Sydney Metro - Chatswood to Sydenham

I object to this EIS. There is a massive influx of people planned for Alexandria (Ashmore estate, ATP...) and yet no station for Alexandria. I absolutely object to this due to
the lack of stations
the lack of any real consultation and
lack on integrated planning

This is unacceptable.

I support the concept of a metro but would like to request more stations, particularly around Alexandria as there is little to no transportation in the area. It's shocking in fact - trains and buses are sparse and don't really work well together. Needs improvement

1. Waterloo station- Plaza should be enlarged to connect Cope Street and Botany road to link to bus stops on Botany Road and easier/more visible access to ATP and residents from ALexandria.
2. Central station - enlarge the northern entry plaza as it is already crowded during peak hours. Consider removing the eastern commercial shops to enlarge plaza. Consider adding a southern entry plaza off railway square and devonshire street tunnel (perhaps widen the tunnel) to increase links to the important railway square bus interchange.
3. Consider extending the Metro to lidcombe to link with the main western line and allow precinct activation of the four stations between bankstown and lidcombe. Lidcombe will remain as a major interchange as well as the link to Olympic park.

My suggestions are to build more stations along the line to attract more people that currently use cars to drive to the city and elsewhere.My beliefs are that a metro system has many stations to attract the maximum patronage/revenue.The cost of extra stations should not limit these extra stations as you the government are building sydney's future as you have said in your plans.
Secondly the line from sydenham to bankstown should not be converted to metro,The line should continue elsewhere from sydenham,Maybe south to tempe,wolli creek for connection to the airport line,Then to earlwood,belmore,south strathfield,strathfield and end at five dock which at present has no rail transport.Possibly the eastern suburbs that have no rail either.
The idea of replacing a rail line with another line that has new technology sounds good,However serving the suburbs which have no rail transport is a much better idea,Plus it serves areas with new transport.Which in my mind is what sydney needs and covers the plan of the future.

I am very concerned that with substantial growth in the inner city (including my local area, Erskineville), there is not enough being done to improve public transport. The proposed metro has only one station between Central and Sydenham. Trains in peak hour are already at capacity and there will be thousands more residents over the coming years as Ashmore Estate is completed. There appears to be a lack of integrated planning.

ISM Studios operates two sound recording studios. One located at 20 Clarke St, and one at 8 Clarke St. We have concerns regarding the noise and vibrations that will be caused by this development. Of particular concern is the transmission noise through the building from large equipment and blasting/mining.

SSI 15_7400


Hello.

I am very concerned about the so-far released plans for the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor. There is no planning for traffic flow, which is already extremely congested in Marrickville during peak hour, and on weekends. Nor is there anything in the plans for additional schools and pre-schools, which are already full to overflowing, and are, I understand, using demountables to cope with the current pupil population.

I also find it difficult to understand why the State Governmentt would not include affordable housing in it's plans? The beauty of a thriving community is having a mix of all stratas of society, I enjoy Marrickville (my suburb) the way it is, and do not want to see it become simply a gentrified haven for middle-class singles and couples. We currently have a wonderfully colourful community, but could well lose that without affordable housing being planned for.

Nor is there anything on sustainability in the plan. I understand why the push is being made to increase the population in this area (although I don't see why this isn't shared with new development in outer suburbs where it appears the developers have open slather to build houses, but are not being mandated to provide even medium density accommodation). However unless this is done with sustainability in mind then we are simply decreasing the standard of living.

Also it makes no sense at all to bring additional people to the area over nine years, then rip out the train line for a year. How on earth will the buses and roads cope with the additiional commuters and traffic?

These plans appear to me to be poorly thought through. Please reconsider them, and do some of the clever things we know can be done to make medium and high density living more enjoyable for all.

Regards
Yvonne

The whole point of a Metro system is that it supplies LOCAL transport for people in a limited area. It is therefore essential that stops be within easy walking distance of each other. Waterloo and Sydenham are a LONG way apart - I live between the two and use the area extensively. There is no way anyone would easily walk from one to the other. It is extremely important that we have additional stops, at St Peters at the very least and preferably one more. I should also point out that other forms of public transport in this area are totally inadequate - we desperately need improvement in ALL forms - buses, trains and especially the Metro. With the proposed vast increase in population this will be essential.

As a long term Marrickville resident of over 25 years I consider the overall premise of the requirement that the Sydneham to Bankstown rail corridor be altered to be based on false assumptions and driven by MIke Baird's personal interest in developers "winning" in NSW. While it is stated the the rail project has no direct linkage to the proposed rezoning of the Sydenham to Bankstown rail corridor for multistory apartments (up to 22 stories in the already densely populated inner west), as a NSW resident, tax payer and rate payer I do not consider that the NSW Department of Planning has sufficiently consulted with the local areas effected to illustrate this. Indeed, the recent amalgamation of local councils opposed to such rezoning illustrates the lack of interest by the Baird government in resident representation. While the Rail project has an EIS process, I question why there is stated to be no EIS process for the large scale rezoning proposed. This rezoning will destroy communities, heritage and impact on already over burdened waste, water and air resources in this area. Pushing through a rail project which simply replaces the existing infrastructure with a developers money maker is unacceptable. The Dept of Planning and Environment have a role to protect the communities of NSW and should not act simply as Casino Mikes architects to make his developer buddies richer.

There needs to be additional stations added for Alexandria and St Peters. Currently residents, workers and students in Alexandria have no rail access and rely on buses to access railway nodes.

in the next ten years the area will be under pressure with 8,000 new residents in Ashmore Estate and a further 11,000 residents in Australian Technology Park (ATP).

It is also projected that 2,200 students will enrol in the new Alex Park super school.

Finally additional stations such as Alexandria will help offset the expected 60,000 cars using WestConnex.

It will not be possible to add stations once the line is complete and therefore these stations need to developed now.

My family use public transport (rail) on a daily basis (commute to work, trips to the city and grandparents). The current situation is intolerable. The wait for a train at Erskinville at peak hour is over 10 minutes. The train is absolutely full. We will be moving back to St Peters where the trains are more frequent but equally jammed at peak hour.

We returned to Sydney after living in Europe (London and Germany) to bemoan the woeful transit system - a suburban railway essentially trying to do the work of a metro.

The new metro is an excellent idea if it has more stops. It shows lack of future planning to build from Waterloo to Sydenham without stops in Alexandria and St Peters. The population in this area is set to increase substantially with the Ashmore development (8,000 residents) and the super school in Alexandria (2,200 students). If people have reliable public transport options they get out of their cars. This surely is the end goal for this city. We never felt for the lack of a car when living in London. In Sydney, that is not an option as the city is so poorly connected by rail and the roads are in gridlock 6 days a week.

More stations are required if this is to be a feasible long term option.

8 June 2016
Dear Director,

CHATSWOOD-SYDENHAM METRO: SS15 7400 (the Proposal)
DELETE PERSONAL INFORMATION BEFORE PUBLICATION


2 It has not made any political donations (reportable or otherwise) in the last two years.
3 has a number of objections to the implementation of the Proposal, the most serious relating to noise and vibration issues adversely impacting residents and businesses, and to the due process available to objectors which impacts on the nature and detail of those objections.
Substantive Objections
Position of Tunnels
4 It appears from the current plans/ diagrams that the eastern tunnel may pass beneath, or very close to, the north western corner of the building of at a (stated) depth of 35 metres. Given that the EIS Summary notes that the current plans / diagrams are indicative only (as well as containing a 30 metre tolerance for the tunnels' final position), this objection is based on the assumption that it is intended that the tunnel is in fact due to be located in the position described.
5 The tunnel described continues and continues to the new proposed metro station at Barangaroo. The tunnel also passes below and, in part, passes beneath. sit on a sandstone cliff situated approximately 10 metres above the Road surface. That adds an additional 10 metres to the (claimed) 35 metre buffer between the tunnel and the surface for those properties. In contrast, not only lacks this 10 metre buffer, but also has a private and public car park down to a depth of approximately 20 metres below ground level, significantly reducing the buffer shown on the plan, and exacerbating noise and vibrations.
6 The technicians present at the explanatory meeting in respect of this part of the tunnel on 25 May 2016 were not aware that a carpark below ground to a depth of approximately 20 metres and that, if the tunnel depths were maintained at 35 metres, as indicated on the current plans / diagrams, the buffer between the eastern tunnel and the bottom level of the carpark would, at most, be only about 10 metres.
7 If, as appears to be the case, the actual depth of the top of the tunnel is less than the publicly disclosed 35 metres (due to rail gradient limits coming up to the Barangaroo metro station), then the buffer will be materially less than 10 metres.
8 This issue could simply be resolved by relocating the eastern side of the tunnel approximately 10 metres to the west of so that no part of it runs close to or below the building on .
9 Moving the tunnel west is clearly within the 30 metre tolerance allowed for in the Proposal and places the tunnel below a much higher cliff face where noise and vibration will not impact on any surface building.
10 This solution / amendment to the Proposal would move the western tunnel slightly to the west. However, this would in no way adversely impact on the , as they have an existing tunnel below them and they sit on an additional 10 metres of sandstone above the 35 metre deep tunnel.
Noise / vibration abatement measures
11 The Proposal indicates that the Metro's tracks will be of steel, as will the wheels of the rolling stock. The reason expressed for this choice at the explanatory meeting on 25 May 2016 is that it needs to be consistent with other tracks/rolling stock in the system.
12 Best modern practice for this type of rapid transport system is for the rolling stock to have rubber wheels running on rubber tracks. This makes its operation virtually silent. This is evidenced by the Paris Metro and other lines in Montreal, Kobe and Mexico City.
13 Attenuation is proposed for other parts of the line but not between the harbour and Barangaroo metro station. Without resiling from the principal submission that 21st century best practice dictates a rubber wheel / track system be installed, all of this track should have high quality attenuation measures installed. Particularly that part from the harbour to Barangaroo metro station.
14 If the tunnel is moved as suggested above, will not press their objection to steel wheels / tracks, but does press its submission regarding attenuation of all of the track.
Removal of spoil
15 The Proposal indicates a suggested intention of removing spoil from the tunnel to a temporary site under the overhead bridges on Hickson Road, and then for re-removal to a final unidentified site elsewhere. The indicated timing of construction (and removal) is on a 24/7 basis, which is both superfluous and unreasonable. The spoil should just simply be removed from the area directly to its final destination, and this should not occur at night.
16 The EIS represented at the explanatory meeting on 25 May 2016 that the spoil may be removed from the area by barge. If that was to happen, it must only do so from the harbour side of the central Barangaroo site. To do so from any other local harbour location would again involve double handling, unwarranted and unreasonable noise and increase the number of truck movements in the area.
Due Process Objections
17 Objections to the Proposal were invited on 11 May 2016. We understand that there has been only limited public advertisement of the Proposal and only one 'information' public meeting for Barangaroo in relation to it. Given the complexity of the Proposal and the vast detail of it, it is unreasonable to allow such a short objection period1. The time period allowed for objections is simply not feasible for objectors who need considerable time to consider the implications of the Proposal, obtain legal and expert advice, and subsequently time to call meetings to consider that advice and the impacts of the Proposal. That cannot reasonably be achieved within 6 weeks.
18 Although the proposal is detailed in part, it is imprecise and simply inaccurate in crucial areas (for example, the exact position of the tunnels). A number of the plans and diagrams contained in the Proposal are internally inconsistent. Consequently, this impacts on the nature and precision of objections.
19 reserves its rights in respect of the lack of due process afforded to in implementing the Proposal. It also reserves its rights to supplement this submission with expert(s)' report(s) as received.
Conclusion
20 has made practical and reasonable suggestions to the implementation of the Proposal in the hope that their adoption will lead to the Proposal satisfying Sydney's transport needs without adversely impacting on those who live and work near the proposed metro line.

3/16 Dalgety Road
Towns Place Millers Point 2000
SP 76902


Director
Transport Assessments
Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001

8 June 2016
Dear Director,

OBJECTION TO CHATSWOOD-SYDENHAM METRO: SS15 7400 (the Proposal)

1 As owner of the above unit I objection to the implementation of the Proposal, the most serious relating to noise and vibration issues adversely impacting residents and businesses, and to the due process available to objectors which impacts on the nature and detail of those objections.
Substantive Objections
Position of Tunnels
2 It appears from the current plans/ diagrams that the eastern tunnel may pass beneath, or very close to, the north western corner of the Dalgety Road building of the Owners Corporation at a (stated) depth of 35 metres. Given that the EIS Summary notes that the current plans / diagrams are indicative only (as well as containing a 30 metre tolerance for the tunnels' final position), this objection is based on the assumption that it is intended that the tunnel is in fact due to be located in the position described.
3 The tunnel described continues south below Dalgety Road and continues to the new proposed metro station at Barangaroo. The tunnel also passes below Dalgety Road and, in part, passes beneath terraces on Dalgety Road. Those terraces sit on a sandstone cliff situated approximately 10 metres above the Dalgety Road surface. That adds an additional 10 metres to the (claimed) 35 metre buffer between the tunnel and the surface for those properties. In contrast, the Towns Place residential tower not only lacks this 10 metre buffer, but also has a private and public car park down to a depth of approximately 20 metres below ground level, significantly reducing the buffer shown on the plan, and exacerbating noise and vibrations.
4 The technicians present at the explanatory meeting in respect of this part of the tunnel on 25 May 2016 were not aware that the Owners Corporation building had a 6 level carpark below ground to a depth of approximately 20 metres and that, if the tunnel depths were maintained at 35 metres, as indicated on the current plans / diagrams, the buffer between the eastern tunnel and the bottom level of the carpark would, at most, be only about 10 metres.
5 If, as appears to be the case, the actual depth of the top of the tunnel is less than the publicly disclosed 35 metres (due to rail gradient limits coming up to the Barangaroo metro station), then the buffer under Towns Place will be materially less than 10 metres.
6 This issue could simply be resolved by relocating the eastern side of the tunnel approximately 10 metres to the west of Dalgety Road so that no part of it runs close to or below the Towns Place building on Dalgety Road.
7 Moving the tunnel west is clearly within the 30 metre tolerance allowed for in the Proposal and places the tunnel below a much higher cliff face where noise and vibration will not impact on any surface building.
8 This solution / amendment to the Proposal would move the western tunnel slightly to the west. However, this would in no way adversely impact on the Dalgety Road terraces, as they have an existing tunnel below them and they sit on an additional 10 metres of sandstone above the 35 metre deep tunnel.
Noise / vibration abatement measures
9 The Proposal indicates that the Metro's tracks will be of steel, as will the wheels of the rolling stock. The reason expressed for this choice at the explanatory meeting on 25 May 2016 is that it needs to be consistent with other tracks/rolling stock in the system.
10 Best modern practice for this type of rapid transport system is for the rolling stock to have rubber wheels running on rubber tracks. This makes its operation virtually silent. This is evidenced by the Paris Metro and other lines in Montreal, Kobe and Mexico City.
11 Attenuation is proposed for other parts of the line but not between the harbour and Barangaroo metro station. Without resiling from the principal submission that 21st century best practice dictates a rubber wheel / track system be installed, all of this track should have high quality attenuation measures installed. Particularly that part from the harbour to Barangaroo metro station.
12 If the tunnel is moved as suggested above, the Owners Corporation will not press their objection to steel wheels / tracks, but does press its submission regarding attenuation of all of the track.
Removal of spoil
13 The Proposal indicates a suggested intention of removing spoil from the tunnel to a temporary site under the overhead bridges on Hickson Road, and then for re-removal to a final unidentified site elsewhere. The indicated timing of construction (and removal) is on a 24/7 basis, which is both superfluous and unreasonable. The spoil should just simply be removed from the area directly to its final destination, and this should not occur at night.
14 The EIS represented at the explanatory meeting on 25 May 2016 that the spoil may be removed from the area by barge. If that was to happen, it must only do so from the harbour side of the central Barangaroo site. To do so from any other local harbour location would again involve double handling, unwarranted and unreasonable noise and increase the number of truck movements in the area.
Due Process Objections
15 Objections to the Proposal were invited on 11 May 2016. We understand that there has been only limited public advertisement of the Proposal and only one 'information' public meeting for Barangaroo in relation to it. Given the complexity of the Proposal and the vast detail of it, it is unreasonable to allow such a short objection period1. The time period allowed for objections is simply not feasible for objectors such as Owners Corporations who need considerable time to consider the implications of the Proposal, obtain legal and expert advice, and subsequently time to call meetings to consider that advice and the impacts of the Proposal. That cannot reasonably be achieved within 6 weeks.
16 Although the proposal is detailed in part, it is imprecise and simply inaccurate in crucial areas (for example, the exact position of the tunnels). A number of the plans and diagrams contained in the Proposal are internally inconsistent. Consequently, this impacts on the nature and precision of objections.
17 The Owners Corporation reserves its rights in respect of the lack of due process afforded to the Owners Corporation in implementing the Proposal. It also reserves its rights to supplement this submission with expert(s)' report(s) as received.
Conclusion
18 The Owners Corporation has made practical and reasonable suggestions to the implementation of the Proposal in the hope that their adoption will lead to the Proposal satisfying Sydney's transport needs without adversely impacting on those who live and work near the proposed metro line.
Thank you.

Yours faithfully


Clinton Ng

As a local resigned in Blues Point Road I object to the devastating impact of the removal of blues point reserve for at least 2 years. The tree at the site will be impacted, the site is used by the public daily. The noise and vibration of the trucks carrying the waste material will impact the right to live in peace and enjoyment, the pedestrian safety for the elderly and children and animals in the area will be impacted, the road safety in the narrow suburban streets and extended traffic delays will cause impact on residents. Cafe customers will be impacted. Why can't the waste material be removed at the future Barangaroo station or Victoria cross station or use Barges to remove the waste?

I strongly object to this proposal
Due to the tunnels location noise
and vibrations will be intolerable.
Disturbances during construction
will result in dust and traffic noise
when the spoil is moved.
The tunnels should be moved away
from towns place.

I think if we do decide to continue the Sydney Metro through the southwest, we should NOT use single decker trains.

Single deckers do have the larger doors and it is easier and faster for passengers to enter and disembark the train on single deckers. But overall double-deckers carry that much more capacity, that overrall, in 1 hour you could have up to 30 single deckers deckers arrive in the city, but you could have 20 double deckers which still commutes more than a single decker.


In perspective, at stations spacing typical of non-metro style rail, single deckers cannot run at anywhere near 40% more frequently per track than equivalent double deckers when signalling capacity is equal, the latter having about 40% more floor space and more than 50% more seats. If the signalling capacity allows 20 double decker trains per hour, it only allows 22 single deckers, assuming suburban station spacing. But it takes 25 single deckers to carry as many as 20 double deckers.

a) the proposed location of the rail line under the building may vary by up to 30 metres
(b) that the purported depth of the tunnel under the building is significantly overstated
(c) tunnel noise and vibration are likely to be significantly worse than the public documents disclose due to:
(i) as I understand it, non-recognition of the existence of the underground car park
(ii) the failure to allow for the fact that the maximum permissible inclination of the rail line means the tunnel depth will be much closer to ground level at Towns Place than the Proposal plans disclose
(iii) the absence of sound attenuation (rubber buffers to reduce noise and vibrations) in the area between the Harbour and the Barangaroo station.

I have attended several consultation meetings related to the development of the Eveleigh site and have studied the proposals for Waterloo. Whilst agreeing that development and re-development of these sites is necessary, indeed desirable, I CANNOT agree with the density levels proposed. Redfern and Waterloo are already congested areas when it comes to moving around and badly affect movement in the neighbouring areas of Alexandria, Darlington and Surry Hills. (WestConnex project is simply going to make this worse and cannot be regarded as improving transport options.) The State has to investment more of tax-payers money into public housing and not rely on increasing densities in order to avoid that responsibility.

Attention: Director, Infrastructure Projects
Unit 4, Mitchell Gardens, 33 Mitchell Street, McMahons Point NSW 2060
Phone 02-9922-4860 Mobile: 0498 664 752 Email: [email protected].
Subject: 2 & 3 Chatswood to Sydenham Impact of Sydney Metro City & Southwest Corridor and Twin Tunnel Route. Application number SSI 15_7400:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to object to the route that being proposed for the Sydney Metro City & Southwest Corridor and Twin Tunnel Route as it crosses from Victoria Cross Station to Barangaroo Station. I have examined the relevant details (see Appendix E of volume 2b, p. 6 and Appendix H1 of volume 2b, p. 10) of your seven volume Environmental Impact Report, and believe that the permanent noise and vibration levels arising from the proposed route may negatively impact on our residential complex of 13 townhouses situated at 29-33 Mitchell Street, McMahons Point.
This disruption may be avoidable, however.
Currently, the proposed route swings sharply West from Chuter Street toward our residential complex while avoiding the Corporate Head Office & NSW Operations Office of Compass Group Australia at 51-35 Mitchell Street, McMahons Point. After this trajectory, it again swings back towards Blues Point Road.
The result is that the noise level for most units in Mitchell Gardens units has been assessed as 31-35 dB. In contrast, the non-residential office complex at 51-35 Mitchell Street (the old Pacific Magazines building) is less affected even though it remains unoccupied at nights, over weekends and on public holidays. It would seem more sensible to tunnel directly under 51-35 Mitchell Street, and not under Mitchell Gardens.
As taxpayers and ratepayers, local residents have a right to the uninterrupted, peaceful enjoyment of their homes. Your Summary admits that, "in 2024, there will be ultimate capacity for a metro train every two minutes in each direction under the city." As a consequence, the character of our section of the Mitchell Street precinct, a highly prized and sought after dormitory suburb, could be severely and irreversibly impacted.
With thanks for all your care of and attention to my objection.
William S. Pidding
Owner/Occupier
Unit 4, 33 Mitchell Street
McMahons Point NSW 2060

I am totally opposed to the Blues Point Temporary Retrieval Site.
I cannot believe that the State Government would even consider such an intrusive proposal that would destroy our quality of life and quiet enjoyment for around 2 years.
the noise and dust will be non stop, 11 hours a day, around 5 heavy trucks an hour, one every 10 minutes or so.(... and sometimes at night !)
It appears that we get the inconvenience, but not any benefit !
Was the (unpopulated) Barrangaroo site considered for retrieval ?
What about retrieval from the Victoria Cross site ?
I feel you need to consider the above 2 options as an alternative to destroying a quiet residential area for 2 years.
Thank you.

Please rensider