Skip to main content

State Significant Infrastructure

Determination

Sydney Metro - Sydenham to Bankstown

Canterbury-Bankstown

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

Sydney Metro - Sydenham to Bankstown

Consolidated Approval

Consolidated Approval

Modifications

Archive

Application (1)

SEARs (1)

EIS (82)

Submissions (7)

Agency Submissions (8)

Response to Submissions (3)

Determination (3)

Approved Documents

Management Plans and Strategies (153)

Reports (8)

Notifications (4)

Other Documents (15)

Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.

Complaints

Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint

Enforcements

02/07/2021

Inspections

15/12/2020

04/06/2021

10/03/2022

29/03/2022

07/12/2022

06/12/2023

Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.

Submissions

Filters
Showing 41 - 60 of 405 submissions
Name Withheld
Object
Marrickville , New South Wales
Message
The proposed changes seem wasteful - there is already a strong train
network and so replacing this instead of using resources to expand the
train network is a shortsighted decision. There are many places in
Sydney without adequate rail. This should be addressed first.

The work will take along time, requiring huge disruption that is
unlikely to be adequately accommodated, putting pressure on stations
and commuters that are already squeezed.
George Saliba
Support
Punchbowl , New South Wales
Message
The people of South West Sydney are just as deserving as any other suburb
in NSW to get the South West Metro built asap. My train station
Punchbowl is so old and in desperate need of lift access for many old
and frail people. I can tell you DO NOT LISTEN TO LUKE FOLEY. There
are plenty of people from my area that want this metro in place. Our
population is only growing and it would be not only stupid but
irresponsible not to act now.
Sam Lander
Comment
Dulwich Hill , New South Wales
Message
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

The complexity of this project requires a more substantive response,
but, given the short deadline, this will be mine.

1.
The proposal replaces a working train line with another that could
possibly work, but might not - at great cost.

2.
The project makes my commute to work harder in two ways.
The (Dulwich Hill - Lidcombe - Parramatta) leg gets a forced mode
change at Bankstown
The alternative route (Parramatta - Redfern - Dulwich Hill) also gets
a forced mode change at Sydenham
Increased frequency, even-if it is delivered, will not compensate for
the added mode changes in my trip. There is no benefit for me.

3.
The property marked for acquisition at Dulich Hill is the building
containing the ticket office. It uses 'air rights' above the rail
land. If the cost to acquire is a project feature, then presumably
rent is being paid for it's current use. What rent is paid? Is this
rent differential included in the costings? Why is that not also a
feature in the project. I note similar 'air-rights' acquisitions
elsewhere.

4.
The time for submissions is too short for rational response and the
advertising of the proposal has been poor.

5.
Since neither utility nor public benefit are the project's aim,
another, undocumented aim must exist. This real aim should be stated
clearly in these documents. Without that, the proposal is
fundamentally, perhaps intentionally, misleading.
Name Withheld
Support
MENAI , New South Wales
Message
It would be great to have an improved rail network with more trains. It
would also be nice to leave the car at home
Steven Dimitropoulos
Comment
Strawberry Hills , New South Wales
Message
PROJECT STAGING

The Sydenham to Bankstown metro would be a great infrastructure
project only if it achieves the stated objectives, minimises
disruption and minimises risk (timeline, budget). Based on current
performance of and approach to state transport projects there is
concern that this project will follow a similar path.

Take the example of the Light Rail project from George to Randwick /
Kingsford. Somehow the state allowed a tear up everything then build
the light rail infrastructure and utilities access without forethought
on how it would residents, travellers and businesses. It was a big
bang approach with big bang failures. As anyway can see on the light
rail route there are maximum disruptions, somewhat minimal work
leaving everyone exasperated. Why was not a staged approached taken?
That is, why was not one part of route finished before another part
started?

A staged approach should be the recommended approach for Sydenham to
Bankstown metro.

The main report (Submissions and Infrastructure Report Vol 1) does NOT
state a staged report. It does not even propose a timeline other than
1 to 2 years. It does highlight possible approaches at a high level
with no indication of preferential approach - staged or big bang.
However, the construction methodology as stated in Section 10.2 seems
to indicate a big bang approach - setup, teardown, build, test and
fix, and run - across the whole route. This approach will just
maximise disruption for all along the route and follow the same errors
as with the Light Rail project.

We just don't learn from previous project mishaps and how to improve.

The project planning team should consider the following:

> Two major stages - A. Sydenham to Campsie and then B. Campsie to
Bankstown. Or the opposite.
> Each stage comprises of setup, teardown, build, text and operate at
the end.
> Turnaround circuit or switchback of trains at Campsie station (or
Belmore Station).
> The other section of the route can continue operating with current
train infrastructure.

Each stage should take 1 year only to operational stage.

Priority should be on track infrastructure followed by station
infrastructure. Any stations that cannot finished on time can continue
its upgrade while operating that section.
The intent is to make operational the metro on this line as soon as
possible. It minimises disruption, minimises opportunity loss,
maximises revenue and maximises learning. It also reduces risk.

STATION LEVELLING

On another point related to station levelling the report does not
explain which stations need to be raised or lowered in height.
Especially of concern is raising of platform height whilst maintaining
heritage station buildings. In heavy rains it would be mean water
flowing back onto the station premises and with insufficient drainage
it would result in water pooling / flooding. Furthermore, increasing
the gradient from platform centre to platform edge would make it more
difficult for the embarkation of people utilising wheelchair aids. In
some cases the raising of the platform will introduce unintended
consequences down the track (no pun intended).

To overcome this possible risk the team should consider this following
option: Adjust the track height to reduce the amount of levelling work
at stations. This will require for trench work which should be easier
as well sturdier sleepers. It is easier to move earth than to
accommodate a sag curve for a 100 year old platform.

If the situation where the platform edge requires a decrease in height
to level it with the carriage then this should assist drainage as well
as all types of people (dis)embarking the carriage
.
DULWICH HILL STATION

The platform design of Dulwich Hill station is an issue. Currently the
platform accommodating westbound trains has a high curvature which
affects the distance of carriage door to platform. There is no mention
in the report on how this current issue will be resolved with the
proposed project. In fact the main report states that most station
infrastructure will stay the same. With the introduction of metro
train the carriages are supposed 2 to 3 metres longer than current
rolling stock. If that is the case then the current station will pose
a significant problem for passengers embarking and disembarking
irrespective of platform height.

Consideration should be given to move the station platform a few
metres closer to Hurlstone Park to where the land and line is
straighter. The station building and street entrance does not need to
move however the platform would be straighter to enable easier
embarkation / disembarkation.

PARK `N' TRAIN

The report mentions current car parking arrangements on certain
stations are planned to remain but there is no mention of enhancing or
increasing parking facilities. As you are aware the Bankstown line
corridor is planned to accommodate more residents on the line and in
the vicinity. Some will use their bicycle to get to the stations,
others public transport, and others will walk. There are people who
will need to use their cars to get to the station as part of their
trip to work or whatsoever other reason. Therefore, the project needs
to consider with Canterbury Bankstown City council the construction
and operation of one to two parking stations at key stations. Options
could be Canterbury and Lakemba or Campsie and Wiley Park. Wherever
these car park stations are located it should be part of the transport
integration strategy for the area and includes rail, bus (public and
community), interconnects, car, bicycle and paths. This is an
opportunity for the state government and local government authorities
to work together on a complete transport approach for the area.
Name Withheld
Support
Lidcombe , New South Wales
Message
I support this project fully. This will greatly improve Sydney's
transport infrastructure, and create many new vibrant
transport-oriented communities around the new metro stations.
Louise Dortins
Object
Hurlstone Park , New South Wales
Message
Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
17 July 2018

I appreciate 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. However detail is lacking about how much of this can be
achieved and I lack confidence that the contracted builder would agree
to some of the changes, especially in regard to station design. In
addition the changes do not convince me of the need for a metro
conversion and most of my previous concerns remain.
I am very dissatisfied for the short response time allowed. Many
residents, even those who attended information sessions, have not
realised that submissions can be made again. For those who do, the
time to digest and respond to the changes has been inadequate. I note
that Canterbury Bankstown Council has been able to secure a brief
extension. Even this has not been made available to community groups
or individual residents.
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. Despite the assurances of more rapid
transit to the city, members of my family and many others in the
community will be disadvantaged by lack of direct access to Redfern
and Circular Quay in particular.
-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 as mentioned earlier little detail is provided about how
this can be achieved, especially in regard to platform height and
gradient. The pressure for high-rise development triggered by a metro
would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. I am aware of the
major aim of the Sydney Metro Corporation to provide a profit to pay
for the cost of the conversion and its powers to acquire land in the
vicinity of stations. In addition the contracted company would be able
to value capture. Communities and their elected local government
representatives would have little say in the planning of the centres
of their suburbs.
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 fewer 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 is another area requiring 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 a significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, where many residences back directly onto
the line, 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
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
lacking in detail, 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
Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
17 July 2018

I appreciate 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. However detail is lacking about how much of this can be
achieved and I lack confidence that the contracted builder would agree
to some of the changes, especially in regard to station design. In
addition the changes do not convince me of the need for a metro
conversion and most of my previous concerns remain.
I am very dissatisfied for the short response time allowed. Many
residents, even those who attended information sessions, have not
realised that submissions can be made again. For those who do, the
time to digest and respond to the changes has been inadequate. I note
that Canterbury Bankstown Council has been able to secure a brief
extension. Even this has not been made available to community groups
or individual residents.
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. Despite the assurances of more rapid
transit to the city, members of my family and many others in the
community will be disadvantaged by lack of direct access to Redfern
and Circular Quay in particular.
-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 as mentioned earlier little detail is provided about how
this can be achieved, especially in regard to platform height and
gradient. The pressure for high-rise development triggered by a metro
would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. I am aware of the
major aim of the Sydney Metro Corporation to provide a profit to pay
for the cost of the conversion and its powers to acquire land in the
vicinity of stations. In addition the contracted company would be able
to value capture. Communities and their elected local government
representatives would have little say in the planning of the centres
of their suburbs.
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 fewer 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 is another area requiring 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 a significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, where many residences back directly onto
the line, 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
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
lacking in detail, 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
Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
17 July 2018

I appreciate 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. However detail is lacking about how much of this can be
achieved and I lack confidence that the contracted builder would agree
to some of the changes, especially in regard to station design. In
addition the changes do not convince me of the need for a metro
conversion and most of my previous concerns remain.
I am very dissatisfied for the short response time allowed. Many
residents, even those who attended information sessions, have not
realised that submissions can be made again. For those who do, the
time to digest and respond to the changes has been inadequate. I note
that Canterbury Bankstown Council has been able to secure a brief
extension. Even this has not been made available to community groups
or individual residents.
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. Despite the assurances of more rapid
transit to the city, members of my family and many others in the
community will be disadvantaged by lack of direct access to Redfern
and Circular Quay in particular.
-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 as mentioned earlier little detail is provided about how
this can be achieved, especially in regard to platform height and
gradient. The pressure for high-rise development triggered by a metro
would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. I am aware of the
major aim of the Sydney Metro Corporation to provide a profit to pay
for the cost of the conversion and its powers to acquire land in the
vicinity of stations. In addition the contracted company would be able
to value capture. Communities and their elected local government
representatives would have little say in the planning of the centres
of their suburbs.
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 fewer 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 is another area requiring 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 a significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, where many residences back directly onto
the line, 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
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
lacking in detail, 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
Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
17 July 2018

I appreciate 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. However detail is lacking about how much of this can be
achieved and I lack confidence that the contracted builder would agree
to some of the changes, especially in regard to station design. In
addition the changes do not convince me of the need for a metro
conversion and most of my previous concerns remain.
I am very dissatisfied for the short response time allowed. Many
residents, even those who attended information sessions, have not
realised that submissions can be made again. For those who do, the
time to digest and respond to the changes has been inadequate. I note
that Canterbury Bankstown Council has been able to secure a brief
extension. Even this has not been made available to community groups
or individual residents.
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. Despite the assurances of more rapid
transit to the city, members of my family and many others in the
community will be disadvantaged by lack of direct access to Redfern
and Circular Quay in particular.
-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 as mentioned earlier little detail is provided about how
this can be achieved, especially in regard to platform height and
gradient. The pressure for high-rise development triggered by a metro
would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. I am aware of the
major aim of the Sydney Metro Corporation to provide a profit to pay
for the cost of the conversion and its powers to acquire land in the
vicinity of stations. In addition the contracted company would be able
to value capture. Communities and their elected local government
representatives would have little say in the planning of the centres
of their suburbs.
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 fewer 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 is another area requiring 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 a significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, where many residences back directly onto
the line, 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
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
lacking in detail, 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
Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
17 July 2018

I appreciate 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. However detail is lacking about how much of this can be
achieved and I lack confidence that the contracted builder would agree
to some of the changes, especially in regard to station design. In
addition the changes do not convince me of the need for a metro
conversion and most of my previous concerns remain.
I am very dissatisfied for the short response time allowed. Many
residents, even those who attended information sessions, have not
realised that submissions can be made again. For those who do, the
time to digest and respond to the changes has been inadequate. I note
that Canterbury Bankstown Council has been able to secure a brief
extension. Even this has not been made available to community groups
or individual residents.
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. Despite the assurances of more rapid
transit to the city, members of my family and many others in the
community will be disadvantaged by lack of direct access to Redfern
and Circular Quay in particular.
-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 as mentioned earlier little detail is provided about how
this can be achieved, especially in regard to platform height and
gradient. The pressure for high-rise development triggered by a metro
would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. I am aware of the
major aim of the Sydney Metro Corporation to provide a profit to pay
for the cost of the conversion and its powers to acquire land in the
vicinity of stations. In addition the contracted company would be able
to value capture. Communities and their elected local government
representatives would have little say in the planning of the centres
of their suburbs.
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 fewer 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 is another area requiring 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 a significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, where many residences back directly onto
the line, 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
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
lacking in detail, 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
Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
17 July 2018

I appreciate 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. However detail is lacking about how much of this can be
achieved and I lack confidence that the contracted builder would agree
to some of the changes, especially in regard to station design. In
addition the changes do not convince me of the need for a metro
conversion and most of my previous concerns remain.
I am very dissatisfied for the short response time allowed. Many
residents, even those who attended information sessions, have not
realised that submissions can be made again. For those who do, the
time to digest and respond to the changes has been inadequate. I note
that Canterbury Bankstown Council has been able to secure a brief
extension. Even this has not been made available to community groups
or individual residents.
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. Despite the assurances of more rapid
transit to the city, members of my family and many others in the
community will be disadvantaged by lack of direct access to Redfern
and Circular Quay in particular.
-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 as mentioned earlier little detail is provided about how
this can be achieved, especially in regard to platform height and
gradient. The pressure for high-rise development triggered by a metro
would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. I am aware of the
major aim of the Sydney Metro Corporation to provide a profit to pay
for the cost of the conversion and its powers to acquire land in the
vicinity of stations. In addition the contracted company would be able
to value capture. Communities and their elected local government
representatives would have little say in the planning of the centres
of their suburbs.
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 fewer 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 is another area requiring 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 a significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, where many residences back directly onto
the line, 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
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
lacking in detail, 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
Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
17 July 2018

I appreciate 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. However detail is lacking about how much of this can be
achieved and I lack confidence that the contracted builder would agree
to some of the changes, especially in regard to station design. In
addition the changes do not convince me of the need for a metro
conversion and most of my previous concerns remain.
I am very dissatisfied for the short response time allowed. Many
residents, even those who attended information sessions, have not
realised that submissions can be made again. For those who do, the
time to digest and respond to the changes has been inadequate. I note
that Canterbury Bankstown Council has been able to secure a brief
extension. Even this has not been made available to community groups
or individual residents.
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. Despite the assurances of more rapid
transit to the city, members of my family and many others in the
community will be disadvantaged by lack of direct access to Redfern
and Circular Quay in particular.
-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 as mentioned earlier little detail is provided about how
this can be achieved, especially in regard to platform height and
gradient. The pressure for high-rise development triggered by a metro
would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. I am aware of the
major aim of the Sydney Metro Corporation to provide a profit to pay
for the cost of the conversion and its powers to acquire land in the
vicinity of stations. In addition the contracted company would be able
to value capture. Communities and their elected local government
representatives would have little say in the planning of the centres
of their suburbs.
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 fewer 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 is another area requiring 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 a significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, where many residences back directly onto
the line, 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
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
lacking in detail, 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,+
Philip Bull
Support
Marrickville , New South Wales
Message
I support the metro up-grade project and my concern is that the station
up-grades seem unambitious.

It would be good to integrate more retail and commercial spaces into
the entries and give these places a bit more life. I also do not see
why there could not be some building above the new concourses.

Also a more dedicated link to the Dulwich Hill light rail stop would
be a good idea.

I want the new stations to be places where commuters can shop and
socialise and locals are drawn there not just to catch a train. There
should be bars, restaurants and convenience retail around each new
station. Each station should have at least 1 development site, with
ground floor retail minimum 2 levels of offices (eg health consulting)
and maybe some residential above. Often adjoining buildings are up to
6-8 storeys so I see no issues with a 6-8 storey building above the
rail station. There should be no parking and these buildings should be
dedicated transit developments.

A European or Asian project would be far more ambitious and creative
in this regard. I urge you to make the most of these opportunities. I
am sick of NIMBY complainers dominating the debate on these projects
and lost opportunities pandering to these groups.

Commercialising the air space should also be used to reduce the cost
and allow for investment in better facilities and other public
transport projects.

Be more ambitious.

regards

Philip Bull
Peter Saliba
Support
Punchbowl , New South Wales
Message
I have had enough of taking the car, it would be nice to catch reliable a
reliable metro train
Lidia Saliba
Support
Punchbowl , New South Wales
Message
A new metro would be so welcomed
richard sweeney
Object
lakemba , New South Wales
Message
Late News
The state govt. announces that replacement of century old signaling on
Sydney's railways will mean trains arriving every 4 minutes or less.
Will only cost 880 million, saving 6 billion on axed Bankstown to
Sydenham Metro.

Late News Flash
Liberal MP Daryl Maguire exposed as corrupt before ICAC inquiry and
shows Liberal Party dealings with developers to swamp C-B City with
Hong Kong style development while taking kickbacks.

We will not accept the Metro and the destruction of our community.
Name Withheld
Object
HURLSTONE PARK , New South Wales
Message
While the Metro Preferred Infrastructure Report (PIR) is a scaled back
version of the originally exhibited project is a great improvement
however there are still some concerns regarding construction and
operation of the Metro.
Specific concerns are as follows:

1. Hurlstone Park west of the station on Duntroon Street, parking loss
for "kerbside facilities" and an accessible parking spot.
We already have 3 accessible parking spots in Hurlstone Park. As we
are a particularly small suburb, we really do not require additional
accessible parking spots. In any case, accessible parking spots should
be outside commercially zoned/business premises to help the less
mobile, not outside properties which are residential in zoning. . All
properties along Duntroon Street (where kerbside facilities are
indicated in your most recent publication) are residential (including
the converted shop front adjacent to the station) and do not have off
street parking - it is highly inappropriate to take away parking from
residents.

2. Noise during construction and operation of the Metro.
No details of noise mitigation measures have been detailed. There are
numerous residences in very close proximity to the railway stations
and railway lines that will experience excessive levels of noise
during construction and operation of the Metro. Many of these
buildings are circa early 1900s and do not have double glazed windows,
and the level of noise will be unbearable, particularly during the
evening hours. More detail with respect to measures that will be taken
to minimize noise and disruption to these homes needs to be made
available.
There is no information regarding the noise that will emanate from the
metro trains themselves once in operation or the security doors,
intruder detection systems etc that will no doubt keep residents up at
night.

3. Damage to buildings due to vibration.
There are concerns regarding damage to properties due to vibration
impacts. Most of the buildings in Hurlstone Park around the railway
station were built in the early 1900s and there is some concern
regarding possible damage from vibrations. Again, mitigation measures
need to be detailed prior any commencement of work

4. Dust/air pollution during construction.
What measures will be taken to protect the community from excessive
dust from construction and the pollution caused by diesel machinery?
There are also concerns of possible asbestos from brake dust being
disturbed and posing a risk to the community.

5. Length of construction.
Unfortunately this government does not have a great track record of
delivering infrastructure projects on time. There are concerns the
estimated 53 week close down of the line will extend far beyond this
anticipated time and go over budget (George Street light rail
project).

6. Privatisation and new Metro Bill.
We are vehemently opposed to the metro being passed on to private
operators. Refer to Melbourne and Newcastle as prime examples of why
privatisiation is not in the public interest. Additionally, the new
Metro bill gives the Metro the powers of compulsory acquisition and
therefore development of high rise towers surrounding the stations.
The Hong-Kong model of development is extremely inappropriate for many
of the heritage rich garden suburbs in the corridor. Decisions
regarding any developments should be left to residents living in these
communities and not be left to the greed of private corporations. We
still live in a democracy, correct?

7. Reduced seating on Metro trains.
It is highly inappropriate to reduce seating from 896 on our current
trains to 378 on the metro trains. You cannot expect people to stand
from Bankstown to the city. While the argument is that the metro
trains have the ability to run every 4 minutes, they carry less
passengers than the current Waratah trains, so in reality there is no
true increase to capacity (particularly in peak hour) when compared to
what could be readily achieved with improved timetables and signaling
to our current heavy rail and Waratah trains.

8. Justification for the project.
Justification for this project has not been convincing and has been
contradicted by many independent rail experts. Former Rail Corp and
State Rail Executives Ron Christie, Dick Day, Bob O'Loughlin and John
Brew wrote to the government in 2015 to advise that the conversion of
the rail line to the metro would remove "the relief valve for the
network and would result in the network having no escape route". They
also stated that "replacing one rail system with another when there is
so much to be done is wasteful of resources" and "Metro expansion
should supplement heavy rail, not replace it".

9. Safety ratings on carriage collision.
There has been no published information (to my knowledge) of the
safety rating of these driverless trains during a collision and
information regarding train derailments. Most passengers will be
standing and at risk of serious injury should there be a
collision/derailment. What safety mechanisms are in place, considering
the proximity to the cargo lines and homes along the rail corridor?

The project should not be approved because it lacks bipartisan and
community support. There are serious community concerns that 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 green space, amenity and affordability.

The community would like to retain the heavy rail and keep it in
public hands - NO PRIVATE OPERATORS. Amend timetables, update
signaling and connections, upgrade station accessibility with lifts,
safety and landscaping and restore heritage railway elements. It would
also be an idea to allow people to use the rest rooms (possibly by
swiping their Opal Cards) and please remove the revolting orange signs
from the platforms and change the colours to fit in with the heritage
colour schemes of the stations.

A Metro would be ideal for short distances such as the city circle, as
seen many European cities. It is not ideal for longer distances.
Possibly it would suit areas that do not currently have access to
rail, however trains would need to have additional seating and any new
rail lines MUST remain in public hands.
Linda Eisler
Object
Hurlstone Park , New South Wales
Message
Please stop the Metro at Sydenham.
The stops I and most of the people know need are St Peters,
Erskineville (to access Newtown - Dendy, physio...)
Redfern is necessary for Sydney Uni.
We want Museum, St James and Circular Quay. I use those stops
regularly.
You can get off at Redfern and transfer to the other side of the
platform and travel to Newtown, if you don't want to walk up a hill.

To change to the get to the stations I actually want will add a lot of
time (proportionally) to my journey.

Not only that, the changes to avoid rail straightening are cheap. I
question how long they will last.

We need drivers. They help ensure safe travel. I've seen them stop
trouble a number of times.

What happened to the GreenWay???
Janet Stankiewicz
Object
Hurlstone Park , New South Wales
Message
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 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 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
Yours sincerely,
Janet Stankiewicz
35 Melford Street
Hurlstone Park 2193
Name Withheld
Support
Carramar , New South Wales
Message
Whilst I support the SW Metro I have concerns about those commuting from
or to west of Bankstown. The interchange from heavy rail to Metro is
proposed as commuters having to cross a busy thoroughfare which may
present a hazard, particularly during peak periods as people rush to
interchange from Metro to heavy rail of vice versa. As a result,
commuters may be likely to cluster in one carriage closest to the
interchange location/train rather than spread eveningly along the
train.

I also have a concern that the interchange is not seamless and could
be an unpleasant experience having to tap off one mode to cross a busy
thoroughfare to another. No provision has been placed to provide a
direct transfer from one mode to another by crossing the platform
which suggests the interchange between services will not be quick nor
seamless.

Therefore, the benefits to those commuting from or to Bankstown could
result in potentially increased ommute times from the current
timetabling, particularly in off-peak when metro services are likely
to be every 10 minutes and heavy rail every 30 minutes. The amended
proposal does not detail in length benefits for those west of
Bankstown and therefore I am concerned of an increase commute time
across all services for commuters west of Bankstown. Ensuring a 3-5
minute interchange between heavy metro to heavy rail and vice versa
could alleviate these concerns. Noting that for every 3 Metro's in off
peak there will be one 1 half hourly T3 service via Liverpool/Regent's
Park, if there could be a mandated maximum 3-5 minute interchange for
the heavy rail/Metro service I feel this would be a positive outcome
for commuters west of Bankstown given that they experience one of the
longest commutes in off peak per km travlled on the network due to the
amount for stops on the T3 line and could be positively impacted by
the Metro's increased in speed. Therefore, if the metro does not also
focus on providing time savings for commuters west of Bankstown it
will be a missed opportunity for communities west of Bankstown.
Name Withheld
Support
73 Croydon Street Lakemba , New South Wales
Message
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
Janice L
Sydenham to Bankstown Alliance
Jennifer Kent
Object
Dulwich Hill , New South Wales
Message
I am very concerned that that the proposed Metro project is designed to
suit developer interests rather than then train commuters. There
appears to be no consideration for an integrated train network.
Commuters who could travel on the Bankstown line directly to the city
will now have to change trains as several stations won't be included
in the new system. In addition students trying to commute to Sydney
university will have to change stations twice.
The type of development already being built along the proposed Metro
is not up to an appropriate standard. I inspected one unit where the
beds were obviously shortened to camouflage the size of the bedrooms.
Toni Warburton
Object
Marrickville , New South Wales
Message
Application number SSI 17-8256

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission. These are my
points of concern. I object to the opportunistic badly planned
antisocial over development that is intrinsically linked to Metro
development.

To call these proposed High rise developments 'planning' is a misnomer
as the planning issues of the impacts of excessive building heights on
overshadowing, on air traffic and detrimental sociological aspects of
well being have not been properly addressed in these ambits of so
called 'urban renewal' .

The removal of trees, the destruction of open green space and the
attendant unresolved thermal issues of increased electricity and gas
consumption, questions of solar power and water use and the completely
unresolved issues of waste disposal, particularly organic matter to
landfill that could be utilised in methane plants all make increased
high rise in the current modes a recipe for disaster.

Residential towers such as the the 42 storeyed building that is
planned for the Victoria Cross Metro Station, the Tallerwong Hub with
1100 units, The Castle Hill Showground project with 1900 units, the
Crows Nest towers, the Waterloo Towers are completely unsuitable for
the the proposed Metro south route.

I object to the rail line closures and I object to the expense of this
rail service being replaced when other areas of Sydney need rail
services to be established.

I object to the destruction of the historical integrity of the
existing housing along the Sydenham to Bankstown rail. I object to the
opportunistic removal of trees and support a larger green corridor and
increased public open space between railway stations.

I object to the opportunistic planning for ill conceived and
environmentally disruptive and unsustainable high rise along the
proposed metro route. This would decrease green canopy and open space
and destroy the irreplaceable garden city quality and heritage built
environment values of the inner west from Sydenham to Bankstown.

It is these values of open green space, green canopy and respect for
historic domestic architecture with back yards and gardens that must
be upheld in this area. They all contribute to the lungs of the city
and must be sustained.

Yours faithfully,

Toni Warburton 18th July 2018
Metro Storage Pty Limited
Comment
Leichhardt , New South Wales
Message
We fully support the roll out of the Sydenham to Bankstown leg of the
Sydney Metro - Australia's first mass transit system and world
benchmark in design.
Once the people of Sydney experience the Sydney Metro we believe they
will be demanding a "Metro Network" for the entire Sydney Basin.
After decades of public transport neglect, by both political parties,
it seems that there now exists a genuine thrust to tackle the key
issues of transport and urban renewal.
We commend the PIR and look forward to DPE and all government
authorities "getting on with the job"
Michael Powell
Object
Marrickville , New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to the replacement of the existing heavy-rail trains
between Sydenham and Bankstown stations with a metro rail system.

It is a serious waste of money to do this instead of extending the
metro System to a different area which doesn't now have any rail
service. It will involve years of unnecessary disruption to the
everyday lives of residents and commuters.

The development of high density residential areas around the rail
stations will also cause disruption during construction and ongoing
stress for communities because of the increase in population density.

The increased capacity of the new metro system will be partly or
entirely soaked up by these new residential areas, perhaps cancelling
out the supposed value of making the change. Sufficient new schools
and other necessary infrastructure will most likely not be provided.

The increased capacity of the metro trains is largely achieved by
reducing seating, so many more people have to stand for their entire
journey. How does this conform with the needs of an aging population?
It does not.

Existing heritage items, mature trees and the general "livability" of
the Inner West will be lost in a swathe of new development which will
soon become dated, shabby and depressing as the years pass. The
intrinsic high value of individual heritage buildings and streetscapes
will be lost forever. Apart from their aesthetic value, these things
have real ongoing financial value in terms of tourism.

One significant, and welcome, change in the new proposal is that a
number of bridges and underpasses will now not be demolished. This is
good but suggests that significant aspects of both versions were or
are quite arbitrary and unnecessary. As already stated, this entire
project can be seen in that light: replacing one working rail system
with another.

It seems that the Government may be simply spending money for the sake
of doing so: perhaps to improve economic statistics at budget, and
election, time. This would amount to appalling misjudgement when tens
of thousands of homeless people are on our streets and there are many
other worthwhile needs in our communities throughout NSW, and when all
debt and interest must be repaid by the taxpayers one way or another.

There are some other disruptive but worthwhile public transport
projects being built in Sydney but this one is overall a mistake which
should be cancelled completely.

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSI-8256
Assessment Type
State Significant Infrastructure
Development Type
Rail transport facilities
Local Government Areas
Canterbury-Bankstown
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
Minister
Last Modified By
SSI-8256-Mod-1
Last Modified On
22/10/2020

Contact Planner

Name
Naomi Moss