Sydney Metro West - Concept and Stage 1 (major civil construction between Westmead and The Bays)

Hello - we support the project however the OOSH Sub-committee have concerns over the impact the build will have during the construction phase and issues with roads surrounding our service. Please see the attached letter outlining our concerns.

We look forward to your review and response to our concerns.

Thank you

See attached.

26 June 2020


Mr Marcus Ray
Group Deputy Secretary
Planning and Assessment
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
Locked Bag 5022
Parramatta NSW 2124

via online upload


Dear Mr Ray,

Submission to the Sydney Metro West EIS (SSI-10038)

The Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA) NSW is the peak body representing the interests of the urban development industry in New South Wales. We represent over 500 member companies that are directly involved in the industry including developers, strata and community managers, planners and lawyers.

UDIA NSW advocates for liveable, affordable, and connected cities, with that in mind we consider there is further work needed to properly assess the option of a station at Camellia.

Camellia was one of the five station options between Olympic Park and the Parramatta CBD considered in 2018. Subsequently the options narrowed between Camellia and Rydalmere. The EIS has now ruled out both Camellia and Rydalmere.

We note that the distance between Sydney Olympic Park and Parramatta is approximately 7 kilometres. This is the largest distance between the stations proposed and it is highly unusual for metro rail lines to have such long distances between stations We believe it would be a significantly missed opportunity to deny the location of an additional metro station west of Sydney Olympic Park at Camellia.

UDIA considers a station between the Olympic Park and the Parramatta CBD is critical to creating the second CBD to provide further growth opportunities with jobs and housing in a mixed-use precinct of the Second CBD’s inner-city.

The Rydalmere Station has since been ruled out, and it is critical for the future of the Parramatta CBD there are further investigations into Camellia. The EIS has not properly considered the potential of a station at Camellia based on the criteria in Table 3-8 (below).

UDIA NSW disputes the assessment of Camellia’s merits across various evaluation criteria. There is strong support from stakeholders and Council for a station at Camellia and we believe it has strategic alignment. Camellia has the potential to help catalyse Parramatta as a super-hub and decisions of this type of city-defining infrastructure cannot be done in isolation. In relation to the criteria we make the following comments:


Strategic Land Use and Planning
UDIA sees clear strategic land use planning and transport alignment for a Sydney Metro West station at Camellia. The City of Parramatta’s executive leadership and elected councillors express a strong preference for a station at Camellia, and the Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement, as endorsed by the Greater Sydney Commission, highlights the critical importance of Camellia Town Centre to Parramatta as a future centre which could provide 5,000 jobs and 10,000 dwellings.

Camellia holds the long-term potential to strategically extend the footprint of the Parramatta CBD by rezoning employment lands as exhibited by DPIE in 2018 as a ‘Planned Precinct’. This would broaden Camellia’s economic base and facilitate the transition towards an integrated mixed-use employment and residential hub, including a high-density town centre focussed core of knowledge intensive jobs in commercial office floorspace and advanced manufacturing et.al. in other employment facilities across the peninsula.


Productivity and Jobs
Research by Value Advisory Partners – Sydney Employment Lands Study March 2020 commissioned by UDIA shows that by separating out Rosehill in the SA2 statistics, industrial employment in Camellia has fallen 92% from its peak in 1976, to only 1,600 jobs today. This is below the number of jobs that existed in the 1930s and employment in Camellia peaked in 1976.
Camellia is a prime example of derelict and underutilised land in Greater Parramatta and provides a substantial opportunity for urban renewal. The peninsula is large enough to accommodate multiple uses at over 350 hectares, with the Town Centre only requiring circa 35 hectares at the North Western gateway.
Mixed-use urban renewal at Camellia has the potential to support an additional 25-38,000 jobs.


Housing Supply
Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement identifies the potential to support 3,500 dwellings, while noting dwelling capacity is subject to the State Government’s response to the GSC’s GPOP PIC.
Large consolidated precincts with station access have substantial potential for urban renewal and to deliver housing supply. There are examples in Hong Kong of metro catalysing development. Similar examples leveraging existing rail have occurred in Sydney, particularly the Rhodes Peninsula which has offered substantial rehabilitation and renewal opportunities.


Urban Renewal and Place Making
Camellia holds the potential to strategically extend the Parramatta CBD by rezoning employment lands north and immediately east of the Rosehill Racecourse. This would broaden the Camellia peninsula’s economic base and facilitate the transition towards an integrated mixed-use employment and residential hub.
This is an intergenerational placemaking opportunity to renew derelict industrial land and create connections between the Parramatta CBD, Rosehill Racecourse, Western Sydney University, and the new high-density town centre at Camellia.
Without investment in rail and planning opportunities the peninsula will likely remain unutilised remnant industrial land. The Value Advisory Partners analysis identifies the urban renewal opportunity that can come from a catalysed urban renewal.
More broadly there is the potential to create a Parramatta super hub from Westmead to Camellia creating an integrated urban area that would be similar in size to the existing Sydney CBD. This would further enhance the potential for Parramatta to be a genuine CBD, as well as creating greater opportunities for the 30-minute city.
Parramatta is the Central River City – the second city in the Metropolis of Three cities Regional Plan for Sydney. A Metro rail station at Camellia can enhance the place making potential of greater access and engagement with the Parramatta River, including the potential for Ferry access.

Transport Integration
The Parramatta Light Rail will have a stop at Camellia, which provides an opportunity for interchange. There is also the possibility of all-hours ferry access to the peninsula. Light Rail, Ferry, Mero, and Buses creates the potential for four points of transport.
A station at Camellia would also improve the CBD commute for passengers that will connect with the light rail, removing the need to travel to the Parramatta CBD.

Deliverability and Value for Money
We understand the landowners on the Camellia Peninsula are prepared to support the funding for the variation to include a station at Camellia and that the additional track distance to move from the current alignment to the northern side of Rosehill Gardens is only minor.


Camellia retains the possibility of achieving significant urban renewal, aligning with strategic planning objectives and other transport infrastructure investment. It is difficult to understand why Camellia has been discounted from consideration as a Metro Station location. UDIA believes the significant future city potential generated through an expanded Parramatta CBD would be the optimal pathway forward. As remnant industrial land located on a peninsula, it is also a site which would have the limited community opposition to large scale urban renewal construction works.

UDIA NSW requests that Sydney Metro prepares an option for a Station at Camellia in light of the evidence, which appears to have been inappropriately discounted throughout the consideration of the precinct. As a precinct, that has the potential to form a part of Parramatta’s extended CBD and the place making opportunity to enhance the access to the Parramatta River, it deserves much greater attention.

UDIA NSW is pleased to meet with you at your earliest convenience, please contact Mr Sam Stone, Manager, State Policy and Government Relations on 0401 213 899 or [email protected] to arrange.


Yours sincerely,



Steve Mann
Chief Executive


Attachments:

A. Value Advisory Partners, Employment Lands Study, March 2020

See attached PDF

Please refer to attached document to view our submission.

This submission is made on behalf of the Five Dock Public School Parents & Citizens (P&C) Association, which represents the parents and carers of the 400 plus students at Five Dock Public School and other members of the school community, including local residents.
Please see our formal response in the attachment "FDPS P&C Metro EIS - June 20" highlighting the omissions, and recommending inclusions, to ensure the safety of our students and community during the proposed 24 month construction period from Quarter 4 2021 to Quarter 3 2023.

Please refer to attached letter prepared by Urbis on behalf of the Australian Turf Club (ATC) and supporting technical documentation.

Please find my submission attached
Main points:
Too few stations
In competition to WestConnex/M4
Tunnel spaghetti at The Bays
Metro under Victoria Rd would replace more car traffic
Long-term Corona virus impacts will reduce immigration and GDP but increase debt
Not enough power supply for all skyscrapers and apartment towers assumed
More work from home will change CBD mindset

I am writing this submission to object to the Sydney Metro West project.

While I acknowledge the potential long-term benefits the proposed project may deliver in principle, the recent infrastructure projects have often disappointed and missed their goals, while ending up costing significantly more than projected. While these projects are beneficial in theory, the actual result depends significantly on the way it is executed by the proponent. I have no confidence Transport for NSW is able to deliver on their promises, nor will they be transparent and adequately address issues when they arise. I therefore must object to the proposal until such time they demonstrate they are capable of properly delivering projects of this type and scale and re-evaluate their cavalier attitude to their obligation to comply with the conditions of approval.

My view is formed by the various debacles, some examples which include:
• Property damage claim experience by owners affected by WestConnex (some still awaiting resolution after multiple years have elapsed)
• Lead contamination at Tarago (complete lack of transparency)
• West Harbour Tunnel (inadequate air pollution mitigation due to inaccurate projections)
• Light Rail ($1.3 billion cost blowout, missed running targets, safety issues etc.)
but most relevantly to the proposed project, the Sydney Metro City and SouthWest project. This already has a cost blowout of $4.3 billion and multiple unresolved issues with no resolution in sight.

I am a property owner and resident at Chatswood, NSW. The Sydney Metro City and South West project has had significant impacts on the surrounding area for a prolonged period of time, and the issues were not prevented when they could have been. Despite multiple repeated complaints, we were ignored for a significant length of time before existence of the issues was even acknowledged.

In addition to all the issues that invariably accompany such a project, there are three main issues that demonstrate Sydney Metro’s attitude and general pattern of behaviour:
1. Significant increase in train noise and vibration
2. Property Damage
3. Construction Noise and Vibration impacts

Increased in operational rail noise and vibration:
As part of the project, the rail tracks were slewed to make space for the Metro rails. As a result, noise and vibration from operational trains passing increased dramatically – well beyond the level required for compliance. These effects were not mitigated during track design and construction despite their own reports stating mitigation needed to be implemented. The significant increase was immediate and affected the habitability of my property as well as sleep deprivation on a daily basis.

Despite complaints from the beginning, the issue was ignored for multiple months. Once forced to acknowledge the issue through repeated escalation, relocation to inferior alternative accommodation took place since December 2019. Despite the significant length of time that has elapsed since, Sydney Metro refuses to provide any indication of when the issue will be resolved, or if it will ever be resolved. I am forced from my property indefinitely, with no information on if/when the issues will ever be resolved.

Property Damage:
Due to the nature and proximity of the construction works to my property, damage was experienced and a claim lodged in middle of 2019. However, to date, Sydney Metro has not yet made a determination as to whether they will accept responsibility for the damage, and escalation to IPIAP is impossible until they do so. As such, this puts me in a position where I have no option under the established framework except to wait and follow the process, regardless of however long that process takes.

Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts:
Due to the location of the construction works and their nature and intense schedule, there were consistently unbearable impacts in the vicinity for extended periods. However, despite repeated complaints from multiple members of the community, Sydney Metro essentially ignored our complaints. Most residents stopped complaining after multiple attempts as no favourable resolution was reached. In addition, there were times where the construction impacts likely exceeded the ground-borne noise impact criteria, but the contractor would not send monitoring to confirm and hence the need for mitigation during those times could not be established.

The above is to demonstrate the significant disruption infrastructure projects can cause, but more importantly, the way the proponent responds to the issues as they arise. As you can see, there is significant delay, deflection and denial of issues, which deters all but the most resilient of complainants.

Should this project be approved, I empathise deeply with the thousands of property owners whose lives may be severely impacted and whose properties may be put at risk of damage. The difficulties in having their valid concerns recognised and addressed by a proponent more interested in their project delivery schedule than resolving issues should not be underestimated. Until such time that the government demonstrates it has the capability and resources to deliver projects within their conditions of approval, without cutting corners due to budgetary constraints, then this project must not be approved.

Infrastructure projects should not be approved without first ensuring and being highly confident that the conditions of approval can be met. They should not be approved in a bid to gain political capital without even ensuring the project is funded, with sufficient reserves to properly address and resolve any issues that may arise during the implementation of the project, and a demonstrated will to use those reserves to address the issues.

The project may perhaps be enticing on paper. However, Transport for NSW has consistently demonstrated its delivery of public infrastructure projects often miss their targets, as well as result in significant cost overruns in the billions of dollars. Further, despite this, they have not even properly addressed significant issues that are directly caused by their existing projects, nor is there even a timeframe for doing so. It cannot be allowed to simply recklessly forge ahead with these projects repeatedly without first demonstrating its capability to deliver on its promise, and deal properly with any consequential issues.

As such, I must object to the project.

If the project is approved:
Should approval be granted for the project to proceed, conditions should be incorporated to provide stronger protections to landowner and residents than are provided in prior projects of a similar nature. To try to mitigate some of the deficiencies experienced, suggestions include:
• An obligation for all responses to any complaints made to contractors/Transport for NSW to include the complainant’s rights and options to escalate further should they be dissatisfied with the response
• Should repeated noise and vibration complaints be made, an obligation to confirm their validity through monitoring, as opposed to being left to the contractor’s discretion
• A time limit to be set for a property damage claim to be accepted or rejected, and if no determination is made within that time frame, for an escalation option to be provided (e.g. to an independent panel (IPIAP) if it exists)
• In addition to the required dilapidation reports to be undertaken prior to and post-construction, for further evidence (e.g. InSAR and survey reports) to be acquired by the proponent at their expense and made open access information so the information to determine the cause of the damage is available without the need to be procured by the property owner independently at their own expense.
• An obligation to make more documents mandatory for open access (e.g. monitoring reports and acoustic assessments/models for operational impacts, not just construction, as well as geotechnical studies and surveys.)

While some of the above are best addressed in the post-approval documents, rather than the conditions of approval, these concerns should be considered pre-approval so that post-approval documents, when written, would be read in a consistent manner with the conditions’ purpose and intent.

While I support public infrastructure projects in principle, the actual results depend entirely on the delivery team’s ability to execute as well as having sufficient resources to properly identify, prevent and resolve issues. Given Transport for NSW’s history of public infrastructure debacles, cost overruns and impending budget deficits, I object to this project. They need to firstly demonstrate the willingness and capability to properly resolve the issues on their current projects before attempting to embark on yet another disastrous project.

Please find attached comments to the "Sydney Metro West - Westmead to The Bays and Sydney CBD, Environmental Impact Statement" in relation to Five Dock Station attached in the document "Brandon - EIS Response Five Dock Metro - June 20".

Westprotects stresses the importance of ensuring that Sydney as well as our local community benefits from interconnected, continuous open green space and connected parklands as well as linking key suburbs including Ultimo, Pyrmont, Glebe, Rozelle, Balmain and the New Bays Precinct.
The Sydney Metro West is a unique opportunity to extend a green link corridor connecting the CBD, Western Harbour, Darling Harbour, the Bays Precinct through to Easton Park, and beyond to Callan Park and the Bays Walk and then through Council owned parkland. This is an opportunity to align parkland from the WestConnex path to a Sydney Metro West parkland at The Bays SWM station site.
We plead with the NSW Government to co-ordinate measures to ensure mitigation and minimisation of:
• Noise (need to containment and prevention; need for mitigation measures for residents; need for co-ordinated respite periods which apply across ALL projects and State Government utilities; need for on-going noise monitoring to capture, benchmark and address noise issues as they happen and track accumulated impact)
• Traffic (including rat-running; safety issues for pedestrians and cyclists; volumes and resulting traffic jams on Anzac Bridge, Western Distributor, Victoria Road and side streets; the need for appropriately sized and resourced truck marshalling yards so that trucks are not idling in residential streets close to homes and Rozelle Public School)
• Dust (cumulative impact in one of Sydney’s most polluted air basins with Rozelle at the epicentre)
• Vibration (cumulative impact of all projects and need for ongoing monitoring and transparent reporting)
• Property damage (cumulative impact of all projects and need for ongoing monitoring and transparent reporting)
• Parking issues (which are already hugely problematic as a result of WestConnex Rozelle Interchange not meeting its CoA to provide sufficient parking on site and which will be further exacerbated as a result of the almost non-existent parking in WHT and Metro Projects).
• Much of the sites subject to construction contain acid soil and other contaminants and mitigation is required.
Our ask:
We as a community carry the full brunt of the multiple projects underway and planned as well as several other massive infrastructure projects which make it difficult to function normally for years to come. Our community’s ability to sleep, ability to walk and cycle, our everyday experience and our health are completely upended for very little benefit to us at the end of the project.
1. In recognition of this, we plead with DPIE to ensure additional money is allocated to compensate us at a community level through:
• Dedicated funds to support sporting and local organisations in our community
• Dedicated funds to support and maintain more parks and sporting fields in our community
• Dedicated resources to promote health and healthy living within our community
• Dedicated funds to support the planting of mature trees throughout our community
• Dedicated funds to allow residents overwhelmed by the cumulative impact of WHT, WestConnex and the other infrastructure projects to receive proper and appropriate sound mitigation and respite measures
• Dedicated funds to support additional traffic patrols so that non-complying WHT vehicles and worker vehicles are ticketed
• A co-ordinating unit which ensures co-ordination of construction times, respite periods and minimises impact on our community not just across WHT and WestConnex but across all major projects underway and which includes work conducted by State Government utilities.
2. WestProtects notes that where residential areas are predicted to exceed night noise levels, there MUST be respite measures put in place for residents that are accessible, understandable and not hard to access - including an easy access 24/7 phone hotline. These measures need to be an improvement on those implemented with the M4-M5 link.
3. Given the long-term cumulative impact of all proposed State Government infrastructure projects together with Westconnex on the Rozelle Primary School, Westprotects insists that as part of the Metro and WHT projects, the NSW State Government carry out the necessary works on that School to eliminate all future increased noise and air quality issues. These works must be affected prior to the commencement of the both projects. This is only reasonable as these impacts are as a direct result of State Government infrastructure projects.
4. As a precondition to the commencement of construction of any part of these projects, either:
• appropriate residential parking schemes must be implemented to ensure that such disastrous worker parking impacts are not replicated again, or
• where residential parking schemes already exist, that central off-road parking facilities will be provided for workers from where they will be bused to the relevant construction site.
5. A real time monitoring and recording system to be established which would automatically record and feedback to the relevant authority the details of any noise or vibration exceedances. The relevant authority will then be able to act on that information rather than relying on the public to act as their watch dog and notifier of breaches.

Specific Feedback on Metro West Issues

Cumulative impact of Rozelle Interchange, WHT and Metro and lack of Co-ordination of construction, respite
o We need a dedicated oversight team within DPIE that 1) co-ordinates construction across Rozelle Interchange, WHT and Metro (and eventually Bays Precinct redevelopment) including with other Government services as well as across projects; 2) co-ordinates and maximises respite periods; 3) brings some commonsense to the project management so that impact is reduced on our residential and business communities and so the eventual benefits are optimised
o Co-ordination of construction and construction-related activities which impact pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles as well as public transport is non-negotiable.

Parking
• Worker Parking Issues of All Inner West Construction Sites: As we have learnt from the Rozelle Interchange project, the parking of workers vehicles in our local residential streets had and continues to have dire impacts on the local community. If the appropriate residential parking schemes (as mandated by the DPIE conditions) had been implemented prior to the commencement of construction of the Rozelle Interchange, then the local community would not be experiencing the outrage it is towards the project. It shows a clear lack of planning, care and respect by all parties for the local community.
• Westprotects therefore insists, that as a precondition to the commencement of construction of any part of the Sydney Metro West project (SMW) at The Bays site, either:
o appropriate residential parking schemes must be implemented to ensure that such disastrous worker parking impacts on our local roads are not replicated again, or
o where residential parking schemes already exist, that central off-road parking facilities must be provided for workers from where they will be bused to the Sydney Metro West Bays construction site.
• We are yet to see any consequences for breaches of Conditions of Approval in relation to parking in relation to Rozelle Interchange – it’s just not good enough.

Truck Movements
o A gps truck monitoring system which is actively monitored must be introduced. This needs to include a punishment for deviating vehicles including financial punishment with the removal from the project for multiple breaches.
o There can be no trucks on local roads. The stated “Haulage routes would minimise the use of local and residential streets where possible" - this is not good enough, they must NOT use local streets. Especially given the proposed spoil removal is 24/7 with over 1,000,000 cubic metres of soil to be removed from site including excavation and tunnelling!
o There must be truck marshalling yards on site - 148 trucks/day and 116 light vehicles/day with site establishment, 420 trucks/day and 142 light vehicles/day with excavation, 990 trucks/day and 251 light vehicles/day with tunnelling - this is a overwhelming increase in vehicle movement, especially when considered in the total context of the Rozelle Interchange and WHT projects.

Spoil Handling
o All material handling/spoil removal process must be under cover of acoustic shed
o Cut and cover excavation of station is noisiest and dirtiest option. Must be under enclosed acoustic shed to minimise noise light and dust spill.

Hydrodynamics, Ground Water and Water Quality inc Flooding
Westprotects notes that a water treatment plant is to be constructed at The Bays Metro Station. During both the construction and operational stages of the project volumes of wastewater will be produced by this treatment plant.
With the experience we have had in reviewing the EIS documentation for both the Rozelle Interchange and West Harbour Tunnel projects, groundwater drawdown will occur around the SMW corridor. Given the direct causational relationship between the construction and implementation of the SMW and groundwater drawdown in the area, the NSW State Government is therefore directly responsible to mitigate the consequential negative impacts on our local landscape, environment and community that such drawdown levels will create.
Given the wastewater volumes that will be produced, there is a huge opportunity to harvest those wastewaters and utilise them to proactively mitigate the drawdown levels in the area. The wastewaters can be utilised to maintain the urban landscape proposed for the SMW at The Bays, including the greater development of the White Bay Power Station site.. This will become even more imperative when the future impact of climate change is considered.
In addition, opportunities must also exist to allow for water trucks to collect wastewater from the water treatment plant for distribution to areas in the Balmain and Rozelle (cont)

See attachment

The comments and submission from the Sydney Olympic Park Business Association are attached. Thank you for the opportunity.

The Sydney Metro West proposes to go under Callan Park in Rozelle. Callan Park is a State Significant Heritage site - listed on the State Heritage Register. The EIS does not identify any of the buildings or the site as having heritage significance. Callan Park is also not identified in either Chapter 12 (Non Aboriginal Heritage) or Chapter 13 (Aboriginal Heritage) yet is recognised as the most important site on the southern side of Sydney Harbour demonstrating association with the nation's First People. All of the heritage significance discussion in current project documentation is focused on the locations of the new stations. The Callan Park Conservation Management Plan 2002 documents the heritage significance of Rozelle Hospital (now more commonly referred to as Callan Park) and it is imperative that Sydney Metro West takes every precaution to ensure that not one element of this heritage site is damaged or suffers subsistence.

Callan Park's Kirkbride complex is also of national significance and was at one time the largest construction project when built in early 1880s. The complex of buildings described as the Kirkbride complex are made entirely of sandstone quarried on site. One significant feature of Callan Park and Kirkbride are the enormous underground water tanks below the Kirkbride complex. The enormous rectangles left after the quarrying resulted in the huge underground water tanks which serviced the asylum. Friends of Callan Park request your written assurance that the route of the tunnel is deep enough to avoid any disruption to either the water tanks or the multiple buildings above them. We request that you prepare a Dilapidation Report at Callan Park which indicates the condition before and after construction. We request that the two reports - before and after - are immediately made available to the public.

We would particularly draw your attention to the recommendation in the CMP (p133) which emphasises the importance of ensuring that site specific detailed assessments are required for any project that may impact the foundations and the underground water tanks of the Kirkbride Complex.

Full copies of the Conservation Management Plan must be examined and there is a wealth of documentation about Callan Park held in Department of Planning, Industry and Environment - please see brief extracts attached. On 17 June 2020, the NSW Government advertised an EOI for the Kirkbride Precinct which expects to receive interest from international entities. It will be imperative that the Kirkbride Precinct is not impacted by your work.

The Callan Park (Special Provisions) Act 2002 tightly protects all aspects of the site and must be adhered to in your work.

The Western Sydney Business Chamber is pleased to support Sydney Metro West and make some constructive recommendations to improve the delivery of the project.

Please find 4 documents including 3 attachments that form my submission.

Please see attached letter.

I am objecting to this project . Please see details in my attached submission.

Some commonly asked questions about the Sydney Metro West?
!. Why would anyone object to a new metro line in Sydney?
Whilst metro lines have numerous advantages as a mass transport system, there are several other alternatives to the route, stations and mode selected for this particular proposal.
2. What are the alternatives?
Planning authorities need to look at all the options for NSW and determine the list of priorities. Until this is done, wrong and expensive mistakes will be made. Projects with the highest priority should be built first. Currently proposed projects that are low priority should be cancelled.
3. Where should the "CBD concept" station go?
Redfern Interchange needs to be developed as the main rail hub for Sydney. Apart from the existing north/south heavy rail lines, this station would provide integration with the MSW Fast Train Network (300kms/hour), the Harbour Metro, the Parramatta Metro, the Blue Gum Metro and the Inner West Metro. This would provide corridors in all directions thereby serving a much larger range of areas throughout Sydney more quickly and efficiently.
4. What about The Bays station?
It is on the Blue Gum Metro. This allows the Parramatta Metro (Sydney Metro West) to be in a straight line between Five Dock Station and Redfern Interchange Station. It also avoids three crossings of Sydney Harbour.
5. Why build another rail station in the CBD?
There are seventeen rail stations in the CBD. Every person in the CBD is only 5 minutes walk from a rail station. Building another station on this peninsular is unnecessary.
6. Why replicate the station at Sydney Olympic Park?
The existing station should be part of the Parramatta Metro. Apart from saving the cost, it would improve integration and efficiency with the future metro network. This change would involve the relatively small cost of upgrading the 3.7km section between SOP and Lidcombe to metro.
7. How to save 10% in building each new station?
New designs for metro trainsets need to be adopted.
8. What are the Priority 1 (Essential) stations between Bondi Junction and SOP?
Easy. To integrate with existing and future rail lines, the nine essential stations for this section are Bondi Junction, SFS, Redfern Interchange, Leichhardt, Hawthorne, Five Dock, Concord, Concord West and SOP. Another two Priority 2 stations could be added.
9. Where does the Parramatta Metro start and finish?
It starts at Manly Vale Interchange where it connects to two other metro lines. It finishes at Macarthur where it connects to the East Coast Fast Train, the heavy rail and one metro line. Building the various stages is dependent on many factors. For integration, Stage 1 could possibly be Bondi Junction to Centenary.
Thank you for your interest and research.
Please don't hesitate with your comments, ideas, questions.
Bob Masters @ ArriveQuickly.NSW [email protected]

I object to the Sydney Metro West project. Please find the details of my objection in the attached document.