Sydney Metro - Sydenham to Bankstown

I am generally opposed to the project on basis of cost to replace one
railway line with another railway line instead of a new railway line
going somewhere else.
TfNSW is over-committed with projects underway: NW metro which is not
even running yet (it is unproven and you want to commit to another
metro line) and Sydney light rail which is behind schedule. And
upcoming projects: Parramatta light rail.
There are other things that could be done: lifts at the remaining T3
and T8 stations,another concourse at Redfern to reduce overcrowding on
the existing stairways, Eastern suburbs line extended to Bondi,
Hurstville to Parramatta line. I would be neutral on a line from
Sydenham to Chatswood leaving the T3 line as is.
Some of the benefits given for the metro conversion could have been
provided with existing heavy rail.
Air conditioning of all trains: should have been achieved with
Millennium and Waratah roll-outs.
Stopping patterns: have all trains stop at all stations. Existing
patterns only provide a few minutes benefit. Ten trains per hour in
peak is only six minutes waiting time.
Fully accessible: several T3 stations already have lifts. Just provide
them at the remaining stations.
CCTV: doesn't need new trains just for this. Platforms already have
lots of CCTV. The new heavy rail carriages promised will have plenty
of CCTV.
Platform level with train floor: should have been done years ago. Poor
alignment is due to inaction by TfNSW. The gap is a trade-off between
carriage and track geometry.
I would like to see the Sydenham-Chatswood line running first, and
while that is being constructed, the T3 stations refurbished
(platforms relevelled, some station improvements outlined in the plan)
and the external improvements wanted by the Inner West council. The
conversion could then be re-evaluated.
Nothing has been said yet about timetable changes for the T4 line if
the T3 conversion is done. There will need to be extra trains on T4
for passengers to St Peters, Erskineville and the University students
using Redfern. T3 and T8 lines and the T2 line use each others trains.
Trains removed by the T3 conversion have to be provided from
elsewhere.
It's also rather sad to think that by 2030, there might be well over a
million people commuting to work; that no-one has come up with a more
efficient work practice than travelling to work.

This is a third rate proposal that will not deliver the necessary
infrastructure improves to the residents currently serviced by the
rail system . Allocate the proper resources and planning for this
development.

You have NOT allowed enough time for all documentation on the project to
be reviewed properly.
That aside, as a longtime public transport user and local resident,
I'm TOTALLY against the downgrading of the existing heavy line between
Sydenham to Bankstown, to an inferior single decker "cattle class"
trains.
Upgrading the existing signalling system, completing the Erskineville
to Sydenham quadruplication and reopening St James Station to store
trains for peak periods is more efficient and far better use of
taxpayers funds.
The existing Waratah double-decker trains are very comfortable and
allow a relaxing journey. However, the Metro trains will have 60% less
seating, they will be crowded with people standing everywhere, prams,
scooter mobiles, large suitcases and generally an uncomfortable
journey. And let's not forget, passengers will be seated facing each
other.
The so-called Metro trains are not Metros. Metro trains are used for
short stops less than 500 metres. On the new Metro some of the
distances are very very lengthy. For e.g Waterloo station to Sydenham
will be 5ks.
The existing heavy rail line provides an excellent 'relief" valve for
other sections of the heavy rail system to use if they need
replacement trains. For e.g, system breakdowns or track work on other
lines.
The new Metro services will not provide faster services. In fact, the
Bankstown timetable of the 1930's was only 1 minute slower than the
proposed Metro. So, what are we gaining?
The Metro (driverless trains ) will not have any express services.
Again, what is the benefit of the services?
Spending over $5 billion on downgrading an already efficient rail
service is TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS. Funds should be directed to areas where
there are no rail services (Sydney Uni and RPA) AND the Metro West (to
Parramatta) being PRIORITISED.
The proposed shutdowns of the Sydenham to Bankstown over a 4 year
period are just so over the top and wasting taxpayers monies.. It will
be gridlock to local residents, people trying to get to work, school
and going about their normal everyday business.
Please reconsider the proposal. DO NOT DOWNGRADE THE EXISTING Sydenham
to Bankstown heavy rail to a 'cattle class' single decker Metro system
so it can be operated by an overseas company returning profits
overseas and quasi-developer.

My area is severely lacking in adequate infrastructure and general
amenity. The Southwest Metro will bring both of these to my area and
increase both my own, and my families standard of living as well as
improve connectivity to health, education and work.

I urge the maw government to approve and build this metro so that all
future generations can benefit from this amazing project.

How will Bankstown station be designed to interconnect with Sydney Trains
so customers can travel to Liverpool or Lidcombe and connect to
Parramatta services?
How will Bankstown station be redesigned so it can be future proofed
for an extension of the South sweat Metro to Liverpool?
How will Bankstown, as a terminating station for the Metro, be
designed so the converted Bankstown metro line has capacity for trains
every two minutes?

I strongly oppose to theSydenham to Bankstown Metro project. The Sydenham
to Bankstown corridor has an existing good T3 trainline with direct
access to City Circle.

The conversion of a T3 trainline to a Metro would create major chaos
for commuters as it will remove direct access to City Circle, causing
commuters to frequently change trains.

Let's not forget about small businesses who operate near train
stations, who will be affected should this project goes to plan. There
is a question, have the business owners been properly informed or even
informed at all about the plan?

This Metro project needs to be demolished and the NSW State Government
needs to start focusing on already existing infrastructures, like
spending money towards putting lifts at Yagoona, Birrong and Chester
Hill train stations & maintaining our schools and hospitals.

There is significant safety concerns with what is being proposed by
this new proposal (clearances to bridges, platform gaps, etc) which
will impact the running times suggested as part of the original
business case and simply can not be supported as this will not provide
an improvement on the existing reliable rail service.

A few additional lifts aside, what is being proposed is a downgrading
of the public domain interface between the town centres and the
railway. This is a terrible design outcome, not even in keeping with
Government policy and no such changes should be made which would be
achieved by simply keeping the existing T3 line as it is.

Quite simply 'No Metro' means no environmental impact and here we have
a downgraded solution, with none of the promised benefits of the
original proposal being realised (just look at the disappearance of
the green corridor) so we have massive impacts for construction,
mechanical gap fillers and unsafe running clearances and loss of trees
and on and on I can go... for what? For a substandard and slow train
which benefits the operation of a wider existing train network for the
north shore, west and south at the expense of the Inner West,
Canterbury and Bankstown residents.

Unable to manage the technology. Not a digital native. Wish to submit the
Hurlstone Park community association's prepared submission. Against
the metro because it is an unnecessary degradation of public asset, is
inappropriate transport option for the line, there is insufficient
transparency in the process.

I am writing to you to express our major concerns about plans to
convert and 'privatise' the existing Sydenham to Bankstown Line to the
Metro SW.

WE WANT Public transport and NOT privatised rails. We want to keep and
SAVE the 9 stations for direct route to the city. We don't want the
struggle of changing trains 3 times to get to the CBD. I refuse this
plan for the sake of all my family and friends who catch these trains
from the 9 stations -
This plan will have huge impacts on our area and will change these
areas forever by making it a hassle to get to the city for the ones
who study and work in the CBD. We can't afford to lose our direct link
to the city. IT is impossible for us
We are concerned about people with disabilities, elderly and mums with
young children getting on and off the metro
IT IS impossible for them to be able to commute on the new metro
My colleagues who don't drive and use the train to get to work, this
metro will mean they will have to wake up much earlier and have them
changing 3 times to get to job sites in the city before 7am. They are
very upset over these proposed changes. Which in turn impact our work
It will impact our community

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

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

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

I urge your government to reconsider its plans.

There are several concerns with this updated proposal. While it is
pleasing the original facades of some of the historical Railway
buildings will be retained, according to the Preferred Infrastructure
Report, Dulwich Hill will continue to have the highest number of
residents on each precinct along the line with noise impacts.
According to the report, 126 `noise receivers' - that is residents'
homes - in Dulwich Hill are likely to be given night-time alternative
accommodation (such as in a hotel) during the project's life during
periods of 24/7 construction works. This is down from 191 receivers
anticipated requiring alternative accommodation under the original
plans exhibited in September last year.
Residents in streets such as Bedford, Ewart, School, Wilga, Kays, The
Parade and Challis will be among those likely to be offered
alternative accommodation because of excessive noise impacts.There are
also concerns about the excessive vibrations on heritage homes in
these areas.
Noise monitoring will happen at the homes of another 186 Dulwich Hill
receivers, down from 334 in the original environmental impact
statement.
This is still a significant number of homes and residents and given
the lack of action over the WestConnex noise issues with residents at
St Peters, it is very concerning.
The preferred project report indicates that the NSW Government will
still only be offering alternative accommodation if a resident suffers
night-time noise impacts a full 30 decibels over background noise.
This is quite arbitrary, given the Save Dully Action Group last year
requested that all residents who suffer potential sleep disturbance be
offered alternative accommodation (which is 15 decibels above
background noise level) but this was denied.
Noise impacts though are being generally reduced along the corridor
because of moves by Transport for NSW to retain existing tracks,
platforms and bridges - if this turns out to be correct.
This differs to the approach outlined in the environmental impact
statement (EIS) which was exhibited last year, which was proposing
major works to bridges and platforms, caused by track reconstruction
and realignments.
The preferred project report also states there are going to be less
closures of the Sydney Trains Bankstown line, while the new Metro line
is built - although the impacts on commuters will still be
significant.
Instead of a six-week line closure each year from 2019 to 2024, there
will now be only a two week closure during the Christmas school
holidays.
However, there will still be a tortuous major final line closure of up
to six months in 2024, along with additional weekend closures and
individual station closures for up to two months.
It is also unclear what is happening with St Peters and Erskineville
stops - it is well documented the T4 Eastern Suburbs/Illawarra is well
over capacity, at least 140 per cent and rising, particularly in the
morning peak.
There is also general confusion is that with the retention of the
existing tracks, which sections will need replacing?
Traffic problems during construction will also be significant. New
Canterbury Rd at Dulwich Hill will be packed with up to 1,020 buses a
day during rail shutdown periods (eight weeks a year from 2019 to 2024
plus on an unspecified number of weekends).
Other streets with significant bus impacts include Marrickville Rd at
Dulwich Hill shops (1,020 buses a day), Bayley St (495 buses),
Beauchamp St (495 buses), and Ewart St (495 buses).
A total of 27 commuter parking spots lost from the carpark to the
south of the station, and nine out of the 17 parking spots in Bedford
Crescent removed, during the construction period.
Up to 130 construction workers will want to park in local streets
during rail shutdown periods, and up to 60 at other times.
During rail shutdown periods, even after mitigation measures, the
average vehicle delay for the intersection of Wardell Rd and Ewart St
will increase from 32 seconds to 55 seconds.
Residential streets such as Wilga, Keys, Challis Avenues and
Albermarle, Beauchamp and Ewart Sts will be used as construction
haulage routes, which is not acceptable and dangerous given the
narrowness of these intersections.
The ongoing impact of the Metro project is not acceptable for inner
west residents. The ongoing construction planning work at Sydenham is
also having an impact on nearby suburbs, such as Tempe, with a large
number of trucks using nearby streets adding to the WestConnex
construction congestion.

I have had numerous encounters with many other local residents within the
corridor to which 95% are in favour of the Metro and subsequent
improvement and upgrade of the local town centers

It will be a tragedy if the politicians don't pull their socks up and
bring some life into these communities. It has been a run down part of
Sydney for far too long.

I am against the 'Metro' as it suggests we are going backwards. WE may
not have invnted double-decker commuter trains but we have lead the
world. The planned Metro trains are single-deck with hardly any seats
(nobody has been able to tell me how many seats will actually be on a
Metro train). It means most people will be forced to stand. Currently,
we have fast trains to-and from Campsie/Central - they do the journey
in about 18 minutes. It would seem that under the new Metro, there
won't be any more fast trains!!! The money being wasted on the Metro
would be better spent on bringing in more air-conditioned double-deck
train sets, (ucsh as those that were on order until M/s B became
Transport Minister. This money could also be better spent on
hiring/training more drivers and station staff.

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
Colin J Dent

I would like to express my view with regard to upgrading to the metro and
the Bankstown to Sydenham corridor.

I am in favour of the metro project for the positive impact I believe
it will have in our community.

As a local resident, the introduction of the dulwich hill to central
metro line has provided an ease of access to great destinations such a
glebe tramsheds and park, Leichhardt / Haberfield, Pyrmont / Casino
areas - linking us directly to other pockets of the inner west and
inner city.
An upgrade to our very own metro line into town will only further
improve our own area, our own access and safety traveling to the CBD
and will also provide the infrustructure for access or connection to
the greater west - considering natural future development and growth
to the areas Liverpool and beyond.

Further to this, the eventual redevelopment of this specific area
(bankstown to Sydenham) will allow for greater affordability for
residents and their growing families to stay and grow within the area
and community while also attracting more young families and
professionals to transition here improving the general socioeconomic
status of the community and hopefully contributing to a more vibrant
and safe social culture in the local town centre itself.

Thank you

The Battler is a community based organization active in campaigning with
residents in the Auburn, Berala, Lidcombe & Regents Park areas. We
object on the basis that the Sydenham to Bankstown Metro will
disadvantage commuters in these areas and deprive them of a direct
heavy rail line to the city. The State Government has already
disadvantaged our local commuters since 2013 with the changes to the
Inner West Line and the removal of that direct line to the city. Our
experience has been that the interchanges become more congested and
unsafe particularly for the elderly and very young in our communities.
It has become commonplace for commuters to miss connecting trains and
can lead to members of our communities losing jobs as they are often
late for work.
The one thing we find difficult to comprehend is the State Government
is forcing us into greater urban density and at the same time reducing
the public transport infrastructure and convenience.
We believe the heavy passenger rail should be the centerpiece of our
public transport, it potentially could be very efficient and light
rail, metro and a combination of other public transport options should
be feeders from outer suburbs to the central rail system.
The need to reduce private use of cars in our urban environment
demands that we must have a more efficient heavy rail and other public
transport options, these have to be both convenient, efficient and
affordable.
We don't believe this need can be met by a privatized metro line, the
last thing we need is a bits and pieces solution that is unaffordable
and unattractive to local commuters.
Many local residents from Lidcombe, Berala and Regents Park were
surprised to hear of the plans for the Sydenham - Bankstown Metro and
were angry they were not consulted seeing there is an impact on their
lives.
Many locals joke that we had a quicker train trip to the city in 1950
than we have today.
We ask that you treat our concerns seriously.

I am writing this submission as a ex resident of Belmore Lakemba area.
What is happening to this area is disgusting and you are allowing it
to happen. Never have I seen such total disregard to what I now class
as a dump, you only have to drive along Canterbury Road, to see that.
If it is not high rise, then its a decaying home, land banked by
developers. It has to stop, why to we need this, only reason is to
accommodate the influx of mass migrants, nothing the matter with that
but the sheer numbers are out of control. My family moved from the
area when the immigration stared, I glad my father has passed away, as
I would not like him to see the lack of respect that is now shown to
our forefathers that once Marched in these areas on Anzac Day, now we
have Ramadan. One angry Aussie.

I raise my objection to the Sydenham to Bankstown Metro project for the
following reasons:

- Metro is going to cost a lot of pain and suffering for our community
especially commuters travelling to the city to work or to study.
- We have a good rail line with direct access to the City Circle ( T3
train line). The Metro will be a waste of money. That money can go
towards upgrading already existing infrastructure such as roads,
bridges, hospitals and schools.
- It will be a disaster to rely on buses to shift an enormous amount
of people from trains and for how long ..... Especially on Canterbury
Road as it is already congested with traffic.
- One of the main concerns is this Metro will come along with high
rises around the Metro. It is going to drown the Canterbury- Bankstown
area with population hard to handle which we are already one of the
most populated area in Sydney & NSW.

I will also object to this NSW State Government's disastrous project
because this will affect our small businesses along the railway
stations or close by.

Finally I do not trust this Government regarding the completion date
of this project, as I can see with the project happening on George St,
Sydney it is still to date not been completed.

I raise my objection to the Sydenham to Bankstown Metro project for the
following reasons:

- Metro is going to cost a lot of pain and suffering for our community
especially commuters travelling to the city to work or to study.
- We have a good rail line with direct access to the City Circle ( T3
train line). The Metro will be a waste of money. That money can go
towards upgrading already existing infrastructure such as roads,
bridges, hospitals and schools.
- It will be a disaster to rely on buses to shift an enormous amount
of people from trains and for how long ..... Especially on Canterbury
Road as it is already congested with traffic.
- One of the main concerns is this Metro will come along with high
rises around the Metro. It is going to drown the Canterbury- Bankstown
area with population hard to handle which we are already one of the
most populated area in Sydney & NSW.

I will also object to this NSW State Government's disastrous project
because this will affect our small businesses along the railway
stations or close by.

Finally I do not trust this Government regarding the completion date
of this project, as I can see with the project happening on George St,
Sydney it is still to date not been completed.

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

Dear Sir/Madam

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

Regards

Kinsi Roberts

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

WE WANT Public transport NOT privatised rails. We want to keep and
SAVE the 9 stations for direct route to the city. We don't want the
struggle of changing trains 3 times to get to the CBD. I refuse this
plan for the sake of all my family and friends. We can't afford to
lose our direct link to the city.

My son lives in Yagoona and his children (my grand kids) travel to and
from school by train and will take longer if the changed take effect.

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

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

What we need is restoration of the existing line !
WE DO NOT SUPPORT ANY PART OF THIS METRO !

I urge your government to reconsider its plans.

Thank You
Zena Farhat

The Bankstown central branch of the Australian Labor party moved a motion
to make a submission opposing the Sydenham to Bankstown Metro. The
members of the branch raised the following concerns.

Currently a perfectly good service, residents do not want it changed.

Inconvenience to commuters whilst line is shut down, with poor
alternatives offered. I.e buses

No direct access to the city circle

Commuters from Yagoona and beyond will need to change trains twice to
reach the city circle

Safety and security concerns with driverless trains, especially when
travelling at night.

Limited seating compared to existing trains.

increased building densities around stations would further increase
pressure on already struggling infrastructure.

Lack of commuter parking would result in increased parking in
residential streets and town centres.