cost compared with the whole project but would make an enormous difference to many families who use the oval.

It is only recently that I have realised that the tunnel from Epping to Chatswood is to be converted for use by the light rail. Those of us who currently travel from stations north of Epping will loose the direct train via Chatswood to the city. At the information night the reason for this was explained and reassurance given that the train from Hornsby will go to the city via Strathfield.(No change needed) However, i feel that there will be a lot of people who have moved near to that train corridor who work along the line to Chatswood. I can understand that they are anxious about the future necessity to change trains at Epping, the ability to get a seat, and the impact this might have on future house prices.
thank you for the effort to keep all concerned parties informed.