Sydney Metro - Sydenham to Bankstown

Please do not cut direct services to the city from 9 stations on the
Bankstown line. There has been no consultation with the community
about this, and forcing an interchange + making travel times longer is
going to affect thousands of commuters heading to the city from these
9 stations west of Bankstown.

Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018
To Whom it May Concern
Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback on the preferred
project.
I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.
I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:
The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:
1. The response to concerns about the justifications for the project
(Part B, Submissions Report p 14-15) does nothing to convince the
community of its need, especially in the context of poor transparency
regarding business cases, and political agendas relating to
privatisation and property development.. The justifications have been
contradicted by independent rail experts and Sydney's Rail Future 2012
("In the Sydney context an independent metro system would deliver few
benefits in terms of service enhancement, capacity improvements or
better operating efficiency on the existing rail network". P24,
Sydney's Rail Future 2012). Alternatives must be addressed to improve
the heavy rail network's capacity (such as tunnelling options if the
City Circle and Sydenham sites are problematic, and improvements in
signalling and timetabling, now). Metro trains are designed for short
distances with frequent stops; the capacity argument is based on most
people standing.
2. The response has failed to acknowledge community concerns about the
supposed benefits( Part B, Submissions Report p30-35):
-more direct access will not occur - the popular stops of St Peters,
Erskineville, Redfern and City Circle will be lost. Commuters west of
Bankstown will be worse off with many facing longer commuting times
and less direct connections (Part B, Submissions Report p74 and 108).
This is not an acceptable outcome and is contrary to one of the a
major strategic contexts - the "30 minute city" of the Greater Sydney
Commission.
-opal ticketing is not a benefit - we already have it.
- the response to submissions fails to explain why a metro is needed
for accessibility upgrades at stations (Part B, Submissions Report
p29); many heavy rail stations have had such upgrades over time; there
remains plenty of room for improvement for accessibility in the
existing network, such as improved acoustics of announcements for the
visually impaired. In addition, metro trains will have significantly
reduced seating capacity, which is inappropriate for a 66km railway
with an ageing population.
-the response addresses specific benefits for Hurlstone Park (Part B,
Submissions Report p 36) The preservation of our railway heritage is
welcome, but the pressure for high-rise development triggered by a
metro would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. An an
increased number of services must be seen in the context of this
government incrementally reducing the number of services to the suburb
since 2013 and metro trains having significantly less seats. The claim
of better connections to "key employment and service centres" is
arguable, as current popular stops will be lost.
3. The response to concerns about development is dismissive (Part B,
Submissions Report p36-39). The link to development has been made
repeatedly, with the exhibited project acting as a"catalyst" for
growth; the strategic context of the metro and its relationship to
Future Transport 2056 (which supports the concept of property
value-capture), the Greater Sydney Commission (seeking to integrate
land use and transport planning),and the Sydenham-Bankstown Urban
Renewal Strategy (widely condemned by communities for its
indiscriminate up-zoning plans; the invitations to Stakeholders such
as the Australian Turf Club and the NSW property Council and the
awarding of metro operations in northern Sydney to MTR Honk Kong with
its "rail plus property" Business model. The project will promote
growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning process
and poor quality development without benefits such as affordability,
green space and amenity.
4. The response to some of the negative consequence of the metro has
been welcome:
-the decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important. Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate. At Hurlstone Park Station,
the use of traditional hand rails for the stairs would be welcome.
Hurlstone Park Station was recommended for state heritage listing in
2016. The community supports this and hopes that works for the metro
would not impede such a listing. In the report's Non-Aboriginal
Heritage Assessment , Appendix F, it is admitted that some "items or
fabric (are) proposed for removal and ....the historic character of
the line...would be altered by the contemporary metro". (p93). This is
of some concern and requires clarification.
-the decision to abandon the inappropriate design plans for station
precincts is also welcome. It is disappointing that community input
into station precinct and open space planning is given such a low
priority, especially in the context of multiple submissions critical
of the consultation process to date (Part B, Submissions Report p
51-53 and p 58-70). "Place-making" should begin with the people who
live in and know in the places.
The Hurlstone Park Association should be one of the stakeholders
consulted in the development of the "integrated urban and place making
outcome" for Hurlstone Park Station.
5. Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. The gas leak in the city on
7th July 2018 due to metro construction work is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instil public confidence. The predicted exceedences of operational
noise criteria due to increase in train speeds are are significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, locals would welcome noise attenuation in
the form of denser vegetation or other heritage sympathetic
attenuation measures.

6. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it here.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
7. The loss of the previously planned active green strip takes away
one of the few benefits of the project.
8. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used, and measuring
success by the number of encounters, does not address the lack of
engagement with, and failure to prioritise the input of, the
communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are opposed to
the project. In addition, the continued use of biased glossy
brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning, reveals
little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
9. I remain concerned about the loss of mature trees and tree canopy
during construction, for example around Lakemba, Wiley Park and
Punchbowl stations. There will be significant loss of vegetation from
council-owned land along the corridor. ( Appendix G 'landscape and
visual' section).

In summary, this project should not be approved because it lacks
bipartisan and community support, and is the product of process that
has lacked democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be :
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways
Sincerely
Sara Hristov

This is a great opportunity for our community to benefit in a world-class
leading form of transport.
As a community we are very much looking forward to the METRO being
operationalised for the Sydenham-to-Bankstown corridor.

We would like the project to be advanced to such a state, that
irrespective of whichever party wins the upcoming March 2019
elections, that the METRO can still proceed.

It will be great to see newer housing development s to accompany the
new Metro as having housing is critical to ensure that people being
transported have close proximity to the station.
It is highly encouraged to have houses that fall within the 400-800
meters of the precinct be allowed to re-develop (through rezoning
activities) and allow for multi-story dwellings. this is particularly
the case for Brighton Ave Campsie. Whereby we have large lots of level
land that can be very suitable for development purposes ; given its
close proximity to Beamish street, schools and shops.
The metro will also provide greater independence to disabled people
that use public transport and it is great news to hear it will be
delivered sooner as the new METRO will be running above the ground and
not underground as was initially proposed. by slicing down the time
and cost we would like to see the new METRO ASAP.
It is taking too long to get it operationalised.

WE FULLY SUPPORT THE METRO

This is for Saleshni Devi

This is a great opportunity for our community to benefit in a
world-class leading form of transport.
As a community we are very much looking forward to the METRO being
operationalised for the Sydenham-to-Bankstown corridor.

We would like the project to be advanced to such a state, that
irrespective of whichever party wins the upcoming March 2019
elections, that the METRO can still proceed.

It will be great to see newer housing development s to accompany the
new Metro as having housing is critical to ensure that people being
transported have close proximity to the station.
It is highly encouraged to have houses that fall within the 400-800
meters of the precinct be allowed to re-develop (through rezoning
activities) and allow for multi-story dwellings. this is particularly
the case for Brighton Ave Campsie. Whereby we have large lots of level
land that can be very suitable for development purposes ; given its
close proximity to Beamish street, schools and shops.
The metro will also provide greater independence to disabled people
that use public transport and it is great news to hear it will be
delivered sooner as the new METRO will be running above the ground and
not underground as was initially proposed. by slicing down the time
and cost we would like to see the new METRO ASAP.
It is taking too long to get it operationalised.

WE FULLY SUPPORT THE METRO

July 2018
To Whom it May Concern
Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback on the preferred
project.
I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.
I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:
The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:
1. The response to concerns about the justifications for the project
(Part B, Submissions Report p 14-15) does nothing to convince the
community of its need, especially in the context of poor transparency
regarding business cases, and political agendas relating to
privatisation and property development.. The justifications have been
contradicted by independent rail experts and Sydney's Rail Future 2012
("In the Sydney context an independent metro system would deliver few
benefits in terms of service enhancement, capacity improvements or
better operating efficiency on the existing rail network". P24,
Sydney's Rail Future 2012). Alternatives must be addressed to improve
the heavy rail network's capacity (such as tunnelling options if the
City Circle and Sydenham sites are problematic, and improvements in
signalling and timetabling, now). Metro trains are designed for short
distances with frequent stops; the capacity argument is based on most
people standing.
2. The response has failed to acknowledge community concerns about the
supposed benefits( Part B, Submissions Report p30-35):
-more direct access will not occur - the popular stops of St Peters,
Erskineville, Redfern and City Circle will be lost. Commuters west of
Bankstown will be worse off with many facing longer commuting times
and less direct connections (Part B, Submissions Report p74 and 108).
This is not an acceptable outcome and is contrary to one of the a
major strategic contexts - the "30 minute city" of the Greater Sydney
Commission.
-opal ticketing is not a benefit - we already have it.
- the response to submissions fails to explain why a metro is needed
for accessibility upgrades at stations (Part B, Submissions Report
p29); many heavy rail stations have had such upgrades over time; there
remains plenty of room for improvement for accessibility in the
existing network, such as improved acoustics of announcements for the
visually impaired. In addition, metro trains will have significantly
reduced seating capacity, which is inappropriate for a 66km railway
with an ageing population.
-the response addresses specific benefits for Hurlstone Park (Part B,
Submissions Report p 36) The preservation of our railway heritage is
welcome, but the pressure for high-rise development triggered by a
metro would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. An an
increased number of services must be seen in the context of this
government incrementally reducing the number of services to the suburb
since 2013 and metro trains having significantly less seats. The claim
of better connections to "key employment and service centres" is
arguable, as current popular stops will be lost.
3. The response to concerns about development is dismissive (Part B,
Submissions Report p36-39). The link to development has been made
repeatedly, with the exhibited project acting as a"catalyst" for
growth; the strategic context of the metro and its relationship to
Future Transport 2056 (which supports the concept of property
value-capture), the Greater Sydney Commission (seeking to integrate
land use and transport planning),and the Sydenham-Bankstown Urban
Renewal Strategy (widely condemned by communities for its
indiscriminate up-zoning plans; the invitations to Stakeholders such
as the Australian Turf Club and the NSW property Council and the
awarding of metro operations in northern Sydney to MTR Honk Kong with
its "rail plus property" Business model. The project will promote
growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning process
and poor quality development without benefits such as affordability,
green space and amenity.
4. The response to some of the negative consequence of the metro has
been welcome:
-the decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important. Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate. At Hurlstone Park Station,
the use of traditional hand rails for the stairs would be welcome.
Hurlstone Park Station was recommended for state heritage listing in
2016. The community supports this and hopes that works for the metro
would not impede such a listing. In the report's Non-Aboriginal
Heritage Assessment , Appendix F, it is admitted that some "items or
fabric (are) proposed for removal and ....the historic character of
the line...would be altered by the contemporary metro". (p93). This is
of some concern and requires clarification.
-the decision to abandon the inappropriate design plans for station
precincts is also welcome. It is disappointing that community input
into station precinct and open space planning is given such a low
priority, especially in the context of multiple submissions critical
of the consultation process to date (Part B, Submissions Report p
51-53 and p 58-70). "Place-making" should begin with the people who
live in and know in the places.
The Hurlstone Park Association should be one of the stakeholders
consulted in the development of the "integrated urban and place making
outcome" for Hurlstone Park Station.
5. Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. The gas leak in the city on
7th July 2018 due to metro construction work is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instil public confidence. The predicted exceedences of operational
noise criteria due to increase in train speeds are are significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, locals would welcome noise attenuation in
the form of denser vegetation or other heritage sympathetic
attenuation measures.

6. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it here.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
7. The loss of the previously planned active green strip takes away
one of the few benefits of the project.
8. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used, and measuring
success by the number of encounters, does not address the lack of
engagement with, and failure to prioritise the input of, the
communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are opposed to
the project. In addition, the continued use of biased glossy
brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning, reveals
little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
9. I remain concerned about the loss of mature trees and tree canopy
during construction, for example around Lakemba, Wiley Park and
Punchbowl stations. There will be significant loss of vegetation from
council-owned land along the corridor. ( Appendix G 'landscape and
visual' section).

In summary, this project should not be approved because it lacks
bipartisan and community support, and is the product of process that
has lacked democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be :
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways

Attn: Director, Infrastructure Projects
Major Projects Assessment
Dept Planning and Environment

GPO Box 39SYDNEY, NSW 2001

Or scan and lodge on-line

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=8256



Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018

Name: Rom Dortins
Address: 106 Melford St, Hurlstone Park, 2193

-□ I consent to my name being published. Yes

-□- I have no reportable donations to disclose

In addition to a form submission, I have included my specific concerns
so this should be treated as a unique submission.

I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:
The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:
I find the public transport presently available to me more than
adequate and consider the conversion to the metro line to be
unnecessary and wasteful. The State's resources should be spent on
public transport to poorly served areas.
My family will be served poorly by the Metro as the destinations we
use most frequently are closest to stations we will no longer have
direct access to.
Metro services are best suited to radial connections, which Sydney
lacks.
I regard the conversion as serving the interests of developers. The
sweeping powers of the Sydney Metro Corporation and its aim to be
profitable attest to this. A private contractor will have the same
motivation. I believe the community and our elected council will have
little say in the future development of our suburb and the corridor.
In addition, I endorse the following list of objections and concerns
that has been developed by my local community group, the Hurlstone
Park Association: ):
1. The justifications for the project remain unconvincing and have
been contradicted by independent rail experts. Alternatives must be
addressed such as tunnelling options. A metro for the long distances
is not supported.
2. The response to submissions fails to acknowledge that benefits have
been over-stated and are over-shadowed by the negative consequences.
The trains will have less seating, and commuters will lose many direct
connections - those beyond Bankstown will be particularly
disadvantaged.
3. Construction and temporary transport issues have not been
adequately detailed. The gas leak in the city on 7th July 2018 due to
metro construction work with rock breakers is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instill public confidence.
4. The response has ignored community concerns that project will
promote growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning
process and poor quality development without benefits such as
affordability, green space and amenity.
5. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been for the public benefit in Melbourne or Newcastle, and we
doubt that privatization in Sydney will pass the public interest test.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
6. The loss of the active green strip takes away one of the few
benefits of the project. Further the removal of mature trees and
replacing them with small flora is an extremely poor climate change
mitigation measure.
7. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used does not
address the lack of engagement with, and failure to prioritise the
input of, the communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are
opposed to the project. In addition, the continued use of biased
glossy brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning,
reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
This project should not be approved because it lacks bipartisan and
community support, and is the product of process that has lacked
democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be:
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways



Attn: Director, Infrastructure Projects
Major Projects Assessment
Dept Planning and Environment

GPO Box 39SYDNEY, NSW 2001

Or scan and lodge on-line

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=8256



Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018

Name: Rom Dortins
Address: 106 Melford St, Hurlstone Park, 2193

-□ I consent to my name being published. Yes

-□- I have no reportable donations to disclose

In addition to a form submission, I have included my specific concerns
so this should be treated as a unique submission.

I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:
The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:
I find the public transport presently available to me more than
adequate and consider the conversion to the metro line to be
unnecessary and wasteful. The State's resources should be spent on
public transport to poorly served areas.
My family will be served poorly by the Metro as the destinations we
use most frequently are closest to stations we will no longer have
direct access to.
Metro services are best suited to radial connections, which Sydney
lacks.
I regard the conversion as serving the interests of developers. The
sweeping powers of the Sydney Metro Corporation and its aim to be
profitable attest to this. A private contractor will have the same
motivation. I believe the community and our elected council will have
little say in the future development of our suburb and the corridor.
In addition, I endorse the following list of objections and concerns
that has been developed by my local community group, the Hurlstone
Park Association: ):
1. The justifications for the project remain unconvincing and have
been contradicted by independent rail experts. Alternatives must be
addressed such as tunnelling options. A metro for the long distances
is not supported.
2. The response to submissions fails to acknowledge that benefits have
been over-stated and are over-shadowed by the negative consequences.
The trains will have less seating, and commuters will lose many direct
connections - those beyond Bankstown will be particularly
disadvantaged.
3. Construction and temporary transport issues have not been
adequately detailed. The gas leak in the city on 7th July 2018 due to
metro construction work with rock breakers is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instill public confidence.
4. The response has ignored community concerns that project will
promote growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning
process and poor quality development without benefits such as
affordability, green space and amenity.
5. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been for the public benefit in Melbourne or Newcastle, and we
doubt that privatization in Sydney will pass the public interest test.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
6. The loss of the active green strip takes away one of the few
benefits of the project. Further the removal of mature trees and
replacing them with small flora is an extremely poor climate change
mitigation measure.
7. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used does not
address the lack of engagement with, and failure to prioritise the
input of, the communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are
opposed to the project. In addition, the continued use of biased
glossy brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning,
reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
This project should not be approved because it lacks bipartisan and
community support, and is the product of process that has lacked
democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be:
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways



Attn: Director, Infrastructure Projects
Major Projects Assessment
Dept Planning and Environment

GPO Box 39SYDNEY, NSW 2001

Or scan and lodge on-line

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=8256



Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018

Name: Rom Dortins
Address: 106 Melford St, Hurlstone Park, 2193

-□ I consent to my name being published. Yes

-□- I have no reportable donations to disclose

In addition to a form submission, I have included my specific concerns
so this should be treated as a unique submission.

I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:
The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:
I find the public transport presently available to me more than
adequate and consider the conversion to the metro line to be
unnecessary and wasteful. The State's resources should be spent on
public transport to poorly served areas.
My family will be served poorly by the Metro as the destinations we
use most frequently are closest to stations we will no longer have
direct access to.
Metro services are best suited to radial connections, which Sydney
lacks.
I regard the conversion as serving the interests of developers. The
sweeping powers of the Sydney Metro Corporation and its aim to be
profitable attest to this. A private contractor will have the same
motivation. I believe the community and our elected council will have
little say in the future development of our suburb and the corridor.
In addition, I endorse the following list of objections and concerns
that has been developed by my local community group, the Hurlstone
Park Association: ):
1. The justifications for the project remain unconvincing and have
been contradicted by independent rail experts. Alternatives must be
addressed such as tunnelling options. A metro for the long distances
is not supported.
2. The response to submissions fails to acknowledge that benefits have
been over-stated and are over-shadowed by the negative consequences.
The trains will have less seating, and commuters will lose many direct
connections - those beyond Bankstown will be particularly
disadvantaged.
3. Construction and temporary transport issues have not been
adequately detailed. The gas leak in the city on 7th July 2018 due to
metro construction work with rock breakers is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instill public confidence.
4. The response has ignored community concerns that project will
promote growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning
process and poor quality development without benefits such as
affordability, green space and amenity.
5. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been for the public benefit in Melbourne or Newcastle, and we
doubt that privatization in Sydney will pass the public interest test.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
6. The loss of the active green strip takes away one of the few
benefits of the project. Further the removal of mature trees and
replacing them with small flora is an extremely poor climate change
mitigation measure.
7. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used does not
address the lack of engagement with, and failure to prioritise the
input of, the communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are
opposed to the project. In addition, the continued use of biased
glossy brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning,
reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
This project should not be approved because it lacks bipartisan and
community support, and is the product of process that has lacked
democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be:
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways



Attn: Director, Infrastructure Projects
Major Projects Assessment
Dept Planning and Environment

GPO Box 39SYDNEY, NSW 2001

Or scan and lodge on-line

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=8256



Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018

Name: Rom Dortins
Address: 106 Melford St, Hurlstone Park, 2193

-□ I consent to my name being published. Yes

-□- I have no reportable donations to disclose

In addition to a form submission, I have included my specific concerns
so this should be treated as a unique submission.

I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:
The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:
I find the public transport presently available to me more than
adequate and consider the conversion to the metro line to be
unnecessary and wasteful. The State's resources should be spent on
public transport to poorly served areas.
My family will be served poorly by the Metro as the destinations we
use most frequently are closest to stations we will no longer have
direct access to.
Metro services are best suited to radial connections, which Sydney
lacks.
I regard the conversion as serving the interests of developers. The
sweeping powers of the Sydney Metro Corporation and its aim to be
profitable attest to this. A private contractor will have the same
motivation. I believe the community and our elected council will have
little say in the future development of our suburb and the corridor.
In addition, I endorse the following list of objections and concerns
that has been developed by my local community group, the Hurlstone
Park Association: ):
1. The justifications for the project remain unconvincing and have
been contradicted by independent rail experts. Alternatives must be
addressed such as tunnelling options. A metro for the long distances
is not supported.
2. The response to submissions fails to acknowledge that benefits have
been over-stated and are over-shadowed by the negative consequences.
The trains will have less seating, and commuters will lose many direct
connections - those beyond Bankstown will be particularly
disadvantaged.
3. Construction and temporary transport issues have not been
adequately detailed. The gas leak in the city on 7th July 2018 due to
metro construction work with rock breakers is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instill public confidence.
4. The response has ignored community concerns that project will
promote growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning
process and poor quality development without benefits such as
affordability, green space and amenity.
5. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been for the public benefit in Melbourne or Newcastle, and we
doubt that privatization in Sydney will pass the public interest test.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
6. The loss of the active green strip takes away one of the few
benefits of the project. Further the removal of mature trees and
replacing them with small flora is an extremely poor climate change
mitigation measure.
7. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used does not
address the lack of engagement with, and failure to prioritise the
input of, the communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are
opposed to the project. In addition, the continued use of biased
glossy brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning,
reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
This project should not be approved because it lacks bipartisan and
community support, and is the product of process that has lacked
democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be:
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways



Attn: Director, Infrastructure Projects
Major Projects Assessment
Dept Planning and Environment

GPO Box 39SYDNEY, NSW 2001

Or scan and lodge on-line

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=8256



Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018

Name: Rom Dortins
Address: 106 Melford St, Hurlstone Park, 2193

-□ I consent to my name being published. Yes

-□- I have no reportable donations to disclose

In addition to a form submission, I have included my specific concerns
so this should be treated as a unique submission.

I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:
The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:
I find the public transport presently available to me more than
adequate and consider the conversion to the metro line to be
unnecessary and wasteful. The State's resources should be spent on
public transport to poorly served areas.
My family will be served poorly by the Metro as the destinations we
use most frequently are closest to stations we will no longer have
direct access to.
Metro services are best suited to radial connections, which Sydney
lacks.
I regard the conversion as serving the interests of developers. The
sweeping powers of the Sydney Metro Corporation and its aim to be
profitable attest to this. A private contractor will have the same
motivation. I believe the community and our elected council will have
little say in the future development of our suburb and the corridor.
In addition, I endorse the following list of objections and concerns
that has been developed by my local community group, the Hurlstone
Park Association: ):
1. The justifications for the project remain unconvincing and have
been contradicted by independent rail experts. Alternatives must be
addressed such as tunnelling options. A metro for the long distances
is not supported.
2. The response to submissions fails to acknowledge that benefits have
been over-stated and are over-shadowed by the negative consequences.
The trains will have less seating, and commuters will lose many direct
connections - those beyond Bankstown will be particularly
disadvantaged.
3. Construction and temporary transport issues have not been
adequately detailed. The gas leak in the city on 7th July 2018 due to
metro construction work with rock breakers is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instill public confidence.
4. The response has ignored community concerns that project will
promote growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning
process and poor quality development without benefits such as
affordability, green space and amenity.
5. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been for the public benefit in Melbourne or Newcastle, and we
doubt that privatization in Sydney will pass the public interest test.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
6. The loss of the active green strip takes away one of the few
benefits of the project. Further the removal of mature trees and
replacing them with small flora is an extremely poor climate change
mitigation measure.
7. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used does not
address the lack of engagement with, and failure to prioritise the
input of, the communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are
opposed to the project. In addition, the continued use of biased
glossy brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning,
reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
This project should not be approved because it lacks bipartisan and
community support, and is the product of process that has lacked
democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be:
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways



Attn: Director, Infrastructure Projects
Major Projects Assessment
Dept Planning and Environment

GPO Box 39SYDNEY, NSW 2001

Or scan and lodge on-line

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=8256



Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018

Name: Rom Dortins
Address: 106 Melford St, Hurlstone Park, 2193

-□ I consent to my name being published. Yes

-□- I have no reportable donations to disclose

In addition to a form submission, I have included my specific concerns
so this should be treated as a unique submission.

I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:
The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:
I find the public transport presently available to me more than
adequate and consider the conversion to the metro line to be
unnecessary and wasteful. The State's resources should be spent on
public transport to poorly served areas.
My family will be served poorly by the Metro as the destinations we
use most frequently are closest to stations we will no longer have
direct access to.
Metro services are best suited to radial connections, which Sydney
lacks.
I regard the conversion as serving the interests of developers. The
sweeping powers of the Sydney Metro Corporation and its aim to be
profitable attest to this. A private contractor will have the same
motivation. I believe the community and our elected council will have
little say in the future development of our suburb and the corridor.
In addition, I endorse the following list of objections and concerns
that has been developed by my local community group, the Hurlstone
Park Association: ):
1. The justifications for the project remain unconvincing and have
been contradicted by independent rail experts. Alternatives must be
addressed such as tunnelling options. A metro for the long distances
is not supported.
2. The response to submissions fails to acknowledge that benefits have
been over-stated and are over-shadowed by the negative consequences.
The trains will have less seating, and commuters will lose many direct
connections - those beyond Bankstown will be particularly
disadvantaged.
3. Construction and temporary transport issues have not been
adequately detailed. The gas leak in the city on 7th July 2018 due to
metro construction work with rock breakers is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instill public confidence.
4. The response has ignored community concerns that project will
promote growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning
process and poor quality development without benefits such as
affordability, green space and amenity.
5. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been for the public benefit in Melbourne or Newcastle, and we
doubt that privatization in Sydney will pass the public interest test.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
6. The loss of the active green strip takes away one of the few
benefits of the project. Further the removal of mature trees and
replacing them with small flora is an extremely poor climate change
mitigation measure.
7. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used does not
address the lack of engagement with, and failure to prioritise the
input of, the communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are
opposed to the project. In addition, the continued use of biased
glossy brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning,
reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
This project should not be approved because it lacks bipartisan and
community support, and is the product of process that has lacked
democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be:
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways



Attn: Director, Infrastructure Projects
Major Projects Assessment
Dept Planning and Environment

GPO Box 39SYDNEY, NSW 2001

Or scan and lodge on-line

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=8256



Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018

Name: Rom Dortins
Address: 106 Melford St, Hurlstone Park, 2193

-□ I consent to my name being published. Yes

-□- I have no reportable donations to disclose

In addition to a form submission, I have included my specific concerns
so this should be treated as a unique submission.

I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:
The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:
I find the public transport presently available to me more than
adequate and consider the conversion to the metro line to be
unnecessary and wasteful. The State's resources should be spent on
public transport to poorly served areas.
My family will be served poorly by the Metro as the destinations we
use most frequently are closest to stations we will no longer have
direct access to.
Metro services are best suited to radial connections, which Sydney
lacks.
I regard the conversion as serving the interests of developers. The
sweeping powers of the Sydney Metro Corporation and its aim to be
profitable attest to this. A private contractor will have the same
motivation. I believe the community and our elected council will have
little say in the future development of our suburb and the corridor.
In addition, I endorse the following list of objections and concerns
that has been developed by my local community group, the Hurlstone
Park Association: ):
1. The justifications for the project remain unconvincing and have
been contradicted by independent rail experts. Alternatives must be
addressed such as tunnelling options. A metro for the long distances
is not supported.
2. The response to submissions fails to acknowledge that benefits have
been over-stated and are over-shadowed by the negative consequences.
The trains will have less seating, and commuters will lose many direct
connections - those beyond Bankstown will be particularly
disadvantaged.
3. Construction and temporary transport issues have not been
adequately detailed. The gas leak in the city on 7th July 2018 due to
metro construction work with rock breakers is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instill public confidence.
4. The response has ignored community concerns that project will
promote growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning
process and poor quality development without benefits such as
affordability, green space and amenity.
5. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been for the public benefit in Melbourne or Newcastle, and we
doubt that privatization in Sydney will pass the public interest test.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
6. The loss of the active green strip takes away one of the few
benefits of the project. Further the removal of mature trees and
replacing them with small flora is an extremely poor climate change
mitigation measure.
7. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used does not
address the lack of engagement with, and failure to prioritise the
input of, the communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are
opposed to the project. In addition, the continued use of biased
glossy brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning,
reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
This project should not be approved because it lacks bipartisan and
community support, and is the product of process that has lacked
democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be:
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways



Attn: Director, Infrastructure Projects
Major Projects Assessment
Dept Planning and Environment

GPO Box 39SYDNEY, NSW 2001

Or scan and lodge on-line

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=8256



Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018

Name: Rom Dortins
Address: 106 Melford St, Hurlstone Park, 2193

-□ I consent to my name being published. Yes

-□- I have no reportable donations to disclose

In addition to a form submission, I have included my specific concerns
so this should be treated as a unique submission.

I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:
The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:
I find the public transport presently available to me more than
adequate and consider the conversion to the metro line to be
unnecessary and wasteful. The State's resources should be spent on
public transport to poorly served areas.
My family will be served poorly by the Metro as the destinations we
use most frequently are closest to stations we will no longer have
direct access to.
Metro services are best suited to radial connections, which Sydney
lacks.
I regard the conversion as serving the interests of developers. The
sweeping powers of the Sydney Metro Corporation and its aim to be
profitable attest to this. A private contractor will have the same
motivation. I believe the community and our elected council will have
little say in the future development of our suburb and the corridor.
In addition, I endorse the following list of objections and concerns
that has been developed by my local community group, the Hurlstone
Park Association: ):
1. The justifications for the project remain unconvincing and have
been contradicted by independent rail experts. Alternatives must be
addressed such as tunnelling options. A metro for the long distances
is not supported.
2. The response to submissions fails to acknowledge that benefits have
been over-stated and are over-shadowed by the negative consequences.
The trains will have less seating, and commuters will lose many direct
connections - those beyond Bankstown will be particularly
disadvantaged.
3. Construction and temporary transport issues have not been
adequately detailed. The gas leak in the city on 7th July 2018 due to
metro construction work with rock breakers is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instill public confidence.
4. The response has ignored community concerns that project will
promote growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning
process and poor quality development without benefits such as
affordability, green space and amenity.
5. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been for the public benefit in Melbourne or Newcastle, and we
doubt that privatization in Sydney will pass the public interest test.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
6. The loss of the active green strip takes away one of the few
benefits of the project. Further the removal of mature trees and
replacing them with small flora is an extremely poor climate change
mitigation measure.
7. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used does not
address the lack of engagement with, and failure to prioritise the
input of, the communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are
opposed to the project. In addition, the continued use of biased
glossy brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning,
reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
This project should not be approved because it lacks bipartisan and
community support, and is the product of process that has lacked
democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be:
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways



Attn: Director, Infrastructure Projects
Major Projects Assessment
Dept Planning and Environment

GPO Box 39SYDNEY, NSW 2001

Or scan and lodge on-line

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=8256



Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018

Name: Rom Dortins
Address: 106 Melford St, Hurlstone Park, 2193

-□ I consent to my name being published. Yes

-□- I have no reportable donations to disclose

In addition to a form submission, I have included my specific concerns
so this should be treated as a unique submission.

I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:
The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:
I find the public transport presently available to me more than
adequate and consider the conversion to the metro line to be
unnecessary and wasteful. The State's resources should be spent on
public transport to poorly served areas.
My family will be served poorly by the Metro as the destinations we
use most frequently are closest to stations we will no longer have
direct access to.
Metro services are best suited to radial connections, which Sydney
lacks.
I regard the conversion as serving the interests of developers. The
sweeping powers of the Sydney Metro Corporation and its aim to be
profitable attest to this. A private contractor will have the same
motivation. I believe the community and our elected council will have
little say in the future development of our suburb and the corridor.
In addition, I endorse the following list of objections and concerns
that has been developed by my local community group, the Hurlstone
Park Association: ):
1. The justifications for the project remain unconvincing and have
been contradicted by independent rail experts. Alternatives must be
addressed such as tunnelling options. A metro for the long distances
is not supported.
2. The response to submissions fails to acknowledge that benefits have
been over-stated and are over-shadowed by the negative consequences.
The trains will have less seating, and commuters will lose many direct
connections - those beyond Bankstown will be particularly
disadvantaged.
3. Construction and temporary transport issues have not been
adequately detailed. The gas leak in the city on 7th July 2018 due to
metro construction work with rock breakers is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instill public confidence.
4. The response has ignored community concerns that project will
promote growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning
process and poor quality development without benefits such as
affordability, green space and amenity.
5. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been for the public benefit in Melbourne or Newcastle, and we
doubt that privatization in Sydney will pass the public interest test.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
6. The loss of the active green strip takes away one of the few
benefits of the project. Further the removal of mature trees and
replacing them with small flora is an extremely poor climate change
mitigation measure.
7. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used does not
address the lack of engagement with, and failure to prioritise the
input of, the communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are
opposed to the project. In addition, the continued use of biased
glossy brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning,
reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
This project should not be approved because it lacks bipartisan and
community support, and is the product of process that has lacked
democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be:
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways



Attn: Director, Infrastructure Projects
Major Projects Assessment
Dept Planning and Environment

GPO Box 39SYDNEY, NSW 2001

Or scan and lodge on-line

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=8256



Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018

Name: Rom Dortins
Address: 106 Melford St, Hurlstone Park, 2193

-□ I consent to my name being published. Yes

-□- I have no reportable donations to disclose

In addition to a form submission, I have included my specific concerns
so this should be treated as a unique submission.

I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:
The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:
I find the public transport presently available to me more than
adequate and consider the conversion to the metro line to be
unnecessary and wasteful. The State's resources should be spent on
public transport to poorly served areas.
My family will be served poorly by the Metro as the destinations we
use most frequently are closest to stations we will no longer have
direct access to.
Metro services are best suited to radial connections, which Sydney
lacks.
I regard the conversion as serving the interests of developers. The
sweeping powers of the Sydney Metro Corporation and its aim to be
profitable attest to this. A private contractor will have the same
motivation. I believe the community and our elected council will have
little say in the future development of our suburb and the corridor.
In addition, I endorse the following list of objections and concerns
that has been developed by my local community group, the Hurlstone
Park Association: ):
1. The justifications for the project remain unconvincing and have
been contradicted by independent rail experts. Alternatives must be
addressed such as tunnelling options. A metro for the long distances
is not supported.
2. The response to submissions fails to acknowledge that benefits have
been over-stated and are over-shadowed by the negative consequences.
The trains will have less seating, and commuters will lose many direct
connections - those beyond Bankstown will be particularly
disadvantaged.
3. Construction and temporary transport issues have not been
adequately detailed. The gas leak in the city on 7th July 2018 due to
metro construction work with rock breakers is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instill public confidence.
4. The response has ignored community concerns that project will
promote growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning
process and poor quality development without benefits such as
affordability, green space and amenity.
5. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been for the public benefit in Melbourne or Newcastle, and we
doubt that privatization in Sydney will pass the public interest test.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
6. The loss of the active green strip takes away one of the few
benefits of the project. Further the removal of mature trees and
replacing them with small flora is an extremely poor climate change
mitigation measure.
7. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used does not
address the lack of engagement with, and failure to prioritise the
input of, the communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are
opposed to the project. In addition, the continued use of biased
glossy brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning,
reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
This project should not be approved because it lacks bipartisan and
community support, and is the product of process that has lacked
democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be:
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways



Attn: Director, Infrastructure Projects
Major Projects Assessment
Dept Planning and Environment

GPO Box 39SYDNEY, NSW 2001

Or scan and lodge on-line

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=8256



Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018

Name: Rom Dortins
Address: 106 Melford St, Hurlstone Park, 2193

-□ I consent to my name being published. Yes

-□- I have no reportable donations to disclose

In addition to a form submission, I have included my specific concerns
so this should be treated as a unique submission.

I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:
The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:
I find the public transport presently available to me more than
adequate and consider the conversion to the metro line to be
unnecessary and wasteful. The State's resources should be spent on
public transport to poorly served areas.
My family will be served poorly by the Metro as the destinations we
use most frequently are closest to stations we will no longer have
direct access to.
Metro services are best suited to radial connections, which Sydney
lacks.
I regard the conversion as serving the interests of developers. The
sweeping powers of the Sydney Metro Corporation and its aim to be
profitable attest to this. A private contractor will have the same
motivation. I believe the community and our elected council will have
little say in the future development of our suburb and the corridor.
In addition, I endorse the following list of objections and concerns
that has been developed by my local community group, the Hurlstone
Park Association: ):
1. The justifications for the project remain unconvincing and have
been contradicted by independent rail experts. Alternatives must be
addressed such as tunnelling options. A metro for the long distances
is not supported.
2. The response to submissions fails to acknowledge that benefits have
been over-stated and are over-shadowed by the negative consequences.
The trains will have less seating, and commuters will lose many direct
connections - those beyond Bankstown will be particularly
disadvantaged.
3. Construction and temporary transport issues have not been
adequately detailed. The gas leak in the city on 7th July 2018 due to
metro construction work with rock breakers is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instill public confidence.
4. The response has ignored community concerns that project will
promote growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning
process and poor quality development without benefits such as
affordability, green space and amenity.
5. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been for the public benefit in Melbourne or Newcastle, and we
doubt that privatization in Sydney will pass the public interest test.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
6. The loss of the active green strip takes away one of the few
benefits of the project. Further the removal of mature trees and
replacing them with small flora is an extremely poor climate change
mitigation measure.
7. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used does not
address the lack of engagement with, and failure to prioritise the
input of, the communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are
opposed to the project. In addition, the continued use of biased
glossy brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning,
reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
This project should not be approved because it lacks bipartisan and
community support, and is the product of process that has lacked
democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be:
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways



Attn: Director, Infrastructure Projects
Major Projects Assessment
Dept Planning and Environment

GPO Box 39SYDNEY, NSW 2001

Or scan and lodge on-line

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=8256



Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018

Name: Rom Dortins
Address: 106 Melford St, Hurlstone Park, 2193

-□ I consent to my name being published. Yes

-□- I have no reportable donations to disclose

In addition to a form submission, I have included my specific concerns
so this should be treated as a unique submission.

I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:
The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:
I find the public transport presently available to me more than
adequate and consider the conversion to the metro line to be
unnecessary and wasteful. The State's resources should be spent on
public transport to poorly served areas.
My family will be served poorly by the Metro as the destinations we
use most frequently are closest to stations we will no longer have
direct access to.
Metro services are best suited to radial connections, which Sydney
lacks.
I regard the conversion as serving the interests of developers. The
sweeping powers of the Sydney Metro Corporation and its aim to be
profitable attest to this. A private contractor will have the same
motivation. I believe the community and our elected council will have
little say in the future development of our suburb and the corridor.
In addition, I endorse the following list of objections and concerns
that has been developed by my local community group, the Hurlstone
Park Association: ):
1. The justifications for the project remain unconvincing and have
been contradicted by independent rail experts. Alternatives must be
addressed such as tunnelling options. A metro for the long distances
is not supported.
2. The response to submissions fails to acknowledge that benefits have
been over-stated and are over-shadowed by the negative consequences.
The trains will have less seating, and commuters will lose many direct
connections - those beyond Bankstown will be particularly
disadvantaged.
3. Construction and temporary transport issues have not been
adequately detailed. The gas leak in the city on 7th July 2018 due to
metro construction work with rock breakers is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instill public confidence.
4. The response has ignored community concerns that project will
promote growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning
process and poor quality development without benefits such as
affordability, green space and amenity.
5. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been for the public benefit in Melbourne or Newcastle, and we
doubt that privatization in Sydney will pass the public interest test.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
6. The loss of the active green strip takes away one of the few
benefits of the project. Further the removal of mature trees and
replacing them with small flora is an extremely poor climate change
mitigation measure.
7. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used does not
address the lack of engagement with, and failure to prioritise the
input of, the communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are
opposed to the project. In addition, the continued use of biased
glossy brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning,
reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
This project should not be approved because it lacks bipartisan and
community support, and is the product of process that has lacked
democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be:
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways



Attn: Director, Infrastructure Projects
Major Projects Assessment
Dept Planning and Environment

GPO Box 39SYDNEY, NSW 2001

Or scan and lodge on-line

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=8256



Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018

Name: Rom Dortins
Address: 106 Melford St, Hurlstone Park, 2193

-□ I consent to my name being published. Yes

-□- I have no reportable donations to disclose

In addition to a form submission, I have included my specific concerns
so this should be treated as a unique submission.

I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:
The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:
I find the public transport presently available to me more than
adequate and consider the conversion to the metro line to be
unnecessary and wasteful. The State's resources should be spent on
public transport to poorly served areas.
My family will be served poorly by the Metro as the destinations we
use most frequently are closest to stations we will no longer have
direct access to.
Metro services are best suited to radial connections, which Sydney
lacks.
I regard the conversion as serving the interests of developers. The
sweeping powers of the Sydney Metro Corporation and its aim to be
profitable attest to this. A private contractor will have the same
motivation. I believe the community and our elected council will have
little say in the future development of our suburb and the corridor.
In addition, I endorse the following list of objections and concerns
that has been developed by my local community group, the Hurlstone
Park Association: ):
1. The justifications for the project remain unconvincing and have
been contradicted by independent rail experts. Alternatives must be
addressed such as tunnelling options. A metro for the long distances
is not supported.
2. The response to submissions fails to acknowledge that benefits have
been over-stated and are over-shadowed by the negative consequences.
The trains will have less seating, and commuters will lose many direct
connections - those beyond Bankstown will be particularly
disadvantaged.
3. Construction and temporary transport issues have not been
adequately detailed. The gas leak in the city on 7th July 2018 due to
metro construction work with rock breakers is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instill public confidence.
4. The response has ignored community concerns that project will
promote growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning
process and poor quality development without benefits such as
affordability, green space and amenity.
5. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been for the public benefit in Melbourne or Newcastle, and we
doubt that privatization in Sydney will pass the public interest test.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
6. The loss of the active green strip takes away one of the few
benefits of the project. Further the removal of mature trees and
replacing them with small flora is an extremely poor climate change
mitigation measure.
7. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used does not
address the lack of engagement with, and failure to prioritise the
input of, the communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are
opposed to the project. In addition, the continued use of biased
glossy brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning,
reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
This project should not be approved because it lacks bipartisan and
community support, and is the product of process that has lacked
democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be:
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways



Attn: Director, Infrastructure Projects
Major Projects Assessment
Dept Planning and Environment

GPO Box 39SYDNEY, NSW 2001

Or scan and lodge on-line

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=8256



Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018

Name: Rom Dortins
Address: 106 Melford St, Hurlstone Park, 2193

-□ I consent to my name being published. Yes

-□- I have no reportable donations to disclose

In addition to a form submission, I have included my specific concerns
so this should be treated as a unique submission.

I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widesp+

I object to the current plans. While you have done some revision since
the original plans, these new plans are still flawed for several
reasons and the government should not proceed.
It is an unnecessary waste of tax payers money to replace a single
train line with a single train line while a significant part of Sydney
doesn't have a train line.
The closure of the train line whilst reduced in this plan will still
cause pain and disruption to entire communities. The roads and traffic
in in the inner west cannot cope already but you propose to put
thousands more vehicles on the road everday.
The plans do not adequately consider the development on Carrington
Road, the flooding problem is a major issue but more importantly the
loss of economic benefits to the area and NSW. Reports estimate a huge
economic benefit to NSW yet the government does not address this or
the heritage of the area.
For so many reasons these plans are flawed and should not proceed.

I object to the current plans.

You have not planned adequately for the population growth, the lack of
other infrastructure is serious yet you waste our tax dollars on a
train line that already exists in one part - Sydenham to Bankstown.

Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018
To Whom it May Concern
Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback on the preferred
project.
I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.
I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:
The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:
1. The response to concerns about the justifications for the project
(Part B, Submissions Report p 14-15) does nothing to convince the
community of its need, especially in the context of poor transparency
regarding business cases, and political agendas relating to
privatisation and property development.. The justifications have been
contradicted by independent rail experts and Sydney's Rail Future 2012
("In the Sydney context an independent metro system would deliver few
benefits in terms of service enhancement, capacity improvements or
better operating efficiency on the existing rail network". P24,
Sydney's Rail Future 2012). Alternatives must be addressed to improve
the heavy rail network's capacity (such as tunnelling options if the
City Circle and Sydenham sites are problematic, and improvements in
signalling and timetabling, now). Metro trains are designed for short
distances with frequent stops; the capacity argument is based on most
people standing.
2. The response has failed to acknowledge community concerns about the
supposed benefits( Part B, Submissions Report p30-35):
-more direct access will not occur - the popular stops of St Peters,
Erskineville, Redfern and City Circle will be lost. Commuters west of
Bankstown will be worse off with many facing longer commuting times
and less direct connections (Part B, Submissions Report p74 and 108).
This is not an acceptable outcome and is contrary to one of the a
major strategic contexts - the "30 minute city" of the Greater Sydney
Commission.
-opal ticketing is not a benefit - we already have it.
- the response to submissions fails to explain why a metro is needed
for accessibility upgrades at stations (Part B, Submissions Report
p29); many heavy rail stations have had such upgrades over time; there
remains plenty of room for improvement for accessibility in the
existing network, such as improved acoustics of announcements for the
visually impaired. In addition, metro trains will have significantly
reduced seating capacity, which is inappropriate for a 66km railway
with an ageing population.
-the response addresses specific benefits for Hurlstone Park (Part B,
Submissions Report p 36) The preservation of our railway heritage is
welcome, but the pressure for high-rise development triggered by a
metro would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. An an
increased number of services must be seen in the context of this
government incrementally reducing the number of services to the suburb
since 2013 and metro trains having significantly less seats. The claim
of better connections to "key employment and service centres" is
arguable, as current popular stops will be lost.
3. The response to concerns about development is dismissive (Part B,
Submissions Report p36-39). The link to development has been made
repeatedly, with the exhibited project acting as a"catalyst" for
growth; the strategic context of the metro and its relationship to
Future Transport 2056 (which supports the concept of property
value-capture), the Greater Sydney Commission (seeking to integrate
land use and transport planning),and the Sydenham-Bankstown Urban
Renewal Strategy (widely condemned by communities for its
indiscriminate up-zoning plans; the invitations to Stakeholders such
as the Australian Turf Club and the NSW property Council and the
awarding of metro operations in northern Sydney to MTR Honk Kong with
its "rail plus property" Business model. The project will promote
growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning process
and poor quality development without benefits such as affordability,
green space and amenity.
4. The response to some of the negative consequence of the metro has
been welcome:
-the decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important. Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate. At Hurlstone Park Station,
the use of traditional hand rails for the stairs would be welcome.
Hurlstone Park Station was recommended for state heritage listing in
2016. The community supports this and hopes that works for the metro
would not impede such a listing. In the report's Non-Aboriginal
Heritage Assessment , Appendix F, it is admitted that some "items or
fabric (are) proposed for removal and ....the historic character of
the line...would be altered by the contemporary metro". (p93). This is
of some concern and requires clarification.
-the decision to abandon the inappropriate design plans for station
precincts is also welcome. It is disappointing that community input
into station precinct and open space planning is given such a low
priority, especially in the context of multiple submissions critical
of the consultation process to date (Part B, Submissions Report p
51-53 and p 58-70). "Place-making" should begin with the people who
live in and know in the places.
The Hurlstone Park Association should be one of the stakeholders
consulted in the development of the "integrated urban and place making
outcome" for Hurlstone Park Station.
5. Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. The gas leak in the city on
7th July 2018 due to metro construction work is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instil public confidence. The predicted exceedences of operational
noise criteria due to increase in train speeds are are significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, locals would welcome noise attenuation in
the form of denser vegetation or other heritage sympathetic
attenuation measures.

6. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it here.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
7. The loss of the previously planned active green strip takes away
one of the few benefits of the project.
8. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used, and measuring
success by the number of encounters, does not address the lack of
engagement with, and failure to prioritise the input of, the
communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are opposed to
the project. In addition, the continued use of biased glossy
brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning, reveals
little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
9. I remain concerned about the loss of mature trees and tree canopy
during construction, for example around Lakemba, Wiley Park and
Punchbowl stations. There will be significant loss of vegetation from
council-owned land along the corridor. ( Appendix G 'landscape and
visual' section).

In summary, this project should not be approved because it lacks
bipartisan and community support, and is the product of process that
has lacked democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be :
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways
Sincerely

Shinichi Sasaki

I object to the conversion of the Sydenham to Bankstown heavy rail line
to a driver less metro line.

The NSW Government does not have a mandate to replace our train line
with this privately run Metro line. The community on the Bankstown
line deserve the right to an effective heavy rail with actual seating,
not a sardine can with minimal seating.

Our community has been left for years without lifts and easy access to
our platforms due to inadequate management by the liberal government.
Many experts have proffered more suitable solutions than the
driverless metro option which is smacks of the government bowing to
their development mates.

The planning that has been carried out indicates that those doing
these studies do not know our neighbourhoods. The placement of a kiss
and drop and a taxi rank on the busy corner of Floss st, Hurlstone
Park is tantamount to this. This will cause absolute mayhem and most
likey result in pedestrian deaths. Floss st is a bus route and the
buses presently have difficulty with the slim roads, making it slimmer
and adding these ridiculous extras is not a sign of effective
planning.

The NSW Liberal Government has recently privatised the innerwest
buses, which required the private company to bring in extensive
numbers of extra drivers. This just demonstrates how pathetic this
Government actually is. If they had been running the buses adequately
there would have been the required number of drivers already. The
community does not want a private operated railway, We demand the
Government actual provide a transport network by running it
effectively - not farming off to a private company to rort the NSW
people.

Our community does not deserve to have to live through the noisy,
dusty grime and suffer without effective transport whist this
ridiculous plan is put into play. The information session demonstrate
that this metro plan is not well thought through. The Eastern suburbs
metro is a red flag for what our community are going to have suffer
through.

The glossy magazines are an insufficient excuse to destroy our
effective rail line.
The ticket office at Hurlstone Park is not an heritage item and its
retention again indicates the total inadequate planning that is being
performed.

The biodiversity study was inadequate and just padded with information
not actual effective onsight study of our century old rail corridor.

Re: Submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and Preferred
Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback to the report. The
preferred project still falls short of community expectations in many
areas.
We wish to respond to a number of points the Sydenham to Bankstown
Preferred Infrastructure Report (PIR) presents and raise eight
concerns:
1.Residents of the Close Street Liveability Group are vehemently
opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham to Bankstown heavy rail line
to a metro. Our street is very close to the existing rail line so we
speak as residents directly impacted. It is a gross waste of public
money and does not address the need for better public transport. Metro
trains are designed for short distances with frequent stops; the
capacity argument is based on most people standing.

2.The justification for the project is far from adequate. For example:
it does nothing to convince the community of its need, especially in
the context of poor transparency regarding business cases, and
concerns relating to privatisation and property development. The
justifications have been contradicted by independent rail experts and
Sydney's Rail Future 2012 ("In the Sydney context an independent metro
system would deliver few benefits in terms of service enhancement,
capacity improvements or better operating efficiency on the existing
rail network". p24, Sydney's Rail Future 2012). Alternatives must be
addressed to improve the heavy rail network's capacity (such as
tunnelling options if the City Circle and Sydenham sites are
problematic, and improvements in signalling and timetabling, now).

3.More direct access will not occur. Stops at St Peters, Erskineville,
Redfern and City Circle will be lost. Commuters west of Bankstown will
be worse off with many facing longer commuting times and less direct
connections (Part B, Submissions Report p74 and 108). This is not an
acceptable outcome and is contrary to one of the major strategic
contexts - the "30 minute city" of the Greater Sydney Commission.

4.Why is a metro is needed for accessibility upgrades at stations?
(Part B, Submissions Report p29) Many heavy rail stations have had
such upgrades over time; there remains plenty of room for improvement
for accessibility in the existing network, such as improved acoustics
of announcements for the visually impaired. In addition, metro trains
will have significantly reduced seating capacity, which is
inappropriate for a 66km railway with an ageing population.

5.Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. People will need to catch
buses who would normally go to Canterbury Station, how will their
needs be accommodated? The gas leak in the city on 7th July 2018 due
to metro construction work is a concern; issues with cost blow-outs
and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not instil public
confidence. The predicted amount of operational noise criteria due to
increase in train speeds are significant concern. Close Street
apartments are adjacent the train line.

6.Our community group is concerned at the lack of care the report
presents to the voices of residents (Part B, Submissions Report
p36-39). The link to development has been made repeatedly but
downplayed in the report, with the exhibited project acting as a
"catalyst" for growth; the strategic context of the metro and its
relationship to Future Transport 2056 (which supports the concept of
property value-capture), the Greater Sydney Commission (seeking to
integrate land use and transport planning), and the Sydenham-Bankstown
Urban Renewal Strategy (widely condemned by communities for its
indiscriminate up-zoning plans; the invitations to stakeholders such
as the Australian Turf Club and the NSW Property Council and the
awarding of metro operations in northern Sydney to MTR Honk Kong with
its "rail plus property" business model). The project will promote
growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning process
and poor quality development without benefits such as affordability,
green space and amenity. An article on 10 July 2018: Don't give rail
giant MTR Corp property development rights at new stations, former
Hong King housing chief urges government in "South China Morning Post"
makes this very point.

7.The decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important (Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate. Canterbury Station is an
old station whose heritage must be preserved.

8.At no stage in the report is there a guarantee that there will not
be a franchising of the line to a private operator. This has not been
good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it in Sydney. In
particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage-rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor.

We look forward to a significantly changed plan for the corridor and
an alternative solution posed.

Sincerely

Jane Hunter and Laura Hart
For the Close Street Liveability Group
16 July 2018

Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018
To Whom it May Concern
Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback on the preferred
project.
I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.
I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:
The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:
1. The response to concerns about the justifications for the project
(Part B, Submissions Report p 14-15) does nothing to convince the
community of its need, especially in the context of poor transparency
regarding business cases, and political agendas relating to
privatisation and property development.. The justifications have been
contradicted by independent rail experts and Sydney's Rail Future 2012
("In the Sydney context an independent metro system would deliver few
benefits in terms of service enhancement, capacity improvements or
better operating efficiency on the existing rail network". P24,
Sydney's Rail Future 2012). Alternatives must be addressed to improve
the heavy rail network's capacity (such as tunnelling options if the
City Circle and Sydenham sites are problematic, and improvements in
signalling and timetabling, now). Metro trains are designed for short
distances with frequent stops; the capacity argument is based on most
people standing.
2. The response has failed to acknowledge community concerns about the
supposed benefits( Part B, Submissions Report p30-35):
-more direct access will not occur - the popular stops of St Peters,
Erskineville, Redfern and City Circle will be lost. Commuters west of
Bankstown will be worse off with many facing longer commuting times
and less direct connections (Part B, Submissions Report p74 and 108).
This is not an acceptable outcome and is contrary to one of the major
strategic contexts - the "30 minute city" of the Greater Sydney
Commission.
-opal ticketing is not a benefit - we already have it.
- the response to submissions fails to explain why a metro is needed
for accessibility upgrades at stations (Part B, Submissions Report
p29); many heavy rail stations have had such upgrades over time; there
remains plenty of room for improvement for accessibility in the
existing network, such as improved acoustics of announcements for the
visually impaired. In addition, metro trains will have significantly
reduced seating capacity, which is inappropriate for a 66km railway
with an ageing population.
-the response addresses specific benefits for Hurlstone Park (Part B,
Submissions Report p 36) The preservation of our railway heritage is
welcome, but the pressure for high-rise development triggered by a
metro would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. An increased
number of services must be seen in the context of this government
incrementally reducing the number of services to the suburb since 2013
and metro trains having significantly less seats. The claim of better
connections to "key employment and service centres" is arguable, as
current popular stops will be lost.
3. The response to concerns about development is dismissive (Part B,
Submissions Report p36-39). The link to development has been made
repeatedly, with the exhibited project acting as a" catalyst" for
growth; the strategic context of the metro and its relationship to
Future Transport 2056 (which supports the concept of property
value-capture), the Greater Sydney Commission (seeking to integrate
land use and transport planning),and the Sydenham-Bankstown Urban
Renewal Strategy (widely condemned by communities for its
indiscriminate up-zoning plans; the invitations to Stakeholders such
as the Australian Turf Club and the NSW property Council and the
awarding of metro operations in northern Sydney to MTR Honk Kong with
its "rail plus property" Business model. The project will promote
growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning process
and poor quality development without benefits such as affordability,
green space and amenity.
4. The response to some of the negative consequence of the metro has
been welcome:
-the decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important. Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate. At Hurlstone Park Station,
the use of traditional hand rails for the stairs would be welcome.
Hurlstone Park Station was recommended for state heritage listing in
2016. The community supports this and hopes that works for the metro
would not impede such a listing. In the report's Non-Aboriginal
Heritage Assessment , Appendix F, it is admitted that some "items or
fabric (are) proposed for removal and ....the historic character of
the line...would be altered by the contemporary metro". (p93). This is
of some concern and requires clarification.
-the decision to abandon the inappropriate design plans for station
precincts is also welcome. It is disappointing that community input
into station precinct and open space planning is given such a low
priority, especially in the context of multiple submissions critical
of the consultation process to date (Part B, Submissions Report p
51-53 and p 58-70). "Place-making" should begin with the people who
live in and know in the places.
The Hurlstone Park Association should be one of the stakeholders
consulted in the development of the "integrated urban and place making
outcome" for Hurlstone Park Station.
5. Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. The gas leak in the city on
7th July 2018 due to metro construction work is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instill public confidence. The predicted exceedences of operational
noise criteria due to increase in train speeds are significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, locals would welcome noise attenuation in
the form of denser vegetation or other heritage sympathetic
attenuation measures.

6. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it here.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
7. The loss of the previously planned active green strip takes away
one of the few benefits of the project.
8. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used, and measuring
success by the number of encounters, does not address the lack of
engagement with, and failure to prioritise the input of, the
communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are opposed to
the project. In addition, the continued use of biased glossy
brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning, reveals
little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
9. I remain concerned about the loss of mature trees and tree canopy
during construction, for example around Lakemba, Wiley Park and
Punchbowl stations. There will be significant loss of vegetation from
council-owned land along the corridor. (Appendix G 'landscape and
visual' section).

In summary, this project should not be approved because it lacks
bipartisan and community support, and is the product of process that
has lacked democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be :
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signaling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways
Sincerely
Sue and Geoff Hughes and Robert Irving

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I oppose the Submissions and Preferred Infrastructure Report for
Sydenham to Bankstown metro upgrade.

Up until now the Sydney Metro Project (As a whole) has been world
class and to the highest standard but the descoping (Dumbing down) of
the Sydenham to Bankstown conversion part of this project as a result
of whinging minority groups and bureaucrats seeing an opportunity to
save money is contemptable, especially when you compare the standard
of the stations being delivered as part of the north-west part of the
wider Sydney Metro Project. Do the people of South-West Sydney not
deserve the same standard of station infrastructure and facilities
being built in North-West Sydney? The shutdown rationale of 71 v 41
total weeks of closure being used to justify these changes seems weak
at best. Has there been a cost blowout? If yes, why has it not been
made public?

New, wider more accessible, all weathered concourses have been
eliminated from all stations where they were previously proposed
except Dulwich Hill (Even there it's no longer covered and no longer
goes through to Ewart Lane) and there are no new station buildings/
facilities. New entrances and better access has also been removed
meaning restricted, cramped conditions will remain. With significant
urban growth along the Sydenham to Bankstown Corridor especially west
of Dulwich Hill already started, and much more planned that will be
completed by the time the metro conversion has taken place in 2024, or
soon after, most of the existing infrastructure provided at these
existing stations will be in dire need of upgrade if nothing
significant is done.

The worst concession that has been made is that the line will not be
future proofed with completely new straight platforms and will now use
fixed and mechanical gap fillers. Mechanical gap fillers need to be
questioned from an efficiency and safety point of view as I do not
believe this technology is currently being used anywhere in the world
at the moment on a fully automated metro system with platform screen
doors (They all have straight platforms).

There are also a number of other issues including why bridge and
underpass works that were previously vital have now been conveniently
brushed aside. Wil there be future safety, speed or efficiency issues
and restrictions as a result?

The mindset here is all wrong. The Sydenham to Bankstown conversion
needs to be seen as ` A new metro line' built to the highest standard
not just `An upgrade to an existing line'. The changes made in the
`Submissions and Preferred Infrastructure Report' do not bring the
Sydenham to Bankstown Corridor into the 21st century. With the
Sydenham to Bankstown Corridor needing to be closed to be converted to
metro this substandard effort will be seen as a lost opportunity in
years to come.


Regards

Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018
To Whom it May Concern
Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback on the preferred
project.
I strenuously oppose the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy
rail line to metro. It is a waste of public money that could be better
spent putting a new Metro Service in other areas that have no public
transport services, such as Bayside Council areas from Sydney airport
along the Bayside suburbs to Miranda. It would be very easy to divert
it from Sydenham south to these suburbs, alleviating the very
congested Sutherland-Wolli Creek service.
I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. The public
interest has been largely ignored, and the transparency and
accountability of NSW agencies has been lacking. My submission
follows:
The main concerns I have about the Metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:
1. The response to concerns about the justifications for the project
(Part B, Submissions Report p 14-15) does nothing to convince the
community of its need, especially in the context of poor transparency
regarding business cases, and political agendas relating to
privatisation and property development. The justifications have been
contradicted by independent rail experts and Sydney's Rail Future 2012
("In the Sydney context an independent metro system would deliver few
benefits in terms of service enhancement, capacity improvements or
better operating efficiency on the existing rail network". P24,
Sydney's Rail Future 2012). Alternatives must be addressed to improve
the heavy rail network's capacity (such as tunnelling options if the
City Circle and Sydenham sites are problematic, and improvements in
signalling and timetabling, now). Metro trains are designed for short
distances with frequent stops; the capacity argument is based on most
people standing.
2. The response has failed to acknowledge community concerns about the
supposed benefits( Part B, Submissions Report p30-35):
-more direct access will not occur - the popular stops of St Peters,
Erskineville, Redfern and City Circle will be lost. Commuters west of
Bankstown will be worse off with many facing longer commuting times
and less direct connections (Part B, Submissions Report pgs74 and
108). This is not an acceptable outcome and is contrary to one of the
a major strategic contexts - the "30 minute city" of the Greater
Sydney Commission.
-opal ticketing is not a benefit - we already have it.
- the response to submissions fails to explain why a metro is needed
for accessibility upgrades at stations (Part B, Submissions Report
p29); many heavy rail stations have had such upgrades over time; there
remains plenty of room for improvement for accessibility in the
existing network, such as improved acoustics of announcements for the
visually impaired. In addition, metro trains will have significantly
reduced seating capacity, which is inappropriate for a 66 km railway
with an ageing population.
-the response addresses specific benefits for Hurlstone Park (Part B,
Submissions Report p 36) The preservation of our railway heritage is
welcome, but the pressure for high-rise development triggered by a
metro would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. An an
increased number of services must be seen in the context of this
government incrementally reducing the number of services to the suburb
since 2013 and metro trains having significantly less seats. The claim
of better connections to "key employment and service centres" is
arguable, as current popular stops will be lost.
3. The response to concerns about development is dismissive (Part B,
Submissions Report p36-39). The link to development has been made
repeatedly, with the exhibited project acting as a"catalyst" for
growth; the strategic context of the metro and its relationship to
Future Transport 2056 (which supports the concept of property
value-capture), the Greater Sydney Commission (seeking to integrate
land use and transport planning),and the Sydenham-Bankstown Urban
Renewal Strategy (widely condemned by communities for its
indiscriminate up-zoning plans; the invitations to Stakeholders such
as the Australian Turf Club and the NSW property Council and the
awarding of metro operations in northern Sydney to MTR Honk Kong with
its "rail plus property" Business model. The project will promote
growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning process
and poor quality development without benefits such as affordability,
green space and amenity.
4. The response to some of the negative consequence of the metro has
been welcome:
-the decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important. Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate. At Hurlstone Park Station,
the use of traditional hand rails for the stairs would be welcome.
Hurlstone Park Station was recommended for state heritage listing in
2016. The community supports this and hopes that works for the metro
would not impede such a listing. In the report's Non-Aboriginal
Heritage Assessment , Appendix F, it is admitted that some "items or
fabric (are) proposed for removal and ....the historic character of
the line...would be altered by the contemporary metro". (p93). This is
of some concern and requires clarification.
-the decision to abandon the inappropriate design plans for station
precincts is also welcome. It is disappointing that community input
into station precinct and open space planning is given such a low
priority, especially in the context of multiple submissions critical
of the consultation process to date (Part B, Submissions Report p
51-53 and p 58-70). "Place-making" should begin with the people who
live in and know in the places.
The Hurlstone Park Association should be one of the stakeholders
consulted in the development of the "integrated urban and place making
outcome" for Hurlstone Park Station.
5. Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. The gas leak in the city on
7th July 2018 due to metro construction work is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instil public confidence. The predicted exceedences of operational
noise criteria due to increase in train speeds are are significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, locals would welcome noise attenuation in
the form of denser vegetation or other heritage sympathetic
attenuation measures.

6. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it here.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage-rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor.
7. The loss of the previously planned active green strip takes away
one of the few benefits of the project.
8. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used, and measuring
success by the number of encounters, does not address the lack of
engagement with, and failure to prioritise the input of, the
communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are opposed to
the project. In addition, the continued use of biased glossy
brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning, reveals
little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
9. I remain concerned about the loss of mature trees and tree canopy
during construction, for example around Lakemba, Wiley Park and
Punchbowl stations. There will be significant loss of vegetation from
council-owned land along the corridor. ( Appendix G 'landscape and
visual' section).

In summary, this project should not be approved because it lacks
bipartisan and community support, and is the product of process that
has lacked democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be :
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways
Sincerely
Elissa Stathis

To Whom it May Concern

Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback on the preferred
project.
I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.
I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:
The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:

1. The response to concerns about the justifications for the project
(Part B, Submissions Report p 14-15) does nothing to convince the
community of its need, especially in the context of poor transparency
regarding business cases, and political agendas relating to
privatisation and property development.. The justifications have been
contradicted by independent rail experts and Sydney's Rail Future 2012
("In the Sydney context an independent metro system would deliver few
benefits in terms of service enhancement, capacity improvements or
better operating efficiency on the existing rail network". P24,
Sydney's Rail Future 2012). Alternatives must be addressed to improve
the heavy rail network's capacity (such as tunnelling options if the
City Circle and Sydenham sites are problematic, and improvements in
signalling and timetabling, now). Metro trains are designed for short
distances with frequent stops; the capacity argument is based on most
people standing.

2. The response has failed to acknowledge community concerns about the
supposed benefits( Part B, Submissions Report p30-35):
-more direct access will not occur - the popular stops of St Peters,
Erskineville, Redfern and City Circle will be lost. Commuters west of
Bankstown will be worse off with many facing longer commuting times
and less direct connections (Part B, Submissions Report p74 and 108).
This is not an acceptable outcome and is contrary to one of the a
major strategic contexts - the "30 minute city" of the Greater Sydney
Commission.
-opal ticketing is not a benefit - we already have it.
- the response to submissions fails to explain why a metro is needed
for accessibility upgrades at stations (Part B, Submissions Report
p29); many heavy rail stations have had such upgrades over time; there
remains plenty of room for improvement for accessibility in the
existing network, such as improved acoustics of announcements for the
visually impaired. In addition, metro trains will have significantly
reduced seating capacity, which is inappropriate for a 66km railway
with an ageing population.
-the response addresses specific benefits for Hurlstone Park (Part B,
Submissions Report p 36) The preservation of our railway heritage is
welcome, but the pressure for high-rise development triggered by a
metro would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. An an
increased number of services must be seen in the context of this
government incrementally reducing the number of services to the suburb
since 2013 and metro trains having significantly less seats. The claim
of better connections to "key employment and service centres" is
arguable, as current popular stops will be lost.

3. The response to concerns about development is dismissive (Part B,
Submissions Report p36-39). The link to development has been made
repeatedly, with the exhibited project acting as a"catalyst" for
growth; the strategic context of the metro and its relationship to
Future Transport 2056 (which supports the concept of property
value-capture), the Greater Sydney Commission (seeking to integrate
land use and transport planning),and the Sydenham-Bankstown Urban
Renewal Strategy (widely condemned by communities for its
indiscriminate up-zoning plans; the invitations to Stakeholders such
as the Australian Turf Club and the NSW property Council and the
awarding of metro operations in northern Sydney to MTR Honk Kong with
its "rail plus property" Business model. The project will promote
growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning process
and poor quality development without benefits such as affordability,
green space and amenity.

4. The response to some of the negative consequence of the metro has
been welcome:
-the decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important. Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate. At Hurlstone Park Station,
the use of traditional hand rails for the stairs would be welcome.
Hurlstone Park Station was recommended for state heritage listing in
2016. The community supports this and hopes that works for the metro
would not impede such a listing. In the report's Non-Aboriginal
Heritage Assessment , Appendix F, it is admitted that some "items or
fabric (are) proposed for removal and ....the historic character of
the line...would be altered by the contemporary metro". (p93). This is
of some concern and requires clarification.
-the decision to abandon the inappropriate design plans for station
precincts is also welcome. It is disappointing that community input
into station precinct and open space planning is given such a low
priority, especially in the context of multiple submissions critical
of the consultation process to date (Part B, Submissions Report p
51-53 and p 58-70). "Place-making" should begin with the people who
live in and know in the places.
The Hurlstone Park Association should be one of the stakeholders
consulted in the development of the "integrated urban and place making
outcome" for Hurlstone Park Station.
5. Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. The gas leak in the city on
7th July 2018 due to metro construction work is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instil public confidence. The predicted exceedences of operational
noise criteria due to increase in train speeds are are significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, locals would welcome noise attenuation in
the form of denser vegetation or other heritage sympathetic
attenuation measures.

6. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it here.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor

7. The loss of the previously planned active green strip takes away
one of the few benefits of the project.

8. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used, and measuring
success by the number of encounters, does not address the lack of
engagement with, and failure to prioritise the input of, the
communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are opposed to
the project. In addition, the continued use of biased glossy
brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning, reveals
little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.

9. I remain concerned about the loss of mature trees and tree canopy
during construction, for example around Lakemba, Wiley Park and
Punchbowl stations. There will be significant loss of vegetation from
council-owned land along the corridor. ( Appendix G 'landscape and
visual' section).

In summary, this project should not be approved because it lacks
bipartisan and community support, and is the product of process that
has lacked democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be :
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways.

Sincerely
George Grimekis

I support the Sydney Metro, in particular the Metro Southwest project.
This infrastructure is about 20 years behind some of the major cities
in the world such as Hong Kong and Singapore, who both enjoy fast and
convenient metro train services to the city. My concern is that the
project seems to take too long to complete and with such short
political cycles between governments, run the risk of the project
being cancel or substantially modified part way through the project.
With such uncertainty it adds difficulty in planning and living in the
local area for the long term.
My other concern is that the Canterbury Racecourse should not be part
of the priority precinct to allow developers to take away the only
part of green space in the inner west of Sydney visible from the air.
No other green spaces are left in the already overcrowded inner west
area of Sydney. The Canterbury Racecourse must be preserved for future
generations to come.
So my message to the project team is just get with the job and try and
complete this enormous project ahead of time, to showcase to the world
that Sydney is finally a true first world city.

I am writing to you to express my dismay at plans to convert and
'privatise' the existing Sydenham to Bankstown Line to the Metro SW.

WE WANT Public transport NOT privatised rails. We want to keep and
SAVE the 9 stations for direct route to the city. We don't want the
struggle of changing trains 3 times to get to the CBD. I refuse this
plan for the sake of all my family and friends who catch these trains
from the 9 stations - this plan will change these areas forever by
making it a hassle to get to the city for the ones who study and work
in the CBD. We can't afford to lose our direct link to the city WE
JUST CANT!

My co workers who don't drive use the train to get to work, this metro
will mean they will have to wake up much earlier and have them
changing 3 times to get to job sites in the city before 7am. They are
very upset over these proposed changes.

Not only will the plans see journey times increase for many commuters
by removing our direct link to Redfern and the City Circle but it will
also see tens of thousands of people displaced during the construction
phase.

I am also concerned about the government's plans to significantly
rezone suburbs along the line. This will see our population increase
by tens of thousands of people, spoiling the character of our local
areas. It will increase the equity divide we already experience in
terms of green space and community facilities, and see long standing
communities pushed out of areas that currently provide more affordable
housing. Our communities deserve far better!

What we need is restoration of this line !
I'm Calling on the state Labour Party to commit to restore these Lines
and not cave in to the metro plan. We trust you will listen to the
people in the community who have always voted labor and fight this all
the way AS WE DO NOT SUPPORT ANY PART OF THUS METRO !

I urge your government to reconsider its plans.

I Peter Murphy object to the Sydney Metro and Southwest Sydenham to
Bankstown upgrade as with this proposal that the Government is doing
we will lose direct access to the City Circle also an additional 100,
000 people will be placed along the Bankstown - Sydenham corridor with
no extra facilities such as School upgrades. We have a perfectly good
rail line and we should use that money to upgrade train stations such
as putting a lift in Yagoona station. I catch the train there and see
the difficulties elderly's and mothers with prams are facing with no
lifts, having to ask someone for help.

I object to this Metro.

I happen to work close to the Pitt St Station construction site so have a
'birds eye view' of the works underway. As a result I have perhaps a
more active view of the overall Metro Project although with such a
large undertaking its difficult to imagine anybody in Sydney not being
aware.
As an overall assessment of the project I have to say I'm impressed
with the effort, planning, resources, integration and sheer
professionalism brought to such a large undertaking. I happen to work
for a (Federal) government department so have some exposure to large
infrastructure projects and this one is certainly in that frame.
It would be easy I expect to find some minor detail on which to focus
a negative comment or two, after all this project will inevitably
impact people's lives, but reading and watching this project unfold I
cannot escape the view that somebody is doing a dam good job.
As an engineer myself I can relate to the challenges facing the team
so with hopefully an informed opinion you score very well on whatever
scale applies.
Keep it up.

6000 new residents will be located in Erskineville within the next 5
years. Erskineville station will be chronically over-crowded
particularly as Bankstown line will not be stopping at this station.

A new station should be positioned at Sydney Park South of these new
developments between Waterloo and Sydneham. Not only would this
service the residents of Alexandria, Erskineville & St Peters but
could also provide access to Sydney park for the rest of Sydney. It's
a fantastic park which is not readily accessible to most of Sydney due
to horrendous traffic.

Its incredibly short-sighted of the current State Government to not
add this infrastructure to highly populated inner city areas.