Sydney Light Rail Inner West Extension Study Final Report

July 2010 Preamble

The preparation of a Product Definition Report (July 2010) by Transport NSW now supersedes the Inner West Extension Study. This study has not been updated and is now considered as final.

The Product Definition Report confirms the scope of work for the Inner West extension and draws on the draft Inner West Extension Study, with consideration of the community and stakeholders comments received.

A separate report entitled ‘Stakeholder Comments Report on the Draft Inner West Extension Study’ (July 2010) has been prepared that summarises the comments received from the community and stakeholders during the public display period for the draft Inner West Extension Study (17 May 2010). The report outlines the matter raised and overall findings, as well as summarising the next steps in planning for the project.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study ii Final Report Contents

Executive Summary 1

Glossary 5

1. Introduction 6 1.1 The Sydney Light Rail Extension Study 6 1.2 This Study, the Sydney Light Rail – Inner West Extension Study 7 1.3 Aim of the Project – The Sydney Light Rail Inner West Extension 9 1.4 Strategic Context and Opportunities 9 1.5 The Route 14

2. Identification of Key Stakeholder Issues 15 2.1 Introduction 15 2.2 Process for Identifying Key Stakeholder Issues 15 2.3 Key Stakeholder Issues 15

3. Assessment of Stop Locations 16 3.1 Introduction 16 3.2 Process of Assessing Potential Stop Locations 16 3.3 Assessment of Stop Locations 18 3.4 Short-listed Stop Locations 24 3.5 Stop Locations – Additional Information 25

4. Transport Product 28 4.1 Introduction 28 4.2 Service Frequency 28 4.3 Operating Speeds and Travel Time 29 4.4 Modal Interchange – Public Transport 30 4.5 Modal Interchange – Private Transport 31 4.6 Fares and Ticketing 31 4.7 Assumptions Relating to Two Way Light Rail Operation 31

5. Assessment of Patronage 34 5.1 Context of the Patronage Assessment 34 5.2 Scope 34 5.3 Patronage Modelling Results 35

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study iii Final Report 5.4 Sensitivity Tests 36 5.5 Limitations 37

6. Technical Assessment 38 6.1 Introduction 38 6.2 Key Considerations 39 6.3 Engineering and Technical Assessment 39 6.4 Noise and Vibration 41 6.5 Maintenance and Stabling 42 6.6 Stops 42

7. Compatibility of the Proposed GreenWay 44 7.1 Introduction 44 7.2 Functional Priorities for Light Rail and GreenWay within the Rail Corridor 46 7.3 Process for Assessing the Compatibility of the Proposed GreenWay 46 7.4 Compatibility of Integrating the GreenWay with Light Rail Extension 48

8. Assessment of Costs – Infrastructure 52 8.1 Introduction 52 8.2 Process for Estimating Costs (Capital) 53 8.3 Assumptions 53 8.4 Key Findings 56 8.5 Project Budget 57

9. Assessments of Costs – Operational and Fleet 59 9.1 Introduction 59 9.2 Process for Estimating Costs (Operational) 59 9.3 Key Findings – Cost Estimates (Operational and Fleet) 60

10. Economic Assessment 62 10.1 Introduction 62 10.2 Process for Economic Assessment 63 10.3 Economic Assessment 63 10.4 Summary of key findings 65

11. Impact Identification 66 11.1 Introduction 66

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study iv Final Report 11.2 Process of Identification of Impacts 66 11.3 Identification of Impacts 68

Table Index Table 1 Stop Classifications 27 Table 2 Summary of Assessment of Potential Stop Locations 20 Table 3 Indicative Travel Times (in minutes) at Selected Stops on Existing Light Rail System and Proposed Inner West Extension 30 Table 4 Summary of Key Modal Interchange (public transport) at Light Rail Stops under consideration 30 Table 5 Annual Sydney Light Rail System Patronage Forecast (‘000) for Different Scenarios 35 Table 6 Sensitivity Tests Summary of Results 36 Table 7 CAPEX. Option 1 – Lilyfield to Lewisham (2010 Dollars) 56 Table 8 CAPEX. Option 2 – Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill (2010 Dollars) 57 Table 9 Maintenance Costs (Every Four Years). Option 1 – Lilyfield to Lewisham (2010 Dollars) 57 Table 10 Maintenance Costs (Every Four Years). Option 2 – Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill (2010 Dollars) 57 Table 11 Operations - Summary of Key Information and Inputs 60 Table 12 Cost Estimates (Operational) 61 Table 13 Scope of Base and Project Case Options 62 Figure 10 BCA Approach 63 Table 14 Summary of Benefits and Costs of Project Case Options, $ million, 2010-40 64 Table 15 NPV and BCR of Project Case Options, 2010-40, $million, 2010 dollars 65 Table 16 Summary of Potential Impacts 69

Figure Index Figure 1 Light Rail Extensions in the Metropolitan Transport Plan 7 Figure 2 Overview Map - Sydney Light Rail Inner West Extension 8

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study v Final Report Figure 3 Major Light Rail Customer Travel Markets 11 Figure 4 Overview of Interaction between Patronage Catchments for Light Rail and CityRail 13 Figure 5 Map of Stop Locations Assessed 19 Figure 6 Assumed Inner West Extension Service Plan (Services/hour/direction) 29 Figure 7 Map of Assumed Fare Zones 31 Figure 8 Sydney Light Rail System Patronage Forecast (Annual) 36 Figure 9 Initial GreenWay Strategic Concepts 45 Figure 10 BCA Approach 63

Appendices A Concept Stop Layouts B Assessment of Stop Locations C Technical Assessment Report D Cost Estimate Breakdown E Economic Assessment F Impact Identification Report

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study vi Final Report Executive Summary

The NSW Government's Metropolitan Transport Plan (MTP) incorporates extension of the light rail system to the CBD and the Inner West. Following the announcement of the MTP in February 2010, NSW Transport and Infrastructure (NSWTI), in partnership with the Barangaroo Delivery Authority and local Councils, engaged GHD to undertake the Sydney Light Rail Extension Study. This report is the first part of the study, focusing on the Inner West extension from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill. The aims of the Inner West extension of the Sydney light rail system are summarised as follows: Extend the existing light rail service from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill by capitalising on the opportunity provided by the disused railway line; Establish stops in locations that optimise access to the light rail line and urban renewal along the line; and Endeavour to realise the aims of the GreenWay proposal1 where it does not adversely impact on the operation of the light rail system. The preliminary assessment of the feasibility of the proposed Inner West Extension has indicated that there are no major barriers to the further development and realisation of the project, although a number of key issues have been identified, as summarised below.

Stakeholder Engagement Preliminary consultation with stakeholders has indicated a high level of interest in the location of light rail stops and the need to consider the aims of the GreenWay proposal. It is expected that the project will be developed within the context of:

 A transparent project planning and development process; and

 A rigorous process of stakeholder engagement.

Stop Locations This study has been undertaken on the basis of a set of shortlisted stop locations, which were selected through an assessment of a long list of potential stop locations.

1 Proposed shared path from Cooks River to Iron Cove.

1 This short list of stop locations is as follows:

 Norton (James Street).  Lewisham Interchange (Northern option).

 Allen.  Waratah Mills.

 Marion (Southern option).  Dulwich Hill Shops.

 Parramatta Road.  Dulwich Hill Interchange. It is noted that the location of stops has strong interfaces with a range of considerations of this study, including:

 Stakeholders (including NSWTI, STA, CityRail, DoP, Councils, community);

 Patronage estimates and the economic assessment;

 Service and operations and operating costs; and

 Engineering, constructability and capital cost. On this basis, should there be any changes to the stop locations adopted for this study, there could be material changes to key outputs of this study.

Service and Operations Services on the inner west extension (without an extension to the CBD), would be relatively uncomplicated to operate within the physical and regulatory context that is in place for the current light rail system. This is to say that service and operational issues provide no challenge to the feasibility of the proposed light rail extension. It is noted, however, that should one or both of the CBD light rail extensions under consideration proceed, it will give rise to a range of service and operational issues that will affect the Inner West extension. These would require further careful consideration. This study considers that two track light rail operations should be provided for the full length of the Inner West extension.

Land Use Integration The project provides significant opportunity to reorient land use around a transport mode that has proved attractive to travellers and an effective catalyst for urban renewal in many other situations. This brings the potential to improve public transport access and mode share in an area with an urban structure, density and land use mix suitable for such investment.

Technical Preliminary technical assessments undertaken in this study indicate that the proposed Inner West Extension to the light rail system would be feasible. It is expected that as the project develops, appropriate additional investigations would be undertaken at a more in-depth level to confirm these preliminary findings. Key issues identified in investigations undertaken to date (and to be addressed in subsequent stages of project development) include:

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 2 Final Report  Confirm the light rail standards to which the proposed extension would be built and operated;

 Determine whether challenges associated with constructing the Norton Street stop (at James Street) will drive a decision to relocate it slightly to the west; and

 Determine whether existing overhead wiring structures (and wiring) could be reused or need to be replaced.

Compatibility of the Proposed GreenWay The proposed GreenWay comprises an environmental corridor linking the Cooks River with Iron Cove, following the general alignment of the Hawthorne Canal Reserve and the Rozelle Freight Rail Line. The GreenWay aims to provide a combined active transport corridor linking bushcare preservation sites. Several GreenWay route options were put forward in the Strategic Concepts Report2 that informed this study. The “Orange” route options constitute the most feasible set of alternatives in consideration of light rail operations, with a number of the “Blue” route options meriting further investigation, mainly focusing on assessing the feasibility of proposed links under major roads to achieve continuity. Further work will also need to identify appropriate measures for segregation between the GreenWay and light rail operations to ensure a safe outcome. While the assessment incorporated within this study is based on the report cited above, it is recognised that further work is being undertaken on the proposed GreenWay, and whilst not addressed in this review, will be included in the final revision.

Economic The results of the preliminary benefit cost analysis indicate that extending Sydney's light rail system to Dulwich Hill is justifiable on economic grounds, albeit at the margin. Both extension options (Option 1 to Lewisham) and Option 2 (to Dulwich Hill) are expected to deliver net economic benefits to the community as both recorded Net Present values greater than 0 and Benefit Cost Ratios of 1 or more. Option 1 performs better in economic terms than Option 2 with an NPV of $25.2m and a BCR of 1.6 compared with values of $1.5m and 1.0 for Option 2, respectively. The extra costs of extending the light rail line to Lewisham are modest in infrastructure terms whilst the benefits of capturing an increased number of commuter passengers are notable. Extending the existing line further from Lewisham to Dulwich Hill is more marginal as this necessitates some uplift in costs that are counter-balanced by a comparable uplift in benefits. Overall, the economic assessment undertaken as part of this study was based on a range of preliminary investigations, including patronage modelling and order-of-magnitude estimation of infrastructure and operating costs. As with any economic assessment for a public transport project, it will be sensitive to a range of assumptions relating to the transport product, including fare and ticketing arrangements as well as decisions regarding service and operational planning. The extent of the study was also limited with a number of potential benefits associated with, for example, decongestion, induced demand for light rail and the reorganisation of bus services and modal interchange points not included. Furthermore, benefits associated with avoided or deferred expenditure on other modes due to a movement of trips to light rail have not been captured. Accordingly, the

2 Strategic Concepts for a Cooks River to Iron Cove Shared Path: Towards a GreenWay Trail for the Metro Sydney Strategic Cycle Network, Draft Final Report (The Environment Works Pty Ltd for the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority, February 2010).

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 3 Final Report analysis, particularly with respect to the benefits that could accrue, can be considered to be conservative. While the level of economic assessment is appropriate for a preliminary assessment of feasibility, more in-depth analysis would be required to inform financial and contractual negotiations.

Estimate of Costs The estimated cost developed for this project is an Order of Magnitude for the construction of the works as described. It excludes a number of project costs, and has not made specific allowance for a number of key costs risks that have been identified. Recognising these risks and the exclusions, an overall project budget (including additional light rail vehicles) of at least $100 to $120 million for Option 2 (Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill) should be retained until further work and investigation has been completed and the scope and timing of the work finalised.

Environmental Based on a preliminary assessment, potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of the light rail extension are considered relatively low. This is largely due to much of the works being located within an existing corridor and therefore minimising impacts on surrounding areas.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 4 Final Report Glossary

BCA Benefit Cost Analysis

BCR Benefit Cost Ratio

CAPEX Capital expenditure

CBD Central Business District

DoP NSW Department of Planning

GreenWay Proposed shared path from Cooks River to Iron Cove

ITSRR Independent Transport Safety and Reliability Regulator

LRT Light Rail Transit

LRV Light Rail Vehicle

MTP Metropolitan Transport Plan (New South Wales Government, 2010)

MTS Metro Transport Sydney (current owner)

NPV Net Present Value

NSWTI New South Wales Transport and Infrastructure

OHW Overhead Wiring

RTA NSW Roads and Traffic Authority

STM Strategic Travel Model

TDC Transport Data Centre

Option 1 Proposed extension from Lilyfield to Lewisham

Option 2 Proposed extension from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 5 Final Report 1. Introduction

1.1 The Sydney Light Rail Extension Study The NSW Government's Metropolitan Transport Plan (MTP) incorporates extension of the light rail system to the CBD and the Inner West. Following the announcement of the MTP in February 2010, NSW Transport and Infrastructure (NSWTI), in partnership with the Barangaroo Delivery Authority and local Councils, engaged GHD to undertake the Sydney Light Rail Extension Study. This report is the first part of the study, focusing on the Inner West extension from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill.

Overview The Sydney Light Rail Extension Study incorporates the following:

 The two routes identified in the Metropolitan Transport Plan (as shown in Figure 1): – Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill; – Central to Circular Quay via Sussex Street and Hickson Road; and

 A potential George Street extension. In broad terms, the study will assess these routes in terms of technical requirements, transport product, demand, opportunities for transport integration, and key impacts. The study will provide the basis for further development of the light rail extension project with the environmental assessment process to follow. The development of light rail in this corridor will be considered in the context of the NSW Government’s objectives of:

 Improving public transport accessibility for residents and workers;

 Integrating public transport networks;

 Utilising existing infrastructure; and

 Integrating land use and transport to meet the residential and employment targets as identified in the Metropolitan Strategy.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 6 Final Report Figure 1 Light Rail Extensions in the Metropolitan Transport Plan

1.2 This Study, the Sydney Light Rail – Inner West Extension Study The Sydney Light Rail – Inner West Extension Study is the subject of this report. It provides an initial assessment of feasibility of the proposed Inner West extension to the Sydney Light Rail System. The inner west extension is classified as follows and shown in Figure 2:P

 Option 1 - Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Lewisham; and

 Option 2 - Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Dulwich Hill. This study has been undertaken over a six week period spanning March to May 2010.

Overview The Sydney Light Rail– Inner West Extension Study (as reported in this document) incorporates an initial identification and preliminary assessment of issues affecting the feasibility of the inner west extension of the light rail system. This assessment covers a sequence of considerations, including:

 Identification of key stakeholder issues;

 Understanding the potential market for light rail and assessing patronage levels;

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 7 Final Report  Development of preliminary assumptions for transport product and operational planning. These also inform operational costings and fleet requirements;

 Assessment of potential stop locations and development of concept stop layouts. These also inform the capital cost estimates and identification of potential impacts;

 Assessment of engineering and technical issues. These also inform the capital cost estimates;

 Estimate of capital and operational costs;

 The economic merit of the project; and

 Identification of potential impacts.

Figure 2 Overview Map - Sydney Light Rail Inner West Extension

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 8 Final Report Limitations to Scope The aim of this study is to reach a suitable level of understanding of a range of important issues in order to make a preliminary assessment of the feasibility of the proposed light rail extensions. This involves achieving an appropriate and consistent level of detail. Investigations have therefore been undertaken with a view to how they inform the overall aims of the integrated study, rather than as a collection of discrete tasks. This approach optimises the value of the project outputs within the limitations of the study scope.

1.3 Aim of the Project – The Sydney Light Rail Inner West Extension The aim of the proposed Inner West extension to the Sydney Light Rail is summarised below: Extend the existing light rail service from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill by capitalising on the opportunity provided by the disused railway line; Establish stops in locations that optimise access to the light rail line and urban renewal along the line; and Endeavour to realise the aims of the GreenWay proposal3 where it does not adversely impact on the operation of the light rail system.

1.4 Strategic Context and Opportunities This section provides a brief overview of the strategic context within which the proposed Inner West Extension to the Sydney light rail system sit, and of the strategic opportunities that could be manifest.

1.4.1 Policy Context

Metropolitan Transport Plan (2010) The Metropolitan Transport Plan was released by the NSW Government in February 2010. The Plan shows two extensions to the existing light rail system:

 From Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill; and

 From Hay Street, along Sussex Street and Hickson Road to Barangaroo, Dawes Point, the Rocks and Circular Quay. These are shown in Figure 1. The Metropolitan Transport Plan sets out Government’s direction on light rail in Sydney, based around providing a sustainable transport mode connecting to key destinations and interchange locations in the CBD and Inner West. In the CBD, the light rail extension is intended to link with the extensive development at Barangaroo, and enhance connectivity to the King Street Wharf precinct, the Walsh Bay entertainment precinct and The Rocks.

3 Proposed shared path from Cooks River to Iron Cove.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 9 Final Report In the Inner West, the light rail extension will provide another mode choice for accessing the Inner West, Pyrmont, Darling Harbour and the CBD. It will allow for interchange connections with the Inner West and Bankstown CityRail Lines.

1.4.2 Transport and Land Use

Integration of Land Use and Transport The area in which the rail corridor is located provides good opportunity for integration of land use and transport on the basis of the following:

 Land uses are relatively high densities and are often mixed-use;

 Road networks that offer high levels of connectivity and access to potential stops; and

 Good redevelopment potential along the corridor.

Connectivity of the Public Transport System The rail corridor provides a rare circumferential dedicated public transport link in an area which exhibits relatively high levels of public transport use.

 Heavy Rail: The light rail line would provide a dedicated link between the Bankstown Line (Dulwich Hill Station) and the Inner West Line (Lewisham Station) as well as connecting to Central Station. By providing a high frequency, reliable public transport service, the light rail has the potential to better connect its catchment to the CityRail network.

 Bus: The light rail line has the potential to interface with a number of key bus routes at, or close to, Norton Street, Marion Street, Parramatta Road, New Canterbury Road, and to a lesser degree, Old Canterbury Road and Dulwich Hill Station. By providing a high frequency, reliable public transport service, the light rail has the potential to provide alternative transport choices to travellers. It is noted that the frequency of light rail, heavy rail and bus services is a key determinant of a well- integrated public transport system.

Public Transport Access within the Inner West The proposed light rail service has the potential to increase the general level of public transport access within the area surrounding the corridors. This improved level of access, coupled with the potential for urban renewal, could be expected to increase the overall levels of public transport access within the Inner West.

1.4.3 Market and Competition

Market and Service Requirements Figure 3 provides a graphical representation of the major markets and service requirements associated with the Inner West Extension of the light rail system. In brief terms, these include:

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 10 Final Report  Base markets with existing light rail system: – North Leichhardt/Lilyfield/South Rozelle/Annandale/Glebe/Pyrmont to CBD/Central. – Central to Pyrmont (counter peaks).

 Extended base market with Inner West Extension: – Includes all of Leichhardt to Marion Street.

 New markets with Inner West Extension: – Dulwich Hill through to Glebe to Pyrmont. – Dulwich Hill to North Leichhardt/Lilyfield (Internal market). – Connection to the CityRail network at Lewisham and Dulwich Hill railway stations

 New markets with CBD Extension: – Central to CBD (and vice versa all day). – All origins from Pyrmont and west thereof through to the CBD.

Figure 3 Major Light Rail Customer Travel Markets

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 11 Final Report 1.4.4 Relationship with Other Modes A broad assessment of the relationship between the proposed extension of the light rail and other modes (rail and bus) for trips to/from the CBD was undertaken to inform a preliminary understanding of likely market. Travel to the CBD constitutes the largest patronage market of the light rail. Key aspects of this assessment are summarised below.

Travel Time GHD undertook an assessment of relative travel times to the CBD for different transport services in the vicinity of the proposed light rail. This analysis was undertaken to provide a high level overview of the relative attractiveness of different modes (heavy rail, bus, light rail) and indicated the following:

 From a time perspective, light rail is not competitive with heavy rail for trips to the CBD (travel time to the CBD via CityRail would be around twice as fast as by light rail from equivalent origins); and

 From a time perspective, light rail is competitive with buses for trips to the CBD, (travel times to the CBD being similar by bus and light rail from equivalent origins).

Patronage Catchments Figure 4 shows indicative (straight line) walk-up catchments for light rail and heavy rail. The values adopted for walk up catchments (400m for light rail and 800m for heavy rail) are commonly used (internationally45 and in Australia6) as indicative areas where people would comfortably walk to a public transport node. These were adopted as part of a broad assessment of competition between different transport modes in the vicinity of the proposed light rail. It can be seen that south of Marion Street there is considerable competition between CityRail and light rail in relation to walk up catchments to these rail-based elements of the public transport system.

4 Prepared by MVA for The Commission for Integrated Transport. World Cities Research: Report on Comparable Medium Sized Cities (2005). 5 Wu, B & Hine, P. A PTAL approach to measuring changes in bus service accessibility. Transport Policy 10 (2003) p307–320. 6 Dodson et al. Investigating the Social Dimensions of Transport Disadvantage—I. Towards New Concepts and Methods. Urban Policy and Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, 433–453, December 2006.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 12 Final Report Figure 4 Overview of Interaction between Patronage Catchments for Light Rail and CityRail

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 13 Final Report 1.5 The Route For the proposed Inner West Extension as part of this study, the light rail route is fixed within the former Rozelle Goods Line rail corridor.

Route Alignment The route could be described as ‘opportunistic’, based on the fact that is a disused railway corridor running through an inner city area that can be converted relatively cheaply to a light rail service (bringing the associated benefits).

Land Use Interface It is noted that because the corridor was formerly a freight rail line and brought little direct benefit to contiguous residential and employment areas and some negative impacts (e.g. noise and vibration from heavy train operations) to the surrounding area, much of the adjoining land use has historically “turned away” from the rail corridor. It is noted that with appropriate planning policy, there would be the opportunity to re-orient land use along this corridor and derive considerable value from the investment in light rail.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 14 Final Report 2. Identification of Key Stakeholder Issues

2.1 Introduction As part of the Inner West Extension Study, GHD consulted with several different stakeholder groups and representatives on separate occasions. Stakeholders included four local councils (Leichhardt, Ashfield, Marrickville and City of Sydney), the Barangaroo Delivery Authority, the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), a GreenWay Working Group established for this study, the Department of Planning (DoP) and Metro Transport Sydney (current owners of the Sydney Light Rail System). This consultation process involved stakeholders identifying important issues to be considered in the Inner West extension study.

2.1.1 Scope and Limitations The consultation with identified stakeholder was very much a ‘first contact’ in respect to this project.

2.2 Process for Identifying Key Stakeholder Issues

Steering Committee Steering committee meetings incorporating key stakeholders was held in relation to the Inner West extension. Representatives of the steering committee include four local councils (Leichhardt, Ashfield, Marrickville and City of Sydney), the Barangaroo Delivery Authority, RTA, DoP, RailCorp and NSWTI. This is part of an ongoing meeting forum.

Inner West Stakeholder Workshop A workshop was held on 31st March 2010 with stakeholders representing four local councils (Leichhardt, Ashfield, Marrickville and City of Sydney), the RTA and NSWTI.

Metro Transport Sydney Meeting A meeting was held with Metro Transport Sydney (the current light rail owner) on 7th of April 2010 to discuss data and technical requirements for the Inner West extension.

GreenWay Meeting A meeting was held with representatives from Ashfield and Leichhardt Councils, the GreenWay Sustainability Project and the RTA on 8th April 2010 to discuss the proposed GreenWay and potential interfaces with the Inner West light rail extension.

2.3 Key Stakeholder Issues The key issues identified by stakeholders during the consultation process are summarised below:

 The Inner West light rail extension should be compatible with the GreenWay and not preclude the potential to construct the GreenWay in or adjacent to the rail corridor;

 The introduction of the Inner West light rail extension, combined with changing or intensifying land use, has the potential to achieve a mode shift away from the car to alternative transport modes; and

 The integration of the light rail extension into the wider public transport network, including frequency of service, fare harmonisation and integration and capacity are important to attract patronage.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 15 Final Report 3. Assessment of Stop Locations

3.1 Introduction This section outlines the process by which stops were assessed and presents a short-list of stop locations that were used for a number of investigations incorporated within this study, including: patronage forecasting, cost estimating, economic assessment and impact assessment.

3.1.1 Scope and Limitations The assessment of potential Inner West stop locations has been undertaken at a preliminary feasibility level. Additional investigation will be required to confirm the final set of stop locations to be taken forward as the light rail project develops.

3.2 Process of Assessing Potential Stop Locations This section provides an overview of key aspects of GHD’s assessment of a number of potential stop locations.

3.2.1 Strategic Level Considerations In determining the optimum location for the stops on the Inner West Extension of the Sydney light rail system, it is necessary to consider a number of influencing factors at a strategic level. In order of importance, these are: 1. Integration with land use; 2. Integration with transport networks; 3. Construction costs (including constructability); and 4. Operational considerations. In addition to these broad factors, there are a number of other aspects associated with stop location that warrant consideration as outlined below.

System Capacity Ideally stops should be evenly spaced, however this may not align with optimum stop location with regard to existing (or future) land use, or integration with other modes of transport. Evenly spaced stops are an important characteristic for both Metro and Suburban rail networks (where the service densities are operating at or close to an individual line’s signalling capacity), however, on a light rail line running well below saturation (and located at the likely extremity of a system) this will not be a requirement for service optimisation.

Catchment Benefits The locations of stops should be assessed on the basis of total benefit (received by all passengers) – this is measured in terms of total travel time savings (multiplied by the value of time for these customers) and then offset against the respective costs of the alternatives being compared. The alternatives with the best ratio of benefits to costs can then be recommended.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 16 Final Report System Development Decisions relating to stop locations need to consider the longer term objectives, which could include:

 Land use development / urban regeneration;

 Public transport network integration; and

 Improvements in access arrangements.

3.2.2 Identification and Assessment of Potential Stop Locations Potential stop locations were assessed through a range of investigations and analyses. This section presents a brief overview of the activities undertaken to identify and assess potential stop locations:

 Step 1. Review of stops identified in the Metropolitan Transport Plan (NSW Government, 2010), as shown previously in Figure 1:

 Step 2. Review of past studies note potential stop locations west of Lilyfield, including (but not limited to): – Inner West Sydney Light Rail Extension: Stage 2: Lilyfield to Ashfield (Arup, 1998). – Pre-feasibility Study to Extend the Light Rail from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill (GHD, 2001). – Light Rail Summer Hill Extension: A Briefing Paper by Metro Transport Sydney (Metro Transport Sydney, 2008);

 Step 3. Development of a ‘long list’ of potential stop locations based on reviews undertaken;

 Step 4. Site investigation of the ‘long list’ stop locations, assessed in terms of potential constraints and opportunities relating to catchment, access (primarily relating to pedestrians, but also cyclists), modal interchange with buses, trains and private vehicles, and constructability of stops;

 Step 5. Identification of alternative stop locations where appropriate (e.g. where access to a preliminary stop location is constrained) and where a nearby alternative location presents an opportunity to overcome the identified constraint;

 Step 6. Desk-top assessment of ‘long list’ stop locations based on potential local urban renewal opportunities, based primarily on the availability of suitable land parcels identified through a review of cadastral information, planning schemes (e.g. floor space ratios), land use zoning, site visit observations and aerial photography;

 Step 7. Compilation and overall evaluation of the ‘long list’ stop locations,; and

 Step 8. Development of a ‘short list’ of stop locations, classified as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Stop Classifications

Colour Merit (Low to High) Classification

Green ƔƔƔƔ or ƔƔƔƔƔ Preferred (Short List)

Yellow ƔƔƔ or ƔƔƔƔ Preferred (Potential to defer construction)

Orange ƔƔƔ Alternative

Blue ƔƔƔ Potential Future Stop

Red Ɣ or ƔƔ Not Preferred

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 17 Final Report 3.2.3 Stop Location Assessment Criteria The relative merits of the potential stop locations have been assessed on the basis of several criteria. These are defined (in no particular order) as follows:

 Stop locations relative to stops identified in the Metropolitan Transport Plan (2010) (proximity, relative benefits etc);

 Potential role and function of the stop (origin, destination);

 Walk-up catchment;

 Ease of access to the stop location by mode (pedestrians, cars (kiss and ride / park and ride), bus, train, cyclists);

 Modal interchange / transfers (such as to/from bus or heavy rail services);

 GreenWay compatibility (where applicable);

 Constraints (heritage, environmental);

 Constructability (time and cost);

 The potential for local urban renewal opportunities and land use changes: – Zoning types and propensity for development; and – Land ownership characteristics (e.g. small individual holdings up to large amalgamated holdings);

 Distance between potential stop locations; and

 Potential patronage in relation to existing and projected population and employment.

3.3 Assessment of Stop Locations This section provides a summary of the assessment of a broad range of potential stop locations. The full record of the assessment of stop locations is provided in Appendix B. Table 2 provides a summary of the assessment of potential stop locations. Each stop was assessed from a scale of one (low merit) to five (high merit). Figure 5 provides shows the location of stops assessed by GHD. The colour of particular stops reflects the findings summarised in Table 2.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 18 Final Report Figure 5 Map of Stop Locations Assessed

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 19 Final Report Table 2 Summary of Assessment of Potential Stop Locations

Name Source of Stop Assessment Notes / Justification GHD Location Recommendation

Norton 1 Metropolitan Transport Ɣ Potentially difficult to construct. Lift shaft access required Location not (Norton Street) Plan (MTP) (2010) through City-West Link Road decking structure. supported by this Investigations undertaken as part of this study have assessment. Consider identified superior alternatives for this stop (see below). alternative location (see below).

Norton 2 GHD (Current), GHD ƔƔƔƔ This location offers superior potential for integration with Preferred stop location (James Street) (2001)7 and Arup (1998)8 bus services and could be part of a potential local urban to be determined renewal opportunity in the disused building along Darley following further Road. This stop would be challenging to construct. consideration. No clear preference at this stage of investigation.

Norton 3 GHD (Current) ƔƔƔƔ This location offers an easier to construct option but has Preferred stop location (Charles Street) lower potential for integration with bus services. to be determined following further consideration. No clear preference at this stage of investigation.

7 GHD, Pre-feasibility Study to Extend the Light Rail from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill (2001). 8 Arup, Inner West Sydney Light Rail Extension: Stage 2: Lilyfield to Ashfield (1998). 21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 20 Final Report Name Source of Stop Assessment Notes / Justification GHD Location Recommendation

William Street GHD (Current) and Arup ƔƔƔ Potential future stop location in conjunction with local urban Not supported by this (1998) renewal opportunity at existing warehouse building / assessment at this storage yard site south of Blackmore Park. stage. Potential to consider in future years.

Allen MTP (2010) ƔƔƔƔ Location supported with no major issues identified. Preferred stop location.

Marion 1 MTP (2010), GHD (2001) ƔƔƔƔ Based on short term drivers, the south side of Marion Preferred stop location (South) and Arup (1998) Street would be preferred with lower start up costs. to be determined following further consideration. No clear preference at this stage of investigation.

Marion 2 MTP (2010) ƔƔƔƔ The north side of Marion Street would be an alternative Preferred stop location (North) stop with a potential local urban renewal opportunity. The to be determined northern side has better integration with the AM City Bound following further bus services. consideration. No clear preference at this stage of investigation.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 21 Final Report Name Source of Stop Assessment Notes / Justification GHD Location Recommendation

Kegworth MTP (2010) ƔƔ Stop located less than 300 metres from Marion Street stop, Location not with limited redevelopment/renewal potential. supported by this assessment. Parramatta Road preferred.

Parramatta GHD (Current) ƔƔƔƔ While constructability may be slightly more complex, this Preferred stop location Road location offers more benefits in terms of stop spacing, links (replaces Kegworth). to employment opportunities, potential local urban renewal opportunities and bus interchange potential.

Lewisham MTP (2010) ƔƔƔƔ Key interchange with Lewisham CityRail Station and high Preferred stop location Interchange potential local urban renewal opportunities. to be determined (North) following further The northern location allows for future dedicated consideration. No pedestrian connections to Lewisham Station. clear preference at this stage of investigation

Lewisham MTP (2010) ƔƔƔƔ Key interchange with Lewisham CityRail Station and high Preferred stop location Interchange potential local urban renewal opportunities. to be determined (South) following further The southern location is closer to potential urban renewal consideration. No sites would allow more direct access to them. clear preference at this stage of investigation.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 22 Final Report Name Source of Stop Assessment Notes / Justification GHD Location Recommendation

Old Canterbury MTP (2010) and GHD ƔƔƔƔ Potential for this stop to be part of a local urban renewal Preferred Stop Road (2001) opportunity with the Summer Hill Flour Mill site. Integrates Location (Potential to with buses. defer construction).

Waratah Mills MTP (2010) ƔƔƔƔ Location supported with no major issues identified. Preferred stop location.

Constitution MTP (2010) ƔƔƔƔ No major issues identified. Includes catchments to the west Preferred Stop Road not included in the catchments of adjacent stops. Location (Potential to defer construction).

Dulwich Hill MTP (2010) and GHD ƔƔƔƔ Location supported with no major issues identified. Preferred stop Shops (2001) location.

Dulwich Hill MTP (2010) and GHD ƔƔƔƔ More difficult and costly to construct, but would provide the Preferred stop Interchange 1 (2001) most direct service to the existing heavy rail station. Easy location. (Bedford access interchange to Dulwich Hill Railway Station may be Crescent) difficult to construct. Impacts on Bedford Crescent require further consideration.

Dulwich Hill MTP (2010) and GHD ƔƔƔ Easiest to construct, however would offer a poor Alternative stop Interchange 2 (2001) connection to the existing station. An Easy Access location to Bedford (Keith Lane) interchange with Dulwich Hill Railway Station would be a Crescent. necessity of the design.

Dulwich Hill GHD (Current) ƔƔ Potential property acquisition and on-street running would Not supported by this Interchange 3 be required. assessment. (Keith Street)

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 23 Final Report 3.4 Short-listed Stop Locations Based on the assessment of potential stop locations, a ‘short list’ of stop locations was developed. The shortlisted stops are those shown in Figure 5 as “Preferred (Short List)”, and as defined in Table 2. It is considered that the construction of two of the preferred stops (at Old Canterbury Road and Constitution Road) could be deferred. On this basis, the shortlist of stops taken forward in other parts of this study (assessment of patronage, cost estimates and economic assessment) is as follows:

 Norton (James Street);

 Allen;

 Marion (Southern option);

 Parramatta Road;

 Lewisham Interchange (Northern option);

 Waratah Mills;

 Dulwich Hill Shops; and

 Dulwich Hill Interchange.

3.4.1 Discussion of Further Assessment of Stop Locations GHD’s assessment of stop locations noted that for some stops, more than one location could be feasible. Further investigation is required to determine the optimal stop locations. By way of example, a discussion of some of the key issues for consideration for four of the stops is provided below.

Norton There are two potential stop locations: James Street and Charles Street, both to the west of Norton Street. James Street offers better opportunities for integration with buses. However construction would be complex because there is very limited space between the railway formation and the cutting / retaining wall on the northern side of the corridor. It is noted that the tunnel under the City West Link dictates the light rail alignment to the east of this stop location, leaving little opportunity to realign the track to the south. This means that construction of a stop east of Hubert Street would be complex. Alternatively, Charles Street would be easier to construct than James Street based upon available widths and access to the rail corridor. However, Charles Street offers poorer potential to integrate with buses as it is further away from bus routes on Norton Street and potential route deviations.

Marion There are potential stop locations on either side of Marion Street. These offer different types of user benefits, such as bus route integration and constructability. A preferred location at Marion will be dependent on more detailed investigations.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 24 Final Report Lewisham Interchange and Old Canterbury Road Lewisham Interchange light rail stop should be located to best integrate with the existing railway and surrounding land uses. A more detailed study is required to identify whether the Lewisham Interchange stop should be located north or south of Longport Street. A stop north of Longport Street could offer superior potential for establishing attractive levels of integration with Lewisham CityRail Station, including potential easy access upgrades (albeit both of these may only be established in the longer term). However, adoption of a more northern stop location could necessitate the provision of another stop near Old Canterbury Road to ensure the service has good integration with the proposed redevelopments of the Mungo Scott Flour Mill site (and other surrounding sites). A stop south of Longport Street could offer superior potential for integrating with surrounding land use redevelopment although may not offer as strong potential for attractive levels of integration with Lewisham CityRail Station. A southern stop could reduce the need or viability of another stop near Old Canterbury Road.

Constitution Road The distance between Waratah Mills Stop (at Davis Street) and Dulwich Hill Shops (at New Canterbury Road) would allow another stop to be located between them, this being at Constitution Road. Due to the nature of the curved alignment of the rail corridor between the Waratah Mills stop and the Dulwich Hill Shops stop, these two stops have an overlapping catchment on the eastern side of the line, as shown in Appendix B. However, on the western side of the line, this being the outside of the curve, these stop catchments do not overlap at their extremities. There is an area west of the Constitution Road stop that is inside the 800m walking catchment (e.g. Trinity Grammar School) that is not inside the 800m catchment of either of the other two adjacent stops. For this reason, it is considered that the patronage potential of this western catchment be taken into consideration when further assessing this stop location.

3.5 Stop Locations – Additional Information In order to inform a number of other aspects of this study (technical assessment of stop constructability, cost estimates and assessment of impacts), further work was undertaken to develop information relating to stops. Outcomes of this work are summarised in the following sub-sections.

3.5.1 Concept Stop Layouts Preliminary Concept Stop Layouts were developed and are included in Appendix A. They are indicative layouts only and subject to further design development. On these concept stop layouts is marked the extent of assessment. This boundary provides the extent of a number of assessments incorporated into this study, including:

 Technical assessment;

 Cost estimates; and

 Identification of impacts.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 25 Final Report 3.5.2 Integration of Light Rail with the Broader Public Transport Network A key aspect of the light rail proposal is its potential to integrate with the broader public transport network. Improved travel opportunities by public transport modes can arise with an appropriate level of integration between the light rail system and other public transport modes. This integration can be in terms of physical design (i.e. stop location and facilities), service frequency (i.e. timetables), and/or fare integration (ease of transfer). A brief discussion of opportunities associated with integrating light rail with the broader public transport network is provided below. An assessment of pedestrian and cyclists access to proposed stops is provided in Appendix B.

Norton The Norton Stop is close to four existing bus routes, however the bus stops are approximately 160 metres away. There may be the potential to reroute buses from Norton Street on to James Street and Darley Road and then via Francis Street back to Norton Street. Bus stops could potentially be relocated to Darley Road in this case.

Marion There are up to seven bus routes on Marion Street in proximity of the proposed light rail stop. The current bus stops are located approximately 80 metres away. It may be possible to relocate these existing bus stops closer to the light rail stop to provide better transport integration. A light rail stop on the northern side of Marion Street would better interface with morning peak city- bound buses.

Parramatta Road Three bus routes currently run on Parramatta Road in the vicinity of the light rail stop. The current bus stop is located approximately 150 metres to the west from the proposed light rail stop. Ideally, the bus stops would be relocated to just east of the rail line on Parramatta Road. A portion of existing industrial properties on the eastern side of the rail line on either side of the road could potentially be acquired, where bus pick-up and set-down bays could be provided within a widened road reserve.

Lewisham Interchange The proposed light rail stop at Lewisham Interchange is approximately 300 metres from the existing train station entrance on Railway Terrace. The proposed stop would have access via a ramp and stairs to Longport Street. Future investigations should look at enhancing pedestrian connectivity to Lewisham Station and the potential to incorporate this with the provision of easy access at this railway station.

Dulwich Hill Shops At least six bus routes operate along New Canterbury Road in the vicinity of the proposed light rail stop. Current bus stop locations are approximately 70 metres away from the proposed stop. It may be possible to relocate these existing bus stops closer to the light rail stop to provide better transport integration.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 26 Final Report Dulwich Hill Interchange With the Dulwich Hill Interchange light rail stop at Bedford Crescent, it would be approximately 60 metres to the Dulwich Hill Station entrance. One bus route (412) also runs on the southern side of Dulwich Hill Station, with the nearest bus stop approximately 90 metres away. It would be unlikely that this stop would be relocated unless the bus route is changed to run north of Dulwich Hill Station.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 27 Final Report 4. Transport Product

4.1 Introduction This section provides the assumptions relating to the transport product (including service frequency, operating speeds, travel time, modal interchange, fares and ticketing) for the situation where only the Inner West extension is in place.

4.1.1 Scope and Limitations The assumptions relating to transport product were developed for the purpose of informing other aspects of this study, including:

 Operational cost estimates.

 Fleet calculations.

 Patronage modelling.

 Economic assessment. As such, the assumptions relating to transport product are of a broad nature (commensurate with the nature of this study) and should be viewed as such.

4.2 Service Frequency

4.2.1 Inner West Extension In the case of Inner West Extension only, for the purpose of this study, it has been assumed that light rail services would run at a frequency of five services per hour during the period of service operation. This reflects the level of service currently provided on the existing light rail system (a service arriving every 12 minutes).

Option 1 - Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Lewisham As a basis of this study, it was assumed that for the first year of operation:

 Light rail services would only run to Lewisham Interchange

 Based on the study assumption of a frequency of 5 services per hour, it is likely that the operator would require a fleet of 7 light rail vehicles.

Option 2 - Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Dulwich Hill For the years of operation after the first year, it is currently assumed that:

 Light rail services would run to Dulwich Hill Interchange

 The service frequencies provided in the Service Plans (5 trams per hour) would be appropriate as they provide a suitably attractive level of service for users. The assumed service plan for the Inner West Extension is shown in Figure 6. The service frequencies (in each direction) are shown in diamonds in the figure.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 28 Final Report Figure 6 Assumed Inner West Extension Service Plan (Services/hour/direction)

4.2.2 CBD Extension – Central to Circular Quay In the case where the light rail system is extended into the CBD, it should be noted that:

 The Inner West Extension service patterns could be driven by the service requirements of the (busier) CBD extensions; and

 The service patterns on the Inner West Extension after extension of the light rail system into the CBD could be different to the service patterns outlined in this document.

4.3 Operating Speeds and Travel Time

Operating Speeds For the Inner West Extension, an average operating speed of 24 km/hr has been assumed based on an assessment and analysis of existing services. Average operating speed measures the overall speed of the light rail service (taking into consideration dwell time at stops).

Travel Times Based on the assumed operating speed described above, indicative travel times between selected stops have been estimated and are presented in Table 3.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 29 Final Report Table 3 Indicative Travel Times (in minutes) at Selected Stops on Existing Light Rail System and Proposed Inner West Extension Marion Lilyfield Lewisham Pyrmont Bay Pyrmont Waratah Mills Waratah Wentworth Pa r k Dulwich Hill IC Hill Dulwich

Central 9 14 22 28 31 33 36

Pyrmont Bay 5 13 19 22 24 27

Wentworth Park 8 14 17 19 22

Lilyfield 6 9 11 14

Marion 3 5 8

Lewisham 2 5

Waratah Mills 3

4.4 Modal Interchange – Public Transport The following table identifies selected public transport interchanges offered at light rail stops being considered for the Inner West Extension (assuming existing bus services and routes are retained).

Table 4 Summary of Key Modal Interchange (public transport) at Light Rail Stops under consideration

Light Rail Stop Interchange Transfer Key Lines / Routes served Mode walking distance (indicative)

Norton Street Bus 160 m* L37, 440, 444, 445

Marion Street Bus 80 m* 436, L37, 438. L38, 439, L39

Parramatta Road Bus 150 m* 461, 480, 483

Lewisham Rail 300 m Inner West Line

Old Canterbury Road Bus 110 m* 413

Dulwich Hill Shops Bus 70 m* 418, 428, L28, 444, 445

Dulwich Hill Interchange Rail 70 m Bankstown Line

Bus 100 m* 412

* Distances based on current bus stop locations. It could be feasible and appropriate to relocate existing bus stops to provide a superior interchange with light rail.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 30 Final Report 4.5 Modal Interchange – Private Transport Patronage modelling has assumed ambient park and ride opportunities and kiss and ride access. It has not assumed that opportunities for purpose-built park and ride facilities have been realised.

4.6 Fares and Ticketing To inform the patronage assessment process for this study, it has been assumed that the fare and ticketing arrangements for the Inner West extension would be similar to those in place for the existing light rail system. These include:

 Fare policy and product (the assumed fare zones for the Inner West extension to the light rail system are shown below in Figure 7)

 Ticketing policy and product. It is recognised that in reality fare and ticketing arrangements could be different.

Figure 7 Map of Assumed Fare Zones

4.7 Assumptions Relating to Two Way Light Rail Operation A basic assumption for this study is that there would be double track along the full length of the light rail route.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 31 Final Report 4.7.1 Background A key consideration in the assessment of the potential to integrate the proposed GreenWay with the light rail extension outlined in the Metropolitan Transport Plan is the potential to operate light rail along a section of single track. Current investigations indicate that there is a portion of the proposed GreenWay between Davis Street and Hercules Streets Dulwich Hill (approximately 700 metres long) which is constrained in width and which would be more feasible if the light rail could operate on single track.

4.7.2 Preliminary Assessment of the Need for Two Track versus Single Track Light Rail Operation A preliminary assessment indicates the need for two track light rail operations along the full length of the Inner West extension. Key issues underpinning this finding are discussed below.

Safety Single track operation has significant safety implications with risks of head on collisions of light rail vehicles. Although signalling systems do exist that would allow operation to occur they would not normally be considered viable for services operating at 12 minute headways in each direction (or a tram every 6 minutes one way or the other). This would result in the need for speed restrictions to be enforced to ensure that light rail vehicles could stop without collision in the event of an opposing conflict. The effective operational length of the single track section would also need to be at least 200m longer in either direction (400m in total) than the actual section of single track to ensure that there was adequate safety overlap from the signals to the single track section. Furthermore, it is likely that catchpoints may also be required - these are considered very undesirable on light rail systems due to the light weight structure of the vehicles offering limited protection and the potential for serious passenger injury resulting from a forced derailment. In effect - a single track section needing to be 700m long would operationally perform like a single track section 1,100m long. This would also be subject to a speed restriction and would regularly result in operational delays.

Operational Reliability Given the number of stops proposed on the light rail line, a delay at each stop of only 10 seconds could accumulate to significant late running for the returning service. The resulting crossing point could be shifted along the line by as much as 4 minutes as a result of this. Due to the on-street running along Hay Street in the CBD, light rail vehicles could be delayed while waiting for each traffic signal to cycle through (there are 4 sets of signals). The combination of delays at CBD stops which then result in missing the signals could accumulate in significant delays (of up to 8 minutes from traffic signals alone). Even with prioritised signalling this can still occur depending on the configuration of the prioritisation and the proximity of the stops to the traffic signals. It is likely that light rail vehicles could be impacted by both of these causes of late running – resulting in delays almost as long as the service headway itself (when 12 minutes late, the service is simply perceived as being the next service). These delays would also affect the crossing point in the section being considered for one track operation.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 32 Final Report The effect of this is that there will not be any location along the length of the line where single track operation will not at some time result in late running services being further delayed when heading in the outbound direction. This may result in the next city bound service start time being missed and that service in effect being cancelled. The introduction of single track operation to a 12 minute headway service, with these foreseeable service delays, will result in an unacceptably large variance in service reliability – effectively undermining the integrity of the service and reducing its value to potential customers. The project may be unable to meet its service objectives with poor punctuality. All this will impact on the quality of service to customers.

Conclusions There are numerous precedents of short sections of single track light rail operating safely and effectively. It is noted, however, that such arrangements bring additional costs associated with infrastructure, management, and reductions in efficiency and system flexibility. As such, even short sections of single track are only considered in situations were there is little or no alternative. At this very early stage in the development of Sydney’s light rail system, it is considered unusual that its future efficiency and flexibility would be constrained without strong justification or exhaustion of alternatives.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 33 Final Report 5. Assessment of Patronage

5.1 Context of the Patronage Assessment The proposed light rail extension would improve the level of public transport service to the Inner West. The areas surrounding the proposed extension have an urban structure that was largely defined before widespread ownership of private vehicles. This brings several attributes that make it particularly suitable for public transport, including:

 A mix of land uses, including detached (or semi-detached) dwellings on relatively small lots, apartment buildings and commercial and light industrial activities;

 Residential and employment densities that are relatively high compared to the greater Sydney area; and

 An interconnected street layout that would provide generally easy access to light rail stops by walking. It is an area that already exhibits relatively high levels of public transport usage, and is well placed to benefit (and derive benefit from) investment in light rail. As outlined earlier in Section 1.4.3, it is recognised that the western extension to the light rail would improve the general level of public transport access in the areas surrounding the route on the basis of:

 Extending the reach of the market associated with the existing light rail system;

 Unlocking new markets around the Inner West extension; and

 Providing access to and integration with the CityRail network and bus networks. The project also provides significant opportunity to reorient land use around a transport mode that has proved attractive to travellers and an effective catalyst for urban renewal in other situations.

5.2 Scope Preliminary modelling has been undertaken to rapidly develop indicative patronage estimates to inform the feasibility assessment of the proposed Inner West extension of the Sydney Light Rail System. The assessment is based on available transport travel time, fares and trip-making data by mode from the NSW TI Strategic Travel Model (STM). The STM provides data estimates of land use and travel at fine area level throughout the Sydney, Newcastle, and Wollongong regions. This data is supported by detailed information about transport infrastructure and services for base and forecast years. In this analysis, data from 2011, 2016 and 2026 are used. These data have been aggregated to consider those trips going to or coming from destinations in proximity to the light rail extension. Using these data, GHD developed a simple, transparent desktop modelling process to:

 Estimate existing public transport and car trips to be diverted to the new light rail system; and

 Add new trips due to both induced trips with opportunities for residents and workers to travel or by additional workers or residents if urban renewal occurs around new light rail stations.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 34 Final Report 5.3 Patronage Modelling Results The table and figures below show the expected patronage under two scenarios compared to a base of no extension.

Patronage Base Scenario - Existing values The base case presented for 2011 is taken from 2009 survey data of the existing service with adjustments forward for 2011, 2016 and 2026 figures.

Patronage Scenario A - Existing Trips Diverted This scenario shows the numbers of public transport trips and car trips that would divert to the new light rail extension under either Option 1 - Lilyfield to Lewisham or Option 2 - Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill.

Patronage Scenario B - Existing Trips Diverted + New Trips This scenario includes the diverted trips of Scenario A but adds new trips from two sources:

 Induced trips will arise as workers and residents along the route take the opportunity to make trips for leisure or work.

 At the same time the existence of a light rail stop might provide a stimulus for urban renewal with trip generation from such development. New trips particularly contribute to patronage in Option 2 Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill.

Table 5 Annual Sydney Light Rail System Patronage Forecast (‘000) for Different Scenarios

Year Base Option 1 - Lilyfield to Lewisham Option 2 - Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill

No Inner West Scenario A Scenario B Scenario A Scenario B Extension Diverted trips Diverted and Diverted trips Diverted and only induced trips only induced trips

2011 3,700 - - - -

2016 4,079 5,427 5,577 6,513 7,170

2026 5,008 6,902 7,148 8,463 9,619

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 35 Final Report Figure 8 Sydney Light Rail System Patronage Forecast (Annual)

5.4 Sensitivity Tests Sensitivity tests are constrained by the theoretical requirement to remain within model linearity bounds and the more important practical requirement of realistic tests. The tests were applied to Option 2 in the year 2026 where the higher patronage would show more variations. It should be noted that in considering demand characteristics, the worst case scenario of no land renewal and no induced demand is already modelled in Scenario A.

Table 6 Sensitivity Tests Summary of Results

Sensitivities Coverage and Results

1 Operational A 20% fare increase resulted in a 4% drop in patronage. Characteristics A 20% increase in travel time resulted in a 10% decrease in patronage.

2 Demand External factors leading to mode shift: Characteristics For example, higher fuel costs indicatively gave a 21% increase in patronage. Land Use/Urban Renewal – 7% increase in patronage Induced Demand Assumptions/LR attraction – 8% increase

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 36 Final Report Sensitivities Coverage and Results

3 Accessibility Impact of alternative options for CBD access to Town Hall, Circular Quay and Barangaroo: Patronage is sensitive to travel times Package of improved accessibility options: ranging from physical ramps to passenger information - potential for 50% to 70% increase in patronage

It is noteworthy that improved traveller information and a range of public transport coordination initiatives to make interchange are assumed to be in place by 2026 with the potential patronage uplift of such measures likely to be significant.

5.5 Limitations

Preliminary Estimates Only GHD emphasises that the patronage estimates here should be considered order-of-magnitude estimates only. They are appropriate for preliminary economic or feasibility assessments. However, the use of aggregate data, lack of specific mode choice modelling based on new survey or other data and the number of assumptions set out below make the results unsuitable as a basis for other than strategic decisions. More detailed modelling together with specific survey data on user and non-user choices would be needed to provide robust patronage estimates.

Static Aggregate Traveller Behaviour This is a not a dynamic model of behaviour change; it takes the STM model data and aggregates them to allow processing in a spreadsheet environment.

Omission of rail “through trips” Modelling has only considered trips either beginning or ending in the vicinity of the light rail. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, GHD have assumed that the number of people using light rail as the middle leg of a long trip will be sufficiently few to be ignored in this first pass model.

Current Fare Structures Amenability It has been assumed that the cohort of new passengers on the extension would have broadly similar trip purposes and broadly similar income patterns as those on the suburban sections of the existing light rail line. This allows the assumption that fares at a level similar to current fares would not be a deterrent to use on an extended system However, sensitivity to fare change was tested.

Car Traveller Limitations Car traveller mode shift to light rail was determined by a simple location based allocation model developed for this study rather than by a full Strategic Travel Mode Choice Process. Car travellers switching to light rail were assumed to switch to public transport to access the light rail rather than drive to a light rail stop.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 37 Final Report 6. Technical Assessment

6.1 Introduction This section summarised the technical assessment and field assessment activities for the Inner West Extension of the Sydney Light Rail Extension Study. It is noted that the technical assessment provides an important input into the preparation of preliminary capital cost estimates. The complete Technical Assessment is provided in Appendix C.

6.1.1 Scope and Limitations of Technical Assessment This investigation documented in this report is based on:

 A review of a range of past studies and technical specifications, including: – Ultimo Pyrmont Light Rail Transit Project Westward Extension Feasibility Study (GHD Transmark, 1994). – Ultimo Pyrmont Light Rail Transit System Specification (Booz Allen & Hamilton, 1994). – Inner West Sydney Light Rail Extension (Arup & TMG, 1998). – Pre-feasibility Study to Extend the Light Rail from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill (GHD, 2001). – 2007 Technical Review of the Sydney Light Rail System (Maunsell Aecom, 2008);

 A visual technical inspection of the disused goods line corridor undertaken during a track walk in April 2010;

 Input from rail and light rail specialists;

 Meeting with RailCorp track team leader responsible for the maintenance of the Metropolitan Goods Line to Rozelle from 2000 to 2008; and

 Meeting with Metro Transport Sydney (current owner of the Sydney Light Rail) in April 2010.

6.1.2 Standards Standards were developed for the construction of a light rail line between Central and Wentworth Park in 1996. These were updated for the extension between Wentworth Park and Lilyfield which became operational in 1999. Metro Transport Sydney (the current owners of the Sydney Light Rail) contracts Veolia Transport to carry out day-to- day light rail operations. Veolia Transport holds Rail Safety Accreditation and maintains the track to these standards. The Independent Transport Safety and Reliability Regulator (ITSRR) audits the performance of the Light Rail. It is expected that the extension between Lilyfield and Dulwich Hill will be built to the standards used on the current system. The continued use of these standards needs to be confirmed with relevant authorities. It is noted that these standards are based on the assumption of the existing light rail vehicles would run at a maximum vehicle speed of 80 km/h. It is also assumed that light locomotives, or other track maintenance vehicles, would traverse the section at lower speeds.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 38 Final Report 6.2 Key Considerations The technical assessment has been based on reusing as much of the existing goods line as possible. This approach was used for the extension of the existing light rail and has proved satisfactory based on the amount of maintenance required in the past decade.

6.2.1 Use of Existing Railway The existing Sydney Light Rail was built in two stages. The initial section from Central to Wentworth Park was largely built of new materials in 1996. A light rail extension from Wentworth Park to Lilyfield was completed in 1999 and was largely a conversion of the goods line corridor, with upgraded track, new platforms, electrical and signalling systems. The proposed extension from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill is to follow the existing disused goods line. The existing goods line track (formation, sleepers, rail) is similar in design and condition to that found during the Light Rail extension of 1998-9. Standards were prepared for the track upgrade in 1998-9. These track standards are considered appropriate for the proposed extension, as evidenced by maintenance requirements of the existing Light Rail system. The extent of upgrading necessary will depend on the standards agreed and would need to be finalised after a full track inspection and taking account whole of life costs for the system.

6.2.2 Capital versus Maintenance The works described in the technical assessment assume a low capital investment scenario. This scenario would require additional maintenance over the subsequent twenty years, which has been accounted for in the development of capital cost estimates in this study. This life-cycle cost trade-off approach is consistent with the industry practice (for example, maintenance on the freight and grain lines) and with the approach adopted for the light rail extension between Wentworth Park and Lilyfield. It is recognised, however, that a final decision on capital investment versus ongoing maintenance costs would depend on more detailed investigation and assessment as to the optimal asset management regime.

6.3 Engineering and Technical Assessment The preliminary engineering and technical assessment findings are discussed below.

6.3.1 Alignment There are no major issues with the existing alignment and it appears adequate for light rail. Care should be taken during detailed design as clearances are tight at some overbridges, especially New Canterbury Road and Constitution Road, and at the three major underbridges (Charles Street, Marion Street and Parramatta Road). Further investigation is required to determine the feasibility of the vertical and horizontal alignment of the proposed section of track accessing the Dulwich Hill Interchange stop.

6.3.2 Drainage Minor extensions of existing drainage are expected to be required. Cess clearing, (especially through the cuttings) is expected to be necessary. Further investigation is required to determine the full scope

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 39 Final Report of drainage works necessary. Adjoining landowners may call on this project to rectify current deficiencies.

6.3.3 Vegetation It is expected that clearing of vegetation from the cutting and track bed will be required. It must be noted that cutting vegetation control works must be conducted under the supervision from a Geotechnical Engineer and following an appropriate ecological survey.

6.3.4 Geotechnical Further investigation is required, and this preferably should be performed during the vegetation clearing works. Further studies have been identified in the 1994 Geotechnical report to scope possible remediation works of cuttings. Of specific note is the need for geotechnical assessment in the vicinity of proposed stops because of likely works in these areas.

6.3.5 Formation There are two areas of poor formation which are expected to require full track reconditioning. The formation in other areas would be considered sufficient for the proposed light rail operations.

6.3.6 Ballast It is expected that the ballast will require cleaning and replenishment to bring it to an acceptable condition for light rail operations.

6.3.7 Sleepers The sleepers are generally in poor condition and towards the end of service life. For the purpose of this study, and based on an initial visual inspection, it is anticipated that replacement at an average of 1 in 4 throughout the line will be adequate for light rail operations (under this scenario, a further 1 in 4 re- sleepering programs at 5 year intervals would be required until the track is fully concrete sleepered). The actual quantum of sleeper replacement will be determined once a full condition survey of the track has been completed.

6.3.8 Rail The majority of rail is 53kg, with only a small section of continuous welded rail. Grinding, welding and adjustment of the rail will be required to bring the whole section up to continuous welded rail standard. It is worth noting that some rail has been transposed and is near the end of service life. For the purpose of this study, and based on an initial visual inspection, it was estimated that approximately 20% of the rail would need to be replaced. The actual quantum will be determined once full condition survey of the track has been completed.

6.3.9 Underbridges The underbridges were designed for freight traffic, and built in the early 1900s. Generally, the structures are in reasonable condition to support light rail traffic, and maintenance vehicles at reduced speeds. Future development of this project should incorporate appropriate assessment of condition and structural capacity.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 40 Final Report The Parramatta rail bridge is lower than the adjacent road bridge and has been subject to a number of impacts by over-height vehicles. A risk assessment will need to be undertaken of this issue to ensure that it is adequately protected for light rail. One option that is worth noting that there is an opportunity to lift the Parramatta Road bridge before the track and overhead wiring works are completed. Such works are not incorporated into the capital cost estimates in this study and would require consideration of heritage issues.

6.3.10 Overbridges It is assumed that the responsibility for maintenance of overbridges remains as per the existing arrangements. Clearance issues will necessitate vigilance during the track and overhead wiring design to ensure the bridges will be adequate for Light Rail operations.

6.3.11 Electrical Supply It is expected that 2 new substations would be required and assumed that stray current mitigation would be addressed during the design process. The use of renewable energy (such as photovoltaic) should be considered at stops. Future development of this project should incorporate appropriate assessment of condition of the structures supporting the high voltage aerial line that traverses the rail corridor.

6.3.12 Overhead Wiring Generally, the overhead wiring is in poor condition and further investigation is required to confirm the potential to re-use or the need to replace this element of infrastructure. The existing 1500 V DC overhead wiring and structures were built around 1950, to an unknown design. Without viewing the design drawings, reports and associated drawings, it is assumed that new structures will be required Initial discussions with RailCorp indicate that the wire is minimum of 16mm made of copper cadmium alloy, and has not worn significantly. Further assessment may determine that the wire, where it is remaining, may be able to be reused. The insulation fittings have a life of approximately 10-15 years and will need to be replaced. The overhead wiring alignment will change for the light rail vehicles. All wire will need to be re-strung.

6.3.13 Communications and Signalling Systems Communications and signalling systems, including mobile radio, telephone, fibre optic cable network, security and surveillance, supervisory and control systems, signalling and utility diversions would be built new. The design and construction will need to consider the existing operations.

6.4 Noise and Vibration It is expected that there will be a low level of impact from operational noise, and good potential for noise and vibration mitigation measures. Modern light rail has been designed to operate in heavily populated urban contexts, and thus has many features to minimise noise and vibration emissions. In general, impacts arising from noise and

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 41 Final Report vibration associated with modern light rail operations have proved to be of little concern to occupants of surrounding areas. The technical discussion in Appendix C draws on work undertaken by specialist noise sub-consultants (Richard Heggie Associates Pty Ltd) during the Pre-feasibility Study to Extend the Light Rail from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill (GHD, 2001). Further noise and vibration investigations will be required during the Environmental Assessment, initially to confirm any changes in the standards since the above report was written.

6.5 Maintenance and Stabling It is expected that the existing maintenance and stabling facilities can be extended to accommodate the additional vehicles required for the Inner West Extension. Maintenance and stabling is discussed in greater detail in Appendix C.

6.5.1 Maintenance and Stabling Facilities on Existing System The light rail system currently has a stabling and maintenance facility located on the eastern side of Pyrmont, close to the city end of the line. This facility currently stables the entire fleet of 7 light rail vehicles. Advice received from Metro Transport Sydney indicates that there is space to stable up to 10 light rail vehicles on the site (although this would require additional works).

6.5.2 Preliminary Assessment of Stabling Requirements It is expected that the following works will be required to provide stabling for the proposed Inner West Extension: Preliminary estimates of light rail fleet requirements are summarised below:

 Current Operation Central to Lilyfield: 7 Light Rail Vehicles

 Option 1 - Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Lewisham. 7 Light Rail Vehicles (Preliminary Estimate). No works required.

 Option 2 - Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Dulwich Hill. 10 Light Rail Vehicles (Preliminary Estimate). 40 metres extension to existing stabling facilities, including track work, overhead wiring and security fencing. This extension could be accommodated within the existing site.

6.6 Stops While several stops along the Inner West extension entail complexities in terms of construction, it is not considered that any threaten the feasibility of establishing a stop at or near the proposed locations. An assessment of constructability of short-listed stops is provided in Table 3 in Section 7 of the Technical Report in Appendix C.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 42 Final Report 6.6.1 Design Assumptions The stops are assumed to be designed to similar configuration to that used on the existing light rail system. Allowance will be made for accessibility for people with disability (Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) requirements). In future stages of project development, stop design would be based on surveys of the existing area and consideration of agreed GreenWay configuration.

6.6.2 Constructability In general the stops are expected to be designed for construction on grade. Particular construction issues include:

 In some areas where the stop is located in a cutting, it will require additional excavation and consideration of earth retaining structures; and

 In two locations the stops are located on fairly high and narrow embankments. For these stops (Marion and Parramatta Road), it is assumed that construction would be on piled footings.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 43 Final Report 7. Compatibility of the Proposed GreenWay

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 Scope and Limitations This section assesses the compatibility of the proposed GreenWay with the proposed light rail extension from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill. The compatibility assessment addresses the GreenWay options developed in the following report: Strategic Concepts for a Cooks River to Iron Cove Shared Path: Towards a GreenWay Trail for the Metro Sydney Strategic Cycle Network, Draft Final Report (The Environment Works Pty Ltd for the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority, February 2010). While the assessment incorporated within this study is based on the report cited above, it is recognised that further work is being undertaken on the proposed GreenWay, and whilst not addressed in this review, will be included in the final revision. An overview map illustrating the initial GreenWay options is shown in Figure 9.

Two Track Way Light Rail Operation This assessment of compatibility of the proposed GreenWay is based on the assumption that there will be two track light rail operation over the length of the extension. An assessment of the need for two track light rail operation was provided in Section 4.7.2 of this document.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 44 Final Report Figure 9 Initial GreenWay Strategic Concepts

Source: Strategic Concepts for a Cooks River to Iron Cove Shared Path: Towards a GreenWay Trail for the Metro Sydney Strategic Cycle Network, Draft Final Report (The Environment Works Pty Ltd for the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority, February 2010).

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 45 Final Report 7.2 Functional Priorities for Light Rail and GreenWay within the Rail Corridor

Functions of the GreenWay It was noted that the GreenWay Project serves a range of functions, including:

 Transport – a shared bike/pedestrian path along the railway corridor and linking with the regional active transport network;

 Environmental – a biodiversity corridor to support initiatives such as protection of fauna habitat / pathways, regeneration of bushland, interaction between community and the local environment; and

 Community – A community space to promote social engagement and interaction, as well as providing opportunities to showcase heritage, culture and the arts. In view of the Government’s commitment to light rail operation on the railway corridor, it is recognised that some of these functions might require further assessment.

Hierarchy of Light Rail and GreenWay Functions In a meeting with NSWTI and GreenWay representatives on 8 April 2010, the following hierarchy was adopted for the assessment of the potential to integrate the proposed GreenWay with the light rail extension outlined in the Metropolitan Transport Plan (2010). 1. Light rail: two-way, two-track operation for the entire extension in the Inner West from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill. 2. GreenWay: 2a: Shared path – Approximately 3 to 4 metres wide, predominantly grade separated; 2b: Environmental considerations – including maintaining high value green space and green corridors for fauna movement; and 2c: Social and community functions.

7.3 Process for Assessing the Compatibility of the Proposed GreenWay Based on the priorities outlined above, a three-step process was adopted to assess the compatibility of integrating the proposed GreenWay with the light rail extension outlined in the Metropolitan Transport Plan (2010). This process is discussed below:

Step 1 - Understand the Aims of the GreenWay A review of the document Cooks River to Iron Cove GreenWay Master Plan and Coordination Strategy (Ashfield, Leichhardt, Canterbury and Marrickville Councils and NSW Department of Planning, October 2009) was undertaken in order to understand the aims of the GreenWay. Key points to note in relation to the aforementioned document include:

 The GreenWay is an “environmental corridor” stretching about five kilometres long and passing through Canterbury, Marrickville, Ashfield and Leichhardt Council areas in the Inner West, incorporating the Hawthorne Canal Reserve and the Rozelle freight rail corridor;

 The GreenWay environmental corridor combines an active transport corridor to promote walking and cycling, bushcare sites, and facilities to provide opportunities for social interaction with the environment;

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 46 Final Report  The GreenWay vision is a grassroots, community-led initiative that started as a bushcare program and has evolved to include an active transport corridor and opportunities for community engagement and sustainability, gaining recognition by four Councils in the process, and is now integrated with local planning strategies;

 Grant funding has been given by the NSW Government’s Environmental Trust Urban Sustainability Program to further develop the GreenWay vision;

 Challenges to furthering the vision include shared use of the rail corridor and interfaces with busy roads;

 Preliminary concepts and GreenWay options have been developed to provide route continuity and address physical space constraints, including concept plan to cross Parramatta Road via a structure under the road deck and integrated with the heritage-listed Battle Bridge, and

 An action plan outlines the strategy for progressing the GreenWay initiatives, which include the development of an implementation strategy and undertaking feasibility and concept planning.

Step 2 – Understand GreenWay Concept (of February 2010) A review of the following document was undertaken: Strategic Concepts for a Cooks River to Iron Cove Shared Path: Towards a GreenWay Trail for the Metro Sydney Strategic Cycle Network, Draft Final Report (The Environment Works Pty Ltd for the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority, February 2010). From this point on, this report will be referred to as the Strategic Concepts Report. The aforementioned study developed concepts and GreenWay options for achieving the GreenWay vision of providing an off-road shared path link between Cooks River and Iron Cove, aimed to progress planning and inform decision-making and budget allocation purposes. In general, the concept GreenWay options were developed following three general categories, as follows:

 Routes primarily within the Rozelle freight rail corridor formation (track area), referred to as ‘Red’ route options;

 Routes within the railway corridor not in the formation (i.e. away from track area), referred to as the ‘Blue’ route options; and

 Routes outside the railway corridor, referred to as the ‘Orange’ route options. For comparison, existing on-road shared path routes have been defined and referred to as ‘White’ route options. Although the general implication is these GreenWay options constitute a descending level of desired GreenWay functionality, it is noted that in some locations the Orange GreenWay option is considered preferable to the Blue or Red GreenWay options. This is predominantly in the northern section of the GreenWay corridor (north of Longport Street in Lewisham), primarily due to the existence of established shared paths running along the Hawthorne Canal reserve. The GreenWay study developed the different concept options and sub-options for the GreenWay considering four future scenarios for the reuse of the Rozelle freight rail corridor, as follows:

9  GreenWay Scenario 1 – No use of rail corridor for spoil removal or light rail;

9 Spoil removal associated with the proposed CBD Metro project, using the Rozelle freight line to remove spoil from White Bay. With the Metropolitan Transport Plan announced after the Strategic Concepts Report was prepared, scenarios incorporating spoil removal can be considered inapplicable.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 47 Final Report  GreenWay Scenario 2 – Use of rail corridor for spoil removal only;

 GreenWay Scenario 3 – Use of rail corridor for spoil removal, plus two-track light rail operations from Lilyfield to Lewisham, and single-track light rail operations from Lewisham to Dulwich Hill; and

 GreenWay Scenario 4 – Use of rail corridor for spoil removal and/or dual track light rail operations from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill. Among the four, the GreenWay scenario selected for documentation of the concept options development was Scenario 3. It is noted that this GreenWay scenario assumes single-track light rail operations between Lewisham and Dulwich Hill.

Step 3 – Assess Compatibility of proposed GreenWay with light rail extension Based on the recommendations of Strategic Concepts Report, GHD assessed the rail corridor with the view to best achieving the aims of the GreenWay (within reason) while operating a two-way light rail system in the corridor using both tracks (GreenWay Scenario 4).

7.4 Compatibility of Integrating the GreenWay with Light Rail Extension

7.4.1 General Assessment In general, the assessment of compatibility in integrating the proposed GreenWay project with the light rail extension can be summarised as follows:

 Dual-track light rail operation between Lilyfield and Dulwich Hill should provide the context in which the concept GreenWay options are assessed. Therefore, this precludes the feasibility of the Red route options identified in the Strategic Concepts Report.

 No major issues have been identified with the proposed Orange route GreenWay options; and except for a handful of locations where corridor width is physically constrained, the Blue route options also appear to integrate efficiently with the dual-track light rail extension, provided appropriate segregation measures are put in place.

 The GreenWay concept options development study does not provide enough information to assess how the potential light rail stop locations can be integrated with the GreenWay. While the study mentions opportunities of providing potential bicycle parking facilities at light rail stops, the GreenWay options developed appear to be limited to a “longitudinal” interface of a parallel light rail line.

 It appears that the GreenWay options developed that linked with either side of the railway corridor was more a result of addressing constraints (i.e. need to cross from one side to the other due to constraint in continuity), rather than exploring opportunities to provide linkages to a wider catchment. Where possible, it may be preferred that GreenWay routes on both sides of the railway corridor, with adequate crossing opportunities (potentially at stop locations, as indicated in the report) be developed.

 While potentially outside the scope of the study, the likely impacts of the construction of preferred GreenWay route options need to be investigated in the context of an operational light rail extension, in the event that light rail is implemented ahead of the GreenWay routes. The GreenWay options development study divided the corridor between Cooks River and Iron Cove into six (6) sections. These sections and the preferred options for each section are presented below, together with an assessment on the feasibility of integrating the preferred GreenWay options with the dual-track light rail extension.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 48 Final Report 7.4.2 Section 1 – Lilyfield Road Haberfield/Leichhardt to Marion Street Leichhardt

Strategic Concepts Report The Orange route options are deemed the most suitable for this section over the short to medium term, principally due to the existence of established and popular shared paths within the Richard Murden Reserve along the Hawthorne Canal. Over the medium to long term, potential options include a new bridge crossing at Marion Street in line with a Blue route option along Darley Road linking with Allen Street subway.

GHD Assessment The Orange options, being outside the railway corridor, will not adversely impact light rail operations. However, measures to link strategic locations along the Orange routes with the light rail stops merit further investigation. The Blue route sub-option between the Allen Street subway and Marion Street, planned for the medium term to long term, appears to contribute minimal additional benefit, transport linkage-wise, considering existence of established Orange route options west of the railway corridor. A critical element would be the linkage between the surface route options and the proposed Marion Street bridge crossing.

GHD Recommendation At this stage of investigation GHD would recommend that the Orange GreenWay route options constitute the most feasible within the priorities established in Section 7.2.

7.4.3 Section 2 – Marion Street Leichhardt to just south of Longport Street

Strategic Concepts Report The Orange route options are preferred for this section, particularly in the short- to medium-term due mainly to lower cost. Critical links are across Parramatta Road and across Longport Street. Over the medium- to long term, Blue route options can be developed in conjunction with the Orange options developed initially. The study recognises that the light rail extension will more likely require double- track operations, and thus indicates preference for the Blue route options.

GHD Assessment Similar to Section 1, critical interfaces with the light rail is that the Orange GreenWay route options can also be developed as pedestrian and cycle access to the proposed light rail stops. In this sense, a combination of Blue route options and Orange route options may be ideal for integration, provided appropriate segregation between the GreenWay and light rail operations is preserved. The GreenWay concept options study implies that this may be achieved over the long term. The proposal to provide a structure under heritage-listed Battle Bridge to cross the heavily trafficked Parramatta Road corridor, and a similar engineering intervention utilising the Whipple Truss Bridge at Lewisham to provide continuity for the GreenWay is subject to current investigations and environmental assessments. Other crossing options may need to be further developed depending on the outcomes of these investigations.

GHD Recommendation At this stage of investigation, GHD would recommend that the Orange GreenWay route options subject to engineering and environmental assessment, constitute the most feasible within the priorities established in Section 7.2.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 49 Final Report 7.4.4 Section 3 – Longport Street / Summer Hill Flour Mill to Davis Street Dulwich Hill

Strategic Concepts Report The GreenWay options preferred for this section would depend on the configuration of the Longport Street crossing. The report indicates that the Red GreenWay route option would be the most cost effective.

GHD Assessment Given that light rail operations will require two tracks, the Orange and Blue GreenWay route options need to be further developed. Tunnelling under Old Canterbury Road under the Blue option would indeed be cost prohibitive, as indicated in the study. Moreover, the associated impacts also need to be assessed in more detail, including the need to ensure appropriate segregation is achieved between the GreenWay and light rail operations. Its cost effectiveness also needs to be assessed in relation to the Orange option of an at-grade crossing.

GHD Recommendation At this stage of investigation, GHD would recommend that the Orange GreenWay route options constitute the most feasible within the priorities established in Section 7.2. The Blue route options merit further investigation focusing on developing alternatives to the proposed tunnel crossings under major roads, as well as identifying sections where appropriate segregation will be required to separate the GreenWay from light rail operations.

7.4.5 Section 4 – Davis Street to Hercules Street Dulwich Hill

Strategic Concepts Report The study indicates that the ultimate configuration of the GreenWay for this section will depend on the configuration for the preceding section. The Blue GreenWay route option provides for a crossing under Davis Street (tunnelling) and under New Canterbury Road (on decking structure cut into railway embankment). The Orange route options include at-grade crossings across Davis Street, linking south with Johnson Park and an at grade crossing across Constitution Road to link with a shared path east of the railway corridor south of Constitution Road into Denison Road. It then proposes to cross New Canterbury Road at-grade, then runs east of the railway corridor.

GHD Assessment The Blue GreenWay route option under Davis Street requires tunnelling work that will not only be cost prohibitive, but may also bring significant impacts. The side slopes of the railway cut also present considerable challenges in achieving a continuous pathway beside the light rail tracks.

GHD Recommendation At this stage of investigation, GHD would recommend that the Orange route options constitute the most feasible within the priorities established in Section 7.2. The Blue route options merit further investigation focusing on developing alternatives to the proposed tunnel crossings under major roads, as well as identifying sections where appropriate segregation will be required to separate the GreenWay from light rail operations.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 50 Final Report 7.4.6 Section 5 – Hercules Street to Terrace Street Dulwich Hill

Strategic Concepts Report The Orange route for this relatively short section entails 14 driveway crossings, and the Blue option makes use of a new reinforced structure over the existing railway maintenance track.

Assessment The GreenWay route options developed are generally to the east of the railway corridor, and diverge away from the proposed stop location at Dulwich Hill. The GreenWay provides limited opportunities for interfacing with the light rail extension south of Hercules Street.

GHD Recommendation GHD notes that the Orange and Blue route options are outside the portion of the rail corridor needed for light rail operations. The Red Route options south of Hercules Street, where four tracks form the railway corridor, are generally outside the rail corridor needed for light rail operations as well, and could possibly be integrated with the light rail, provided appropriate segregation measures are installed.

7.4.7 Section 6 – Terrace Street to Cooks River Pathway at Beaman Park Earlwood This section is beyond the extent of the proposed light rail extension and has not been assessed in this report.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 51 Final Report 8. Assessment of Costs – Infrastructure

8.1 Introduction This preliminary feasibility cost estimate has been prepared for the Sydney Light Rail – Inner West Extension Study. A more detailed breakdown of cost estimates is provided in Appendix D.

8.1.1 Scope and Limitations

Options The capital expenditure (CAPEX) estimates have been structured into two options:

 Option 1 – Lilyfield to Lewisham; and

 Option 2 – Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill.

Accuracy The information used in developing the costs is currently at pre-feasibility level, which limits the accuracy of the estimate. A contingency amount of 50 % to cater for the variability in the estimate has been added drawing on our experience on previous projects. This reflects the limited design and associated lack of detailed investigation and related unknown information. The purpose of this estimate is to provide an Order of Magnitude for the works, to enable the client to assess whether there is a case to move into Feasibility Design where it will be necessary to develop a firmer level of costings based on more detailed scope and design.

Assumptions and Exclusions The preliminary feasibility cost estimate has been based on the assumptions and exclusions detailed in section 8.3. The assumptions and exclusions are common to both options unless expressly detailed otherwise.

Greenway The cost estimate excludes any works associated with the GreenWay proposals.

Extent of Assessment It should be noted that cost estimates have been developed for works incorporated in the Extent of Assessment designated on the Concept Stop Layouts provided in Appendix A and discussed in Section 3.5.1.

Source Documents The estimate of CAPEX is based on the following documents

 NSWTI – Sydney Light Rail Extension – Inner West Extension Study. Engineering Assessment by GHD (see Appendix C).

 Inner West Extension Stop Overview Map by GHD showing stop locations and names.

 Light Rail Extension Concept Stop Layouts by GHD for stop locations (see Appendix A), being:

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 52 Final Report – Norton; – Allen; – Marion; – Parramatta Road; – Lewisham Interchange; – Waratah Mills; – Dulwich Hill Shops; and – Dulwich Hill Interchange.

8.2 Process for Estimating Costs (Capital) The preliminary feasibility cost estimate has been based on the design information developed by GHD as detailed in Section 3.4 of this report. Given the limited level of information, the utilisation of benchmarked rates from previous projects has been incorporated in the build-up of the cost estimate. These benchmarked rates have been developed on first principles basis, using labour, plant and materials with productivities based on clear working regimes with no allowance made for work in live rail corridors or under possession regimes.

8.3 Assumptions The following assumptions have been included within the preliminary feasibility estimate.

8.3.1 General Assumptions

 That sufficient compound area will be available for storage containers, sheds, delivery vehicles/crane;

 No impact on normal construction activities as a result of maintenance of pedestrian or vehicular access; and

 Costs are as at April 2010.

8.3.2 Track - General

 Full ballast cleaning has been allowed for along 30% of the track length;

 25% of all sleepers have been allowed to be replaced (based on 600mm centres for the sleepers);

 100% of the track has been tamped;

 100% of the track has been allowed to have its rail grinded;

 20% of all rail been allowed to be replaced;

 108 mechanical joints have been allowed to be welded; and

 An allowance has been made for potholing along the length of the track.

Option 1

 Re-alignment of 400m of track has been allowed for; and

 Two turnouts have been allowed to be relocated.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 53 Final Report Option 2 In addition to the works incorporated into Option 1:

 A 200m long cutting has been allowed for at Dulwich Hill for inter-connecting with the existing heavy rail network; and

 A new crossover has been allowed for at Dulwich Hill.

8.3.3 Electrical - General

 New overhead wiring structures will be required every 40m of track. These structures will be two track portals.

Option 1

 Two new pad mounted substations have been allowed for; and

 Two turnouts have been allowed to be relocated.

Option 2 In addition to the works incorporated into Option 1:

 One new pad mounted substation has been allowed for; and

 A new crossover has been allowed for at Dulwich Hill.

8.3.4 Stops – General

 All platforms are 30m long by 3m wide;

 All platforms are simple concrete slabs except where noted;

 An allowance has been made for platform furniture; and

 An allowance has been made for electrical supply to the stops. Option 1

2  Parramatta Road and Lewisham Interchange stops require piled foundations at 1 pile per 4m of platform. Option 2

In addition to the works incorporated into Option 1:

 Dulwich Hill Shops stop requires a passenger elevator.

8.3.5 Contractor’s Indirect Costs An allowance has been made for the Contractor’s indirect costs, based on a construct only contract. This allowance is incorporated into the rates generally and includes for the following items:

 Preliminaries;

 Insurances;

 Contractor’s Offsite Overheads and Profit;

 Contractor’s Risk;

 Bank Guarantees; and

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 54 Final Report  Long Service Levy.

8.3.6 Client’s Indirect Costs An allowance has been made for the client’s indirect costs, based on a construct-only contract. This allowance includes for the following items:

 Project management and project controls;

 Design;

 Planning and Environment;

 Geotechnical investigations; and

 Communications and community consultation.

8.3.7 Contingency An allowance has been made for contingency against the project which equates to 50% of the overall costs. This reflects the feasibility nature of this assessment and level of completeness of design and scope.

8.3.8 Exclusions The following items have been excluded from the preliminary feasibility estimate:

 Any works associated with the Greenway proposals;

 Any upgrade of Energy Australia’s existing network i.e. that there is sufficient capacity in the network for this extension;

 Compliance with RailCorp standards unless detailed otherwise in GHD’s reports;

 Interface with stakeholders;

 Liaison with RailCorp including approval of designs;

 Traffic management;

 Restricted working hours;

 Active security during construction (chain wire fence only allowed for);

 Land acquisition/property resumption including compensation and easements;

 Legal fees;

 Track possessions;

 Contaminated soil;

 Allowance for relocating existing services (known and unknown);

 Abnormal foundations;

 Aboriginal and European heritage;

 Compliance with any DA conditions or Minister’s approvals;

 Finance Costs, Taxes etc;

 Escalation; and

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 55 Final Report  Goods and Services Tax.

8.3.9 Maintenance Costs The maintenance costs associated with the CAPEX costs have calculated based on standard maintenance requirements for track. The works allowed for are based on being carried once every four years:

 Full ballast cleaning allowed for along 30% of the track length;

 25% of all sleepers replaced (based on 600mm centres for the sleepers);

 100% of the track tamped;

 100% of the track rail will need grinding; and

 No allowance has been made for maintenance works associated with the stops. An additional amount has been included for maintenance costs for the bridges, trackside fences and general corridor clean up. Under the terms of the current corridor lease arrangements many of these activities and costs are currently the responsibility of RailCorp. Estimated costs are, however, included here for completeness and for use as necessary in the economic analysis.

8.4 Key Findings The preliminary feasibility capital cost and maintenance estimates for the project are set out in Table 7 to Table 10 (inclusive). The information used in developing the costs is currently at pre-feasibility level which limits the accuracy of the estimate and therefore a high level of contingency needs to be added. Latent defects would be a particular issue in a project of this nature and extremely difficult to quantify and cost. We would recommend that at the next stage of the project the calculation of the contingency amounts and the management of the budget risk be undertaken using a robust risk management process which includes the development of a risk register which in turn is integrated with a probabilistic estimating tool using Monte Carlo simulation techniques to define levels of confidence in the budget figures. The purpose of this estimate is to provide an Order of Magnitude for the works, to enable the client to assess the justification to move into Feasibility Design option to develop a firmer level of costings based on a more detailed scope and design.

Table 7 CAPEX. Option 1 – Lilyfield to Lewisham (2010 Dollars)

Item Cost

Track $4,072,100

Structure $84,400

Electrical $13,807,200

Stops $8,388,800

Client’s Indirect Costs $4,612,000

Contingency $15,482,300

Option 1 Total CAPEX $46,446,800

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 56 Final Report Table 8 CAPEX. Option 2 – Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill (2010 Dollars)

Item Cost

Track $8,223,400

Structure $84,400

Electrical $20,459,400

Stops $12,400,400

Client’s Indirect Costs $7,204,500

Contingency $24,186,200

Option 2 Total CAPEX $72,558,500

Table 9 Maintenance Costs (Every Four Years). Option 1 – Lilyfield to Lewisham (2010 Dollars)

Item Cost

Track $1,855,700

General (bridges, fencing, cleanup etc) $671,200

Client’s Overheads $303,300

Contingency $1,263,500

Option 1 Total CAPEX $4,093,700

Table 10 Maintenance Costs (Every Four Years). Option 2 – Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill (2010 Dollars)

Item Cost

Track $2,716,800

General (bridges, fencing, cleanup etc) $956,500

Client’s Overheads $440,900

Contingency $1,836,700

Option 2 Total CAPEX $5,950,900

8.5 Project Budget The CAPEX cost detailed in Section 8.4 is an Order of Magnitude for the physical construction of the works as described. It excludes a number of project costs, and has not made specific allowance for a number of key cost risks that have been identified which include:

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 57 Final Report  Condition of the track which may require additional work other than currently envisaged;

 Potential need to raise Parramatta Road bridge;

 The condition of the existing infrastructure and suitability for long term use for a passenger light rail service;

 Condition of over bridges and under bridges along the route, and other key infrastructure in the rail corridor;

 Potential for noise and vibration mitigation works;

 Potential for enhanced sustainability of stop designs;

 Potential for additional fire and life safety requirements for covered sections of rail line; and

 Associated urban design and potential extended access works. Recognising these risks and the exclusions detailed in Section 8.3.8 above, an overall project budget (including additional light rail vehicles) of at least $100 to $120 million for Option 2 - Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill should be retained until further work and investigation has been completed and the scope and timing of the work finalised.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 58 Final Report 9. Assessments of Costs – Operational and Fleet

9.1 Introduction This section provides an assessment of operating costs for the light rail system and extension options. It has been reported on three defined options:

 Base Case - Existing light rail between Central and Lilyfield;

 Option 1 - Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Lewisham; and

 Option 2 - Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Dulwich Hill.

9.1.1 Scope and Limitations Operating costs are dependent on three principal factors:

 Fleet size;

 Route distance; and

 Staffing levels related directly to operations. The assessment has considered these factors and assessed the relative operational costs for the three defined options. The operating cost assessment has been developed as an independent estimate of the order-of- magnitude of operating costs in order to understand the sensitivity of the increases in network extent and fleet size. The cost figures show the expected improvements in productivity defined as cost per passenger kilometre as the network extent increases with a relatively modest increase in fleet size. Detailed figures from the current existing network - including operational staff levels, power consumption, current passenger numbers and actual maintenance costs - would be the most reliable basis for working up the values for the extended network. However, the relevant information was not available for this assessment. The existing network with the Inner West extension is a very small network by world standards and in cases of small networks it is important to avoid direct comparison with large networks (such as Melbourne) since the size discrepancy can give misleading results.

9.2 Process for Estimating Costs (Operational)

9.2.1 Inputs into Operational Cost Estimates Key inputs into the operational cost estimates have been calculated based on service and operational planning assumptions. These are summarised in Table 13.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 59 Final Report Table 11 Operations - Summary of Key Information and Inputs

Key Information Existing Option 1 Option 2 (Central – (Lilyfield – (Lilyfield – Lilyfield) Lewisham) Dulwich Hill)

Frequency 5 / hr 5 / hr 5 / hr

Line length (operational) 6.8 km 3.5 km 5.6 km

Cycle Time (to/from Central) 50 minutes 70 minutes 84 minutes

Light Rail Vehicle operating 81 hr/day 30 hr/day (extra) 51 hr/day (extra) hours/day

Light Rail Vehicle operating 1271 km 621 km/day (extra) 999 km/day (extra) km/day

Fleet Requirements 7 7 10*

* Please see notes incorporated in Section 9.2.2..

9.2.2 Commentary on Assumptions

Fleet Requirements Option 1 - Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Lewisham GHD estimates show a total fleet of 7 light rail vehicles (6 in operation plus no spare plus 1 in maintenance). This assumption is made on the basis that since Option 1 - Lilyfield to Lewisham would be a short term situation, the operator would likely invest in additional maintenance to avoid the need to bring forward the purchase of an additional light rail vehicle.

Fleet Requirements Option 2 - Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Dulwich Hill GHD estimates show a total fleet of 10 light rail vehicles (8 operational vehicles plus 1 spare plus 1 vehicle in maintenance). It is noted that based on the assumptions outlined in Table 11, it could be possible to provide the assumed service with a total of 9 vehicles (7 in operation plus 1 spare plus 1 in maintenance). However, given the preliminary nature of inputs into this study, and the particular dependency of fleet numbers on average operating speed (which in turn is dependent on number of stops etc), a more conservative estimate of 10 vehicles (8 in operation plus 1 spare plus 1 in maintenance) has been assumed to provide the required level of service and operational flexibility.

9.3 Key Findings – Cost Estimates (Operational and Fleet)

9.3.1 Operational Costs Estimates of operational costs are summarised in Table 14.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 60 Final Report Table 12 Cost Estimates (Operational)

Extension Annual Operating Opex Fleet Cost (per pax km*) utilisation

Existing (Central – Lilyfield) $5.3 million $0.53 7

Option 1 (Lilyfield – Lewisham) $1.7 million (extra) $0.49 7

Option 2 (Lilyfield – Dulwich Hill) $3.3 million (extra) $0.46 10

*based on 20 passengers average per vehicle.

9.3.2 Fleet Purchase Costs The purchase cost of light rail vehicles is assumed to be $4 million per unit.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 61 Final Report 10. Economic Assessment

10.1 Introduction A Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) is a systematic means of analysing the economic, social and environmental benefits and costs directly arising from a project. It provides an objective decision- making framework that considers the net impacts of an alternative project case option (or set of options) against a base case (or status quo) option. The project options can be considered as the ‘with project’ cases and the base case ( the ‘without project’ case). The economic assessment (BCA) provides an indication on whether a project would deliver value for money for society as a whole – that is would the total benefits of the project exceed the cost. The scope of the base and project case options that form the basis of the BCA are summarised in Table 13.

Table 13 Scope of Base and Project Case Options

Option Scope

Base case* Existing light rail line from Central Station to Lilyfield is kept as is into the future

Project case option 1: Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Lewisham

Project case option 2: Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Dulwich Hill

* The current base case includes costs associated with ongoing maintenance of the existing disused rail freight line. This includes maintenance of structures (i.e., bridge and tunnel inspection works, repairs to trackside fencing) and general maintenance (i.e., graffiti removal and weeding). Costs are estimated by Currie and Brown to be $0.5 million per year).

10.1.1 Scope and Limitations The economic assessment drew upon information from other technical areas. The critical inputs used in the assessment include:

 Capital cost information;

 Vehicle purchase and operating cost information; and

 Patronage output data. This BCA incorporates patronage outputs from Patronage Scenario A - Diverted Trips Only. Key outputs from the patronage model included:

 The number of diverted trips;

 Reductions in vehicle kilometres travelled; and

 Travel time savings for public transport users. Details on the patronage estimates and the assumptions underpinning them have been discussed previously in Section 5 of the report. It is critical to appreciate that the results of this BCA are subject to strong caveats, and caution should be employed in drawing conclusions. This reflects some data gaps and uncertainties relating to the light rail patronage forecasts, in particular.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 62 Final Report The results of the economic assessment are clearly sensitive to the patronage and capital expenditure and maintenance cost estimates as these drive the various benefit and cost streams. The realisation of benefits of the project will be critically dependent upon measures being put in place to underpin the ridership of the extended light rail. In the same way the cost estimates are sensitive to operational assumptions such as number of light rail vehicles required for the services. No avoided costs are included in this economic assessment. Avoided costs are a form of benefit resulting from the implementation of the project options. If the light rail system is extended, upgrades to other modes of the public transport system may not need to be undertaken (e.g. road widening) or they can be deferred until some later date. Such foregone and/or deferred costs have not been estimated in this economic assessment. This reflects two reasons; there is uncertainty in precisely how an extended light rail system will alter the broader public transport landscape, and, this assessment does not include induced demand effects.

10.2 Process for Economic Assessment This BCA is undertaken in accordance with the approaches outlined by the Australian Transport Council (ATC) and Infrastructure Australia (IA)10. These two approaches complement each other and allow for improved robustness in identifying the monetised benefits and costs of new transport infrastructure projects. Both approaches have been and are currently used in the evaluation of new transport infrastructure proposals submitted for government funding. The approach to undertaking a BCA is summarised in Figure 10.

Figure 10 BCA Approach

10.3 Economic Assessment A BCA focuses on quantifying the direct benefits and costs of proceeding with the project options. Table 14 displays the directly quantifiable benefits and costs of undertaking the project case options. These are measured as ‘incremental’ costs and benefits since they are estimated ‘over and above’ the base case. This economic assessment does not include benefits such as wider economic benefits. The project investment cost figures used in the BCA were obtained from Currie & Brown. Investment costs11 comprise:

10 Australian Transport Council 2006, ‘National Guidelines for Transport System Management in Australia’, Volume 3, Appraisal of Initiatives. Infrastructure Australia (IA) 2008, ‘Outline of Infrastructure Australia’s Prioritisation Methodology’. 11 It is important to note that the Currie and Brown investment cost estimates reported here are different from those displayed in Section 8. The estimates in Section 8 include contingency costs. However, for economic assessment purposes contingency

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 63 Final Report  Project capital expenditure costs items (including expenditure on track, structure, electrical systems and stops). These capital items include project contractor costs, which cover expenditures like preliminaries, insurances, contractor’s offsite overheads and profits, contractors risk, bank guarantees, and long service levy); and

 Project management and other cost expenditures (including expenditure on project management, design, planning and environment, geotechnical investigations and, communications and community consultations).

Table 14 Summary of Benefits and Costs of Project Case Options, $ million, 2010-40

Cost and benefit items Option 1 Option 2

Undiscounted Discounted Undiscounted Discounted

Cost items

Light rail costs

Investment costs 30.9 27.08 48.4 42.30

Residual value -14.2 -1.87 -22.3 -2.92

Regular maintenance costs -13.8 -3.72 -11.0 -2.72

Periodic maintenance costs 11.6 2.75 19.0 5.37

Light rail vehicle costs

Vehicle investment costs 0.0 0.0 27.1 10.25

Vehicle operating costs 45.9 16.63 89.1 32.29

Total costs 60.4 40.88 150.3 84.56

Benefit items

User benefits

Light rail value of time benefits 31.3 11.0 52.2 18.4

Non-user benefits

Road vehicle accident benefits 58.3 17.0 71.7 20.9

Road vehicle operating benefits 72.3 21.1 89.0 26.0

Externality benefits 57.9 16.9 71.2 20.8

Total benefits 219.9 66.1 284.1 86.1 Source: GHD preliminary draft results.

Table 14 implies that the direct user benefits (in discounted terms) are approximately 17% and 21% of total benefits in Option 1 and 2, respectively. This is because the extension of the light rail system is not

costs do not represent actual resource costs incurred. Therefore, they are excluded from the project investment cost estimates in this section.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 64 Final Report primarily intended to offer shorter passenger travel times or increases in service frequency. Consequently, the majority of benefits of an extended light rail system stem from reductions in car use.

10.4 Summary of key findings The outcomes of the BCA are outlined in Table 15.

Table 15 NPV and BCR of Project Case Options, 2010-40, $million, 2010 dollars

Item Option 1 Option 2

Total benefits (discounted, $m) 66.1 86.1

Total costs (discounted, $m) 40.9 84.6

NPV ($m) 25.2 1.5

BCR 1.6 1.0

Source: GHD preliminary draft results.

The key result of the preliminary benefit cost analysis indicates that extending Sydney's light rail system to Dulwich Hill is justifiable on economic grounds, albeit at the margin. Both extension options (Option 1 to Lewisham) and Option 2 (to Dulwich Hill) are expected to deliver net economic benefits to the community as both recorded Net Present Values (NPV) greater than 0 and Benefit Cost Ratios (BCR) of 1 or more. Option 1 performs better in economic terms than Option 2 with an NPV of $25.2 m and a BCR of 1.6 compared with values of $1.5m and 1.0 for option 2, respectively. The extra costs of extending the light rail line to Lewisham are modest in infrastructure terms whilst the benefits of capturing an increased number of commuter passengers are notable. Extending the existing line further from Lewisham to Dulwich Hill is more marginal as this necessitates some uplift in costs that are counter-balanced by a comparable uplift in benefits. More information on the economic assessment can be found in Appendix E.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 65 Final Report 11. Impact Identification

11.1 Introduction

11.1.1 Scope The purpose of this chapter is to identify any potential impacts associated with the construction of the Light Rail Inner West Extension between Lilyfield and Dulwich Hill. Identification of potential impacts was undertaken based on a desktop review of key environmental risks. The process for undertaking this review is described in Section 0. The study area for the identification of impacts was largely confined to the disused rail corridor between the existing Lilyfield Light Rail Stop and Dulwich Hill due to minimal impacts expected outside of the corridor. The study area was however widened to assess the potential impacts around the proposed stops. The complete impact assessment report is provided in Appendix F.

11.1.2 Assumptions and limitations A number of key assumptions and limitations which shape the assessment findings underpin the identification of impacts.

Assumptions

 Stop locations based on those as identified in Section 3.4. No additional stop locations were assessed.

 Extent of stops taken as ‘extent of assessment’ marked on the concept design layouts located in Appendix A.

 Track between stops would be located entirely within the corridor with minimal works required outside the corridor. Works outside the corridor would be limited to areas immediately surrounding stops.

Limitations

 The review was a high level desktop study only with limited opportunities for ground truthing.

 The ecology assessment was limited to desktop review only, with no field surveys. Confirmation of vegetation conservation value was therefore not possible.

11.2 Process of Identification of Impacts

11.2.1 Potential impacts and risks Reflecting the high level nature of this study, a list of potential impacts for assessment was identified based on past experience in similar projects. The impacts considered include:

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 66 Final Report  Heritage;  Noise and vibration;

 Flora and fauna;  Visual;

 Land use (both current and future);  Traffic and transport; and

 Contamination;  Pedestrian and cyclist.

11.2.2 Assessment of potential impacts The study utilised online databases, aerial photography, reports undertaken along the corridor and general experience in similar projects to identify potential impacts along the corridor and in the vicinity of the stops. The following past investigations were reviewed during this investigation:

 Proposed Light Rail Extensions - Environmental Impact Statement (Manidis Roberts Consultants, 1997);

 Inner West Sydney Light Rail Extension – Stage 2 - Lilyfield to Ashfield Prefeasibility Study (Arup, 1998); and

 Strategic Concepts for a Cooks River to Iron Cove Shared Path Towards a GreenWay Trail for the Metro Sydney Strategic Cycle Network (The Environment Works Pty Ltd, 2010). Below is an outline of the searches undertaken for the heritage and ecology desktop assessments.

Heritage A desktop assessment of heritage items was undertaken using the following heritage lists:

 State Heritage Register (search under taken through the NSW Heritage Branch Search);

 s170 Register (search under taken through the NSW Heritage Branch Search);

 Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2001 heritage list;

 Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2000 heritage list; and

 Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 heritage list.

Ecology A desktop assessment was undertaken to identify potential ecological constraints on the Light Rail Extension and to identify potential impacts associated with its construction and operation. Information and databases reviewed included:

 Aerial photography of the proposed route which was visually scanned for areas of remnant vegetation or other habitats;

 NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) Atlas of NSW Wildlife Database Records for threatened species and endangered ecological communities listed under the TSC Act and FM Act. Maps showing the location of threatened species previously recorded within the LGAs surrounding the proposed route were created and reviewed based on the results of the database searches; Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) Protected Matters Search Tool for matters of national environmental significance listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The database was queried for a 10km buffer around the proposed route; and

 The Draft Cooks River to Iron Cove GreenWay Flora and Fauna Literature Review (Ward, 2010). GreenWay Sustainability Project, Ashfield Council, Ashfield NSW.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 67 Final Report 11.3 Identification of Impacts Impacts were classified as either relating to the corridor (the light rail corridor between stop locations) or as relating to a specific stop location. These potential impacts are summarised in Table 16. The following system of ratings has been applied:

 None – no potential impacts are expected;

 Low – potential for impacts to occur however impacts are considered to be relatively minor;

 Moderate – potential for impacts are expected but they are not considered to be significant; and

 High – potential impacts are considered to be significant. Overall it was found that the impacts identified as having the potential to occur as a result of the construction and operation of the light rail extension are considered relatively low largely due to much of the works being located within an existing corridor and therefore minimising impacts on surrounding areas. No impacts have been found to be of high significance with a number of impacts considered to be of moderate significance. The impacts found to be of a moderate significance are as follows:

 Heritage issues due to the Lewisham Railway Viaduct and the Lewisham Aqueduct being present within the corridor and therefore in the vicinity of any potential works;

 Potential impacts to the Lewisham Railway Viaduct due to its positioning directly to the north of the Lewisham Interchange Stop;

 Flora and fauna impacts due to the potential removal of vegetation along the corridor (particularly at stops) and the impacts generated from the removal on threatened and native species of fauna (such as the Long-nosed Bandicoot and the Grey-headed Flying Fox);

 Operational noise and vibration impacts throughout the corridor due to the corridor being used for light rail services which currently do not exist along the corridor, however it should be noted that the rail line was previously used as a freight line;

 Contamination issues due to the past use of the corridor and some neighbouring properties having the potential to contaminate the corridor;

 Visual impacts due to overlooking to neighbouring properties from Light Rail Extension;

 Visual impacts at the Dulwich Hill Interchange stop in Bedford Crescent due to introduction of light rail infrastructure within the existing residential environment;

 Traffic and transport impacts at a number of stops identified in Table 16; and

 Potential community issues with the position of the Dulwich Hill Interchange option in Bedford Crescent adjacent to residential dwellings, and associated potential parking issues.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 68 Final Report Table 16 Summary of Potential Impacts

Location Fauna Visual Cyclists Heritage Vibration transport Flora and Land Use Noise and Traffic and Contamination Pedestrian and

Entire corridor Moderate Moderate None Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low

Norton None Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Low

Allen None Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Low None

Marion Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low

Parramatta Road Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low

Lewisham Interchange Moderate Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low

Old Canterbury Road None Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Low

Waratah None Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Low

Constitution Road None Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Low

Dulwich Hill Shops None Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Low

Dulwich Hill Interchange None None Low None Low Moderate Moderate Low

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study 69 Final Report Appendix A Concept Stop Layouts

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study Final Report Preliminary B

FRANCIS ST

DARLEY RD B

CITY-WEST LINK RD Dulwich Hill City Layouts

JAMES ST

ONLY  NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 1:750 (at A4) LEGEND Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 02.5 5 10 15 20 25 30 Elevated Walkway Stairs Date 23 APR 2010 Footpath Track Crossing Metres Inner West Extension 14 Lift Map Projection: Transverse Mercator / Ramp C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Norton 2 Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) Platform Area of Assessment Stop Locations Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 (James Street) G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_17_LRE_Stations_A4.mxd Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including in direct or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: StreetMap - 22/04/2010. Created by: qjchung Preliminary WALTER ST

LYALL ST ALLEN ST

ATHOL ST

DARLEY RD

DANIEL ST Tree

Dulwich Hill City

CANAL RD Layouts LOFTUS ST

WARATAH ST HAWTHORNE PARD ONLY TURNERAVE

NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 1:2,000 (at A4) LEGEND Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 010 20 40 60 80 Elevated Walkway Stairs Date 23 APR 2010 Footpath Track Crossing Metres Inner West Extension

14 Lift Map Projection: Transverse Mercator  / Ramp C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) Platform Area of Assessment Stop Locations Allen Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_17_LRE_Stations_A4.mxd Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: StreetMap - 22/04/2010. Created by: qjchung

Preliminary TS NOIRAM TS

Dulwich Hill City Layouts

ONLY

NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 1:750 (at A4) LEGEND Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 02.5 5 10 15 20 25 30 Elevated Walkway Stairs Date 23 APR 2010 Footpath Track Crossing Metres Inner West Extension 14 Lift Map Projection: Transverse Mercator / Ramp C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Stop Locations Marion 1 (South) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA)  Platform Area of Assessment Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_17_LRE_Stations_A4.mxd Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: StreetMap - 22/04/2010. Created by: qjchung Preliminary

DR ATTAMARRAP DR

HATHERN ST

BROWN ST Dulwich Hill City Layouts

ONLYFRENCH LN

NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 1:750 (at A4) LEGEND Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 02.5 5 10 15 20 25 30 Elevated Walkway Stairs Date 23 APR 2010 Footpath Track Crossing Metres Inner West Extension 14 Lift

Map Projection: Transverse Mercator / Ramp  C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) Platform Area of Assessment Stop Locations Parramatta Road Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_17_LRE_Stations_A4.mxd Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: StreetMap - 22/04/2010. Created by: qjchung Preliminary

LONGPORT ST

Dulwich Hill City Layouts

GROSVENOR CRES ONLY

NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 1:750 (at A4) LEGEND Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 02.5 5 10 15 20 25 30 Elevated Walkway Stairs Date 04 MAY 2010 Footpath Track Crossing

Metres Inner West Extension

/14 Ramp Lift Map Projection: Transverse Mercator  C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) Platform Area of Assessment Stop Locations Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 Lewisham Interchange G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_17_LRE_Stations_A4.mxd Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including in direct or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: StreetMap - 22/04/2010. Created by: qjchung, nbuchanan Preliminary 328,000 PIGOTT ST

NELSON ST

Dulwich Hill City Layouts

DAVIS ST WESTON ST ONLY 328,000

NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 1:750 (at A4) LEGEND

Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 02.5 5 10 15 20 25 30 Elevated Walkway Stairs Date 23 APR 2010  Footpath Track Crossing Metres Inner West Extension 14 Lift Map Projection: Transverse Mercator / Ramp C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) Platform Area of Assessment Stop Locations Waratah Mills Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_17_LRE_Stations_A4.mxd Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: StreetMap - 22/04/2010. Created by: qjchung Preliminary 328,000

DENISON RD

Dulwich Hill City Layouts 328,000

HERCULES ST

NEW CANTERBURY RD ONLY

NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 1:750 (at A4) LEGEND Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 02.5 5 10 15 20 25 30 Elevated Walkway Stairs Date 23 APR 2010 Footpath Track Crossing Metres Inner West Extension 14 Lift Map Projection: Transverse Mercator / Ramp C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA)  Platform Area of Assessment Stop Locations Dulwich Hill Shops Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_17_LRE_Stations_A4.mxd Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: StreetMap - 22/04/2010. Created by: qjchung PreliminaryKEITH LN

WARDELL RD

WARDELL LN

Dulwich Hill City BEDFORD CRES Layouts

ONLY

NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 1:750 (at A4) LEGEND Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 02.5 5 10 15 20 25 30 New Trackwork Stairs Date 23 APR 2010 Elevated Walkway Track Crossing Metres Inner West Extension Lift Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Footpath C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) Platform Area of Assessment Stop Locations Dulwich Hill Interchange Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 

G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_17_LRE_Stations_A4.mxd Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: StreetMap - 22/04/2010. Created by: qjchung Appendix B Assessment of Stop Locations

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study Final Report Inner West Stop Location Assessment / Potential Local Urban Renewal Opportunities – PRELIMINARY DRAFT of 28/4/2010 Summary of Stop Locations

Name Source of Stop Location Assessment Notes / Justification GHD Recommendation

Norton 1 (Norton Street) Metropolitan Transport Plan (MTP) (2010) ● Potentially difficult to construct. Lift shaft access required through City-West Link Road Location not supported by this decking structure. assessment. Consider alternative Investigations undertaken as part of this study have identified superior alternatives (see location (see below). below).

Norton 2 (James Street) GHD (Current), GHD (2001)1 and Arup ●●●● This location offers superior potential for integration with bus services and could be part of a Preferred stop location to be (1998)2 potential local urban renewal opportunity in the disused building along Darley Road. This determined following further stop would be challenging to construct. consideration. No clear preference at this stage of investigation.

Norton 3 (Charles Street) GHD (Current) ●●●● This location offers an easier to construct option but has lower potential for integration with Preferred stop location to be bus services. determined following further consideration. No clear preference at this stage of investigation.

William Street GHD (Current) and Arup (1998) ●●● Potential future stop location in conjunction with local urban renewal opportunity at existing Not supported by this assessment at warehouse building / storage yard site south of Blackmore Park. this stage. Potential to consider in future years.

Allen MTP (2010) ●●●● Location supported with no major issues identified. Preferred stop location.

Marion 1 (South) MTP (2010), GHD (2001) and Arup ●●●● Based on short term drivers, the south side of Marion Street would be preferred with lower Preferred stop location to be (1998) start up costs. determined following further consideration. No clear preference at this stage of investigation.

Marion 2 (North) MTP (2010) ●●●● The north side of Marion Street would be an alternative stop with a potential local urban Preferred stop location to be renewal opportunity. The northern side has better integration with the AM City Bound bus determined following further services. consideration. No clear preference at this stage of investigation.

Kegworth MTP (2010) ●● Stop located less than 300 metres from Marion Street stop, with limited Location not supported by this redevelopment/renewal potential. assessment. Parramatta Road preferred.

Parramatta Road GHD (Current) ●●●● While constructability may be slightly more complex, this location offers more benefits in Preferred stop location (replaces terms of stop spacing, links to employment opportunities, potential local urban renewal Kegworth). opportunities and bus interchange potential.

1 GHD, Pre-feasibility Study to Extend the Light Rail from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill (2001). 2 Arup, Inner West Sydney Light Rail Extension: Stage 2: Lilyfield to Ashfield (1998). 21/19469/158730 Sydney Light Rail Extension Study 1 Inner West Stop Location Assessment / Potential Local Urban Renewal Opportunities - PRELIMINARY DRAFT Name Source of Stop Location Assessment Notes / Justification GHD Recommendation

Lewisham Interchange MTP (2010) ●●●● Key interchange with Lewisham CityRail Station and high potential local urban renewal Preferred stop location to be (North) opportunities. determined following further consideration. No clear preference at The northern location allows for future dedicated pedestrian connections to Lewisham this stage of investigation Station.

Lewisham Interchange MTP (2010) ●●●● Key interchange with Lewisham CityRail Station and high potential local urban renewal Preferred stop location to be (South) opportunities. determined following further consideration. No clear preference at The southern location is closer to potential urban renewal sites would allow more direct this stage of investigation. access to them.

Old Canterbury Road MTP (2010) and GHD (2001) ●●●● Potential for this stop to be part of a local urban renewal opportunity with the Summer Hill Preferred Stop Location (Potential to Flour Mill site. Integrates with buses. defer construction).

Waratah Mills MTP (2010) ●●●● Location supported with no major issues identified. Preferred stop location.

Constitution Road MTP (2010) ●●●● No major issues identified. Includes catchments to the west not included in the catchments of Preferred Stop Location (Potential to adjacent stops. defer construction).

Dulwich Hill Shops MTP (2010) and GHD (2001) ●●●● Location supported with no major issues identified. Preferred stop location.

Dulwich Hill Interchange 1 MTP (2010) and GHD (2001) ●●●● More difficult and costly to construct, but would provide the most direct service to the existing Preferred stop location. (Bedford Crescent) heavy rail station. Easy access interchange to Dulwich Hill Railway Station may be difficult to construct. Impacts on Bedford Crescent require further consideration.

Dulwich Hill Interchange 2 MTP (2010) and GHD (2001) ●●● Easiest to construct, however would offer a poor connection to the existing station. An Easy Alternative stop location to Bedford (Keith Lane) Access interchange with Dulwich Hill Railway Station would be a necessity of the design. Crescent.

Dulwich Hill Interchange 3 GHD (Current) ●● Potential property acquisition and on-street running would be required. Not supported by this assessment. (Keith Street)

21/19469/158730 Sydney Light Rail Extension Study 2 Inner West Stop Location Assessment / Potential Local Urban Renewal Opportunities - PRELIMINARY DRAFT Norton 2 (James Street) (! Norton 3 (Charles Street) (! (!(! Lilyfield (Existing) Norton 1 (Norton Street)

William (!

Allen (!

Marion 2 (North) (! Marion 1 (South) (!

(! Kegworth

(! Parramatta Road

! SUMMER HILL Lewisham Interchange 1 (North) (! Lewisham Interchange 2 (South) (! ! ! LEWISHAM PETERSHAM ! STANMORE (! Old Canterbury Road

(! Waratah Mills

(! Constitution Road

LEGEND Stop locations Dulwich Hill Shops ! Rail Stations (! (! Preferred (Short list) (! Potential Future Stop Extended Light Rail Preferred (Potential to to Dulwich Hill Alternative (! (! defer construction) Existing Railways Roads (! Not Preferred (! Existing Stop

Dulwich Hill Interchange 2 1:20,000 ! 0 100 200 400 600 800 HURLSTONE PARK ( (!Dulwich Hill Interchange 3 ! ! Metres DULWICH HILL (! Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) o Dulwich Hill Interchange 1 Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_26_InnerWest_Extension_Confirmed future Stops.mxd Norton 2 (James Street) (! Norton 3 (Charles Street)(! (!(! Norton 1 (Norton Street) William (!

Allen (!

Marion 2 (North)(! Marion 1 (South) (!

(! Kegworth

(! Parramatta Road

! SUMMER HILL Lewisham Interchange 1 (North) (! Lewisham Interchange 2 (South) (! ! ! LEWISHAM PETERSHAM ! STANMORE (! Old Canterbury Road

(! Waratah Mills

LEGEND Stop Locations Constitution Road (! (! Preferred (Short list) (! Potential Future Stop Preferred (Potential to Not Preferred (! defer construction) (!

(! Alternative (! Existing Stop (! Dulwich Hill Shops ! Rail Stations Roads Extended Light Rail 400m Walking Distance from Stop to Dulwich Hill 800m Walking Distance from Stop Existing Railways

1:20,000 0 100 200 400 600 800 Dulwich Hill Interchange 2 (! Metres HURLSTONE PARK (! Dulwich Hill Interchange 3 Map Projection: Transverse Mercator ! ! Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) DULWICH HILL (! Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 o Dulwich Hill Interchange 1 G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_21_InnerWest_Extension_Walking_CathmentsA4Port.mxd

Norton 1 (Norton Street)

Assessment of Key Attributes Category Sub-Category Indicative Justification / Notes Definition Rating ● ●●●●●

LOCATION - Stop indicatively located in the tunnel under the Norton Street / City West Link intersection - -

STOP REFERENCE TYPE - Base Case - -

STOP SPACING - 830 metres to/from end of existing line (Lilyfield) and 1.1 km to/from Allen stop. - -

ACCESS Pedestrians ●● Good accessibility in the stop’s 400m catchment area, although bisected by major arterial road, which limits access from the north-west. The Low High City West Link Road carried approximately 65,000 AADT in 2005. Potential issues with vertical transport between platform and street level requiring Lift shafts through the decking structure.

Cyclists ●● Good accessibility for cyclists, although constrained by major arterial roads. Low High

PUBLIC TRANSPORT Rail - Not applicable Low High INTERCHANGE

Bus ●●● Opportunity to connect with bus routes L37, 440, 444, 445 on Norton Street. Low High

PRIVATE TRANSPORT Kiss and Ride ●● Limited opportunities on both Norton Street and City West Link Road. Low High INTERCHANGE

Park and Ride ● Limited opportunities – dependent on Council parking schemes. Low High

LAND USE / ZONING Existing - Approximately 80% of the area within 500m radius catchment is zoned residential and about 20% are commercial. Residential units comprised predominantly of single-storey residential cottages on small lots.

2 Potential local urban ●● Several parcels totalling about 5,500 m within the 500m radius catchment area, with a minimum potential floor space yield of approximately Low High renewal opportunities 2,700 m2 (based on maximum allowable floor space ratio of 0.5:1) can be potential local urban renewal opportunities, in addition to infill development.

CONSTRUCTABILITY Time ● It would be difficult to build a stop at this location based on the existing City West Link with few potential entry/exit points, the depth of the line Long Short from the road surface and the narrow width of the cutting.

Cost ● It would be expensive to build a stop at this location based on the existing City West Link with few potential entry/exit points, the depth of the line More Less from the road surface and the narrow width of the cutting. expensive expensive

GREENWAY Red Option - Not applicable COMPATIBILITY Blue Option - Not applicable (WITH STRATEGIC CONCEPTS FOR A COOKS RIVER TO IRON COVE SHARED PATH, 2010) Orange Option - Not applicable

OVERALL ASSESSMENT Location not ●  Difficult to construct. Low High supported.  Consider alternative location for stop.

21/19469/158730 Sydney Light Rail Extension Study 3 Inner West Stop Location Assessment / Potential Local Urban Renewal Opportunities - PRELIMINARY DRAFT WHARF ST

CARRINGTON ST FREDBERT ST THE BOULEVARDE

GROVE ST GLOVER ST CAMPBELL AVE

DOBROYD PARD CHURCH ST MAY ST DOBROYD LN COMMERCIAL RD

MARY ST

FRAZER ST

CRESCENT ST POINT ST PERRY ST JOSEPH ST

PERRY LN

STEWARD ST EMMERICK ST

RAYNER ST HELENA ST GARNET AVE

TREVOR ST EDWARD ST

ERIC ST BALMAIN RD

TILLOCK ST LILYFIELD RD

HENRY ST BRENAN ST

Norton 2 (James Street) Norton 3 (Charles Street)

CITY-WEST LINK RD Norton 1 (Norton Street)

HAWTHORNE PARD PRETORIA ST RUSSELL ST

LONSDALE ST

DERBYSHIRE RD

NORTON ST

FRANCIS ST

HUBERTST PIPER ST

CHARLES ST

ELSWICK ST N

CHARLOTTE ST

FALLS ST

William FLAT ST LEYS AVE DARLEY RD

ALFRED ST AINSWORTH ST

WILLIAM ST ZONING CANAL RD Residential

JAMES ST MOORE ST W Business NORTH ST

ATHOL ST General Industrial ELSWICKST

FLOOD ST MOORE ST WHITING ST MACKENZIE ST Special Uses Open Space

Reservation CATHERINE ST LYALL ST ANNESLEY ST Road Polygons

1:4,000 LEGEND NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 020 40 80 120 160 200 Stop Location Date 04 MAY 2010 Preferred (Short list) Potential Future Stop Extended Light Rail Cadastre Metres to Dulwich Hill Preferred (Potential to Not Preferred Stop buffer (400m) Inner West Extension Map Projection: Transverse Mercator defer construction) Main Bus Routes Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) Existing Stop C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 Alternative Norton 1 (Norton Street) G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_14_LRE_Stations4KMS.mxd DRAFT © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: Street Map - 25/03/2010. Created by: qjchung, bahambly

Norton 2 (James Street)

Assessment of Key Attributes Category Sub-Category Indicative Justification / Notes Definition Rating ● ●●●●●

LOCATION - Stop indicatively placed adjacent to James Street / City West Link intersection - -

STOP REFERENCE TYPE - Alternative Stop to Norton 1 - -

STOP SPACING - 950 metres to/from end of existing line (Lilyfield) and 950 metres to/from Allen stop. - -

ACCESS Pedestrians ●●●● Overall there is good accessibility in the stop’s 400m catchment area, enhanced through the Charles Street pedestrian bridge to the north-west. Low High The City West Link Road carried approximately 65,000 AADT in 2005.

Cyclists ●●●● Good accessibility for cyclists. Low High

PUBLIC TRANSPORT Rail - Not applicable INTERCHANGE

Bus ●●● Opportunity to connect with bus routes L37, 440, 444, 445 or by rerouting these services one block from Norton Street to run via James Street. Low High

PRIVATE TRANSPORT Kiss and Ride ●●● Potential opportunities on Darley Road, however limited on City West Link Road. Low High INTERCHANGE

Park and Ride ●●●● Potential opportunity to create park and ride stop integrated with potential local urban renewal opportunities. Other on-street parking would be Low High dependent on Council parking schemes.

LAND USE / ZONING Existing - Approximately 80% of the area within the 500m radius catchment area is zoned residential and about 20% are commercial. Residential units comprised predominantly of single-storey residential cottages on small lots.

2 Potential local urban ●●●● Several parcels totalling about 5,500 m within the 500m radius catchment area, with a minimum potential floor space yield of approximately Low High renewal opportunities 2,700 m2 (based on maximum allowable floor space ratio of 0.5:1) can be potential local urban renewal opportunities, in addition to potential infill development.

CONSTRUCTABILITY Time ●●● Easier to construct at James Street than under Norton Street. However, constructability of stop platforms is problematic because the City West Long Short Link tunnel dictates the alignment on the eastern approach and the City West Link reinforced earth embankment leaves very little space to easily construct stops east of Hubert Street.

Cost ●●● Opportunities for developing a light rail stop at this location are dependent alignment through and past the City West Link tunnel/embankment More Less and on the acquisition of the property adjoining the rail corridor. expensive expensive

GREENWAY Red Option - Not applicable COMPATIBILITY Blue Option - Not applicable (WITH STRATEGIC CONCEPTS FOR A COOKS RIVER TO IRON COVE SHARED PATH, 2010) Orange Option - Not applicable

OVERALL ASSESSMENT Preferred stop ●●●●  This location is favoured over Norton 1, however it would be very difficult to construct stop platforms. Low High location.  Preferred stop location to be determined following further consideration. No clear preference at this stage of investigation.

21/19469/158730 Sydney Light Rail Extension Study 4 Inner West Stop Location Assessment / Potential Local Urban Renewal Opportunities - PRELIMINARY DRAFT CARRINGTON ST WHARF ST

FREDBERT ST THE BOULEVARDE

GLOVER ST DOBROYD LN CAMPBELL AVE DOBROYD PARD CHURCH ST MAY ST

COMMERCIAL RD

MARY ST

FRAZER ST

CRESCENT ST PERRY ST POINT ST

PERRY LN JOSEPH ST

STEWARD ST EMMERICK ST

RAYNER ST HELENA ST GARNET AVE

TREVOR ST EDWARD ST

KINGSTON ST ERIC ST BALMAIN RD

TILLOCK ST LILYFIELD RD

HENRY ST BRENAN ST

Norton 2 (James Street) Norton 3 (Charles Street)

CITY-WEST LINK RD Norton 1 (Norton Street)

PIPER ST PRETORIA ST

RUSSELL ST

DERBYSHIRE RD

HAWTHORNE PARD

NORTON ST

FRANCIS ST

HUBERTST

CHARLES ST

ELSWICK ST N

CHARLOTTE ST

FALLS ST

William FLAT ST

DARLEY RD ALFRED ST

WILLIAM ST AINSWORTH ST ZONING CANAL RD Residential MOORE ST W JAMES ST

NORTH ST Business

FLOOD ST General Industrial ELSWICKST MOORE ST ATHOL ST WHITING ST MACKENZIE ST Special Uses Open Space Reservation LYALL ST ANNESLEY ST Road Polygons

1:4,000 LEGEND NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 020 40 80 120 160 200 Stop Location Date 04 MAY 2010 Preferred (Short list) Potential Future Stop Extended Light Rail Cadastre Metres to Dulwich Hill Preferred (Potential to Not Preferred Stop buffer (400m) Inner West Extension Map Projection: Transverse Mercator defer construction) Main Bus Routes Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) Existing Stop C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 Alternative Norton 2 (James Street) G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_14_LRE_Stations4KMS.mxd DRAFT © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: Street Map - 25/03/2010. Created by: qjchung, bahambly

Norton 3 (Charles Street)

Assessment of Key Attributes Category Sub-Category Indicative Justification / Notes Definition Rating ● ●●●●●

LOCATION - Alternative stop location would be to the west of Norton Street, located east of the Darley Road / Charles Street intersection - -

STOP REFERENCE TYPE - Alternative Stop to Norton Street - -

STOP SPACING - 1.1 km to/from end of existing line (Lilyfield), 270 metres from Norton 1, and 1.11 km to/from Allen stop. - -

ACCESS Pedestrians ●●●● Overall there is good accessibility in the stop’s 400m catchment area, although slightly limited access from the north-west. There is good Low High accessibility to the south and a pedestrian overbridge to the north.

Cyclists ●●●● Good accessibility for cyclists. Low High

PUBLIC TRANSPORT Rail - Not applicable INTERCHANGE

Bus ● There are no bus routes close to this stop. Low High

PRIVATE TRANSPORT Kiss and Ride ●●● Potential opportunities on Darley Road, however limited on City West Link Road. Low High INTERCHANGE

Park and Ride ●●●● Potential opportunity to create park and ride stop integrated with potential local urban renewal opportunity. Other on-street parking would be Low High dependent on Council parking schemes.

LAND USE / ZONING Existing - Approximately 95% of the 500m radius catchment area is zoned residential and about 5% are commercial. Residential units comprised predominantly of single-storey residential cottages on small lots.

2 2 Potential local urban ●● Several parcels totalling about 30,000 m within the catchment area, with a minimum potential floor space yield of approximately 15,000 m Low High renewal opportunities (based on maximum allowable floor space ratio of 0.5:1) can be potential local urban renewal opportunities, in addition to potential infill development.

CONSTRUCTABILITY Time ●●●●● Easier to construct compared to Norton Street 1 and Norton Street 2 based upon available widths and accessibility to the rail line. Long Short

Cost ●●●●● Opportunities for developing site for light rail stop likely dependent on the acquisition of the property adjoining the rail corridor. More Less expensive expensive

GREENWAY Red Option ● Two-way light rail operations would preclude this GreenWay option. Low High COMPATIBILITY

(WITH STRATEGIC CONCEPTS Blue Option ●●●●● Potential to incorporate GreenWay option on Darley Road and Charles Street. Low High FOR A COOKS RIVER TO IRON COVE SHARED PATH, 2010) Orange Option - Not applicable

OVERALL ASSESSMENT Preferred stop ●●●●  A stop at this location would be much easier to build than at Norton 1 and Norton 2. Low High location.  This location is further away from potential bus connections on Norton Street.

 Preferred stop location to be determined following further consideration. No clear preference at this stage of investigation.

21/19469/158730 Sydney Light Rail Extension Study 5 Inner West Stop Location Assessment / Potential Local Urban Renewal Opportunities - PRELIMINARY DRAFT FREDBERT ST WHARF ST

DOBROYD LN GLOVER ST CAMPBELL AVE DOBROYD PARD CHURCH ST

COMMERCIAL RD

MARY ST FRAZER ST BOOMERANG ST CRESCENT ST

PERRY ST POINT ST HELENA ST

PERRY LN

STEWARD ST EMMERICK ST

RAYNER ST

EDWARD ST LILYFIELD RD DUDLEY ST BALMAIN RD

ERIC ST

LEARMONTH ST

HENRY ST

Norton 2 (James Street) BRENAN ST Norton 3 (Charles Street)

CITY-WEST LINK RD Norton 1 (Norton Street)

KINGSTON ST

DERBYSHIRE RD

HAWTHORNE PARD TILLOCK ST

FRANCIS ST

HUBERTST

CHARLES ST

ELSWICK ST N

CHARLOTTE ST

FALLS ST

William FLAT ST

WARATAH ST DARLEY RD ALFRED ST

WILLIAM ST

CANAL RD TURNER AVE ZONING MOORE ST W NORTON ST Residential

JAMES ST

NORTH ST MOORE ST

ATHOL ST FLOOD ST Business WHITING ST General Industrial Special Uses

BARTON AVE ELSWICKST Open Space LYALL ST ANNESLEY ST Reservation Road Polygons

1:4,000 LEGEND NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 020 40 80 120 160 200 Stop Location Date 04 MAY 2010 Preferred (Short list) Potential Future Stop Extended Light Rail Cadastre Metres to Dulwich Hill Preferred (Potential to Not Preferred Stop buffer (400m) Inner West Extension Map Projection: Transverse Mercator defer construction) Main Bus Routes Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) Existing Stop C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 Alternative Norton 3 (Charles Street) G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_14_LRE_Stations4KMS.mxd DRAFT © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: Street Map - 25/03/2010. Created by: qjchung, bahambly

William Street

Assessment of Key Attributes Category Sub-Category Indicative Justification / Notes Definition Rating ● ●●●●●

LOCATION - Potential future stop location along Darley Road across from William Street, in conjunction with potential local urban renewal opportunities for - - existing warehouse / storage yard south of Blackmore Park.

STOP REFERENCE TYPE - Potential additional future stop location in conjunction with potential local urban renewal opportunity. - -

STOP SPACING - 1.5 km to/from end of existing line (Lilyfield), 720 metres to/from Norton 1 stop, and 360 metres from Allen stop. - -

ACCESS Pedestrians ●●● Primarily residential area across Darley Road. Hawthorne Canal is a barrier to pedestrian accessibility to/from the west. Low High

Cyclists ●●● Good accessibility for cyclists. Low High

PUBLIC TRANSPORT Rail - Not applicable INTERCHANGE

Bus ● There are no bus routes close to this stop. Low High

PRIVATE TRANSPORT Kiss and Ride ●●● Potential opportunities on Darley Road. Low High INTERCHANGE

Park and Ride ●●●● Opportunity to create park and ride stop (accessed via Charles Street) integrated with potential local urban renewal opportunities. Other on- Low High street parking would be dependent on Council parking schemes.

LAND USE / ZONING Existing - Approximately 50% of the 500m radius catchment area is zoned residential and about 50% are special uses. Residential units comprised predominantly of single-storey residential cottages on small lots.

2 Potential local urban ●●●● Several parcels totalling about 35,000 m within the 500m radius catchment area, with a minimum potential floor space yield of approximately Low High renewal opportunities 17,500 m2 (based on maximum allowable floor space ratio of 0.5:1) can be potential local urban renewal opportunities, in addition to potential infill development.

CONSTRUCTABILITY Time ●● Opportunities for developing site for light rail stop likely dependent on land ownership. Long Short

Cost ●●● Access direct from Darley Road, or in conjunction with potential local urban renewal opportunities to west via Canal Road. More Less expensive expensive

GREENWAY Red Option ● Two-way light rail operations would preclude this GreenWay option. Low High COMPATIBILITY

(WITH STRATEGIC CONCEPTS Blue Option ●●●●● Potential to incorporate GreenWay option through Hawthorne Canal Reserve. Low High FOR A COOKS RIVER TO IRON COVE SHARED PATH, 2010) Orange Option ●●●●● Potential to incorporate GreenWay option through Hawthorne Canal Reserve. Low High

OVERALL ASSESSMENT Potential future stop. ●●● Potential future stop location in conjunction with potential local urban renewal opportunity with existing warehouse building / storage yard site Low High south of Blackmore Park.

21/19469/158730 Sydney Light Rail Extension Study 6 Inner West Stop Location Assessment / Potential Local Urban Renewal Opportunities - PRELIMINARY DRAFT STEWARD ST EMMERICK ST

LILYFIELD RD

CRANE AVEMINTO AVE PERRY LN

LEARMONTH ST

LOUDON AVE HENRY ST

Norton 2 (James Street) Norton 3 (Charles Street)

DUDLEY ST Norton 1 (Norton Street) BOOMERANG ST

TILLOCK ST NORTON ST

HUBERTST

CHARLES ST RAWSON ST ELSWICK ST N

HAWTHORNE PARD

FALLS ST

William FLAT ST

WARATAH ST DARLEY RD

DALHOUSIE ST

KINGSTON ST

WILLIAM ST

CANAL RD

TURNER AVE

BARTON AVE

FRANCIS ST

FLOOD ST ATHOL ST WHITING ST JAMES ST

NORTH ST

FORREST ST

LYALL ST ELSWICKST

KALGOORLIE ST ZONING

Residential ARTHUR ST ALLEN ST O'CONNOR ST Allen Business CROMWELL ST General Industrial Special Uses DEAKIN AVE Open Space Reservation

MACAULEY ST EDITH EDITH ST

BURFITT ST BURFITT Road Polygons

1:4,000 LEGEND NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 020 40 80 120 160 200 Stop Location Date 04 MAY 2010 Preferred (Short list) Potential Future Stop Extended Light Rail Cadastre Metres to Dulwich Hill Preferred (Potential to Not Preferred Stop buffer (400m) Inner West Extension Map Projection: Transverse Mercator defer construction) Main Bus Routes Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) Existing Stop C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 Alternative William G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_14_LRE_Stations4KMS.mxd DRAFT © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: Street Map - 25/03/2010. Created by: qjchung, bahambly

Allen

Assessment of Key Attributes Category Sub-Category Indicative Justification / Notes Definition Rating ● ●●●●●

LOCATION - Located northwest of the Allen Street – Darley Road intersection, along the Hawthorne Canal Reserve. - -

STOP REFERENCE TYPE - Base Case - -

STOP SPACING - 1,900 metres from end of existing line (Lilyfield), 1,080 metres from Norton Street stop, and 500 metres from Market Town / Marion Street stop. - -

ACCESS Pedestrians ●●●● Allen Street has good pedestrian access to the east in the stop’s 400m catchment. An existing pedestrian / cycle underpass located at Loftus Low High Street (to the south) and an existing footbridge over the Canal at Loftus Street extend the catchment to the west. There is potential to have another footbridge over the Canal connecting to Barton Avenue.

Cyclists ●●●● Good accessibility for cyclists. Low High

PUBLIC TRANSPORT Rail - Not applicable INTERCHANGE

Bus ● There are no bus routes close to this stop. Low High

PRIVATE TRANSPORT Kiss and Ride ●●● Some opportunity on Darley Road. Some potential on Hawthorne Parade should there be another footbridge over the Canal. Low High INTERCHANGE

Park and Ride ●● Limited opportunities – however potentially some green space on eastern side of the light rail line could be converted into parking, and existing Low High recreational parking for the Hawthorne Canal Reserve could be used as shared commuter parking during weekdays.

LAND USE / ZONING Existing - Approximately 80% of the 500m radius catchment area is zoned residential and about 20% industrial. Dwellings are mainly detached or semi- detached, and generally single storey, however there has also been some consolidation of lots and resultant densification around the proposed stop location.

2 2 Potential local urban ●● Several parcels totalling about 40,000 m within the 500m radius catchment area, with a potential floor space yield of approximately 20,000 m Low High renewal opportunities (based on maximum allowable floor space ratio of 0.5:1) can be potential local urban renewal opportunities, in addition to potential infill development.

CONSTRUCTABILITY Time ●●●● No major issues identified. Long Short

Cost ●●●● No major issues identified. More Less expensive expensive

GREENWAY Red Option ● Two-way light rail operations would preclude this GreenWay option. Low High COMPATIBILITY

(WITH STRATEGIC CONCEPTS Blue Option ●●●●● Potential to incorporate GreenWay option through Hawthorne Canal Reserve. Low High FOR A COOKS RIVER TO IRON COVE SHARED PATH, 2010) Orange Option ●●●●● Potential to incorporate GreenWay option through Hawthorne Canal Reserve. Low High

OVERALL ASSESSMENT Preferred stop ●●●● Location supported with no major issues identified. Low High location.

21/19469/158730 Sydney Light Rail Extension Study 7 Inner West Stop Location Assessment / Potential Local Urban Renewal Opportunities - PRELIMINARY DRAFT ELSWICK ST N

CHARLES ST HUBERTST

TILLOCK ST FALLS ST

William FLAT ST

WARATAH ST

HAWTHORNE PARD

MARTIN ST EMPIRE ST WILLIAM ST

TURNER AVE CANAL RD

JAMES ST BARTON AVE

FRANCIS ST ATHOL ST WHITING ST RAWSON ST

NORTH ST

FORREST ST

LYALL ST ELSWICKST

DALHOUSIE ST

KINGSTON ST KALGOORLIE ST

Allen ALLEN ST O'CONNOR ST

DICKSON ST

DEAKIN AVE

CROMWELL ST

MACAULEY ST

EDITH EDITH ST DARLEY RD DARLEY

DANIEL ST DANIEL CARLISLE ST

ST DAVIDS RD ST BURFITT

TRESSIDER AVE REGENT ST LOFTUS ST LOFTUS

WALTER ST ZONING

MARLBOROUGH ST Residential RAMSAY ST

Business FLOOD FLOOD ST STANTON RD HAWTHORNE ST General Industrial Special Uses FOSTERST Open Space Marion 2 (North) Reservation MARION ST Road Polygons Marion 1 (South)

1:4,000 LEGEND NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 020 40 80 120 160 200 Stop Location Date 04 MAY 2010 Preferred (Short list) Potential Future Stop Extended Light Rail Cadastre Metres to Dulwich Hill Preferred (Potential to Not Preferred Stop buffer (400m) Inner West Extension Map Projection: Transverse Mercator defer construction) Main Bus Routes Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) Existing Stop C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 Alternative Allen G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_14_LRE_Stations4KMS.mxd DRAFT © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: Street Map - 25/03/2010. Created by: qjchung, bahambly

Marion

Assessment of Key Attributes Category Sub-Category Indicative Justification / Notes Definition Rating ● ●●●●●

LOCATION -  Located where the freight rail line crosses Marion Street. - -  Two potential locations identified: – South side of Marion Street (Marion 1) – on embankment adjacent to Lambert Park – North side of Marion Street (Marion 2) – on embankment adjacent to Mazda workshop.

STOP REFERENCE TYPE - Base Case - -

STOP SPACING - 2.42 km to/from end of existing line (Lilyfield), 500 metres from Allen, and 280 metres from Kegworth. - -

ACCESS Pedestrians ●●●● Good east-west connections in the stop’s 400m catchment, primarily via Marion Street. Market Place located approximately 450m to the east. Low High

Cyclists ●●●● Good accessibility for cyclists. Low High

PUBLIC TRANSPORT Rail - Not applicable INTERCHANGE

Bus ●●●● Marion Street is a major bus route to/from the CBD (436, L37, 438, 439, L38, and L39). Morning peak city-bound buses would interchange more Low High efficiently with a light rail stop on the north side (Marion 2). Existing bus stops along Marion Street may need to be moved closer to the light rail line to reduce interchange distances.

PRIVATE TRANSPORT Kiss and Ride ●●●● Potential for some kiss and ride on Marion Street, although this would need to be managed with bus stop locations and pedestrian access to Low High INTERCHANGE light rail stop platforms.

Park and Ride ●●●● Existing recreational parking for the Hawthorne Canal Reserve could be used as commuter parking during weekdays. Low High Potential for park and ride should the Mazda workshop site be developed as a potential local urban renewal opportunity.

LAND USE / ZONING Existing - Approximately 40% of the 500m radius catchment area is zoned residential and about 60% industrial. Dwellings are mainly detached or semi- detached, and generally single storey. There is a multi-storey retirement home to the east of the proposed stop.

2 Potential local urban ●●●● Several parcels totalling about 15,000 m within the 500m radius catchment area, with a minimum potential floor space yield of approximately Low High renewal opportunities 8,000 m2 (based on maximum allowable floor space ratio of 0.5:1) can be potential local urban renewal opportunities, in addition to infill. While there are opportunities on both the north and south sides of Marion Street, the south side offers more compatibility with future land uses based upon parcel size.

CONSTRUCTABILITY Time ●●●● No major issues identified. Long Short

Cost No major issues identified - it would be possible to construct a stop on either the northern or southern side of Marion Street on existing More Less embankments on the eastern side of the line. expensive expensive 1 ●●●● Marion 1 (south side) would allow lower start up costs compared with Marion 2 and could potentially be incorporated into a local urban renewal opportunity. Marion 2 (north side) could potentially be incorporated into a local urban renewal opportunity. 2 ●●●

21/19469/158730 Sydney Light Rail Extension Study 8 Inner West Stop Location Assessment / Potential Local Urban Renewal Opportunities - PRELIMINARY DRAFT

Category Sub-Category Indicative Justification / Notes Definition Rating ● ●●●●●

GREENWAY Red Option ● Two-way light rail operations would preclude this GreenWay option. Low High COMPATIBILITY

(WITH STRATEGIC CONCEPTS Blue Option ●●●● This stop location would not preclude this GreenWay option. Low High FOR A COOKS RIVER TO IRON COVE SHARED PATH, 2010) Orange Option ●●●●● Potential to incorporate GreenWay option through Hawthorne Canal Reserve. Low High

OVERALL ASSESSMENT Preferred stop 1 ●●●● Preferred stop location to be determined following further consideration. No clear preference for Marion 1 or Marion 2 at this stage. Low High location. 2 ●●●●

21/19469/158730 Sydney Light Rail Extension Study 9 Inner West Stop Location Assessment / Potential Local Urban Renewal Opportunities - PRELIMINARY DRAFT DEAKIN AVE Allen GILLIES AVE ALLEN ST DICKSON ST

WINCHCOMBE AVE

MACAULEY ST

KINGSTON ST

DALHOUSIE ST EDITH ST

DENMAN AVE DARLEY RD DARLEY

O'CONNOR ST

DANIEL ST DANIEL CARLISLE ST BURFITT ST BURFITT

TRESSIDER AVE REGENT ST LOFTUS ST LOFTUS

WALTER ST

MARLBOROUGH ST FLOOD FLOOD ST HAWTHORNE ST

STANTON RD Marion 2 (North)

HAWTHORNEPARD MARION ST Marion 1 (South) ST DAVIDS RD

DAY ST

LOGAN AVE NICHOLLS AVE

RAMSAY ST PERCY ST FOSTERST CARY ST

MYRTLE LN DAVIES ST DAVIES

REUSS ST LORDS RD MYRTLE ST

TIDESWELL ST LORD ST EXCELSIOR ST

HABERFIELD RD Kegworth GEORGE ST ZONING ELSWICK ST KEGWORTH ST IVORY LN Residential SEALE ST Business General Industrial HUME HWY KENSINGTON RD SLOANE ST UPWARD ST GOWER ST Special Uses PARRAMATTA RD

NATIONAL ST BEESON ST Open Space TEBBUTT ST ELSWICK LN Reservation Road Polygons ALBERT ST

1:4,000 LEGEND NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 020 40 80 120 160 200 Stop Location Date 04 MAY 2010 Preferred (Short list) Potential Future Stop Extended Light Rail Cadastre Metres to Dulwich Hill Preferred (Potential to Not Preferred Stop buffer (400m) Inner West Extension Map Projection: Transverse Mercator defer construction) Main Bus Routes Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) Existing Stop C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 Alternative Marion G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_14_LRE_Stations4KMS.mxd DRAFT © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: Street Map - 25/03/2010. Created by: qjchung, bahambly

Kegworth

Assessment of Key Attributes Category Sub-Category Indicative Justification / Notes Definition Rating ● ●●●●●

LOCATION - Located where Kegworth Street and Lords Road meet the freight rail line. - -

STOP REFERENCE TYPE - Base Case - -

STOP SPACING - 2.7 km metres to/from end of existing line (Lilyfield), 280m from Marion stop. - -

ACCESS Pedestrians ●● Land use on the western side of the line is predominantly residential, with a footbridge over the Canal, and a pedestrian underpass under the Low High rail line at Lord Street. Perception of personal safety issues due to remote location.

Cyclists ●● Situated along Hawthorne Canal, with bridge connection to west. Low High

PUBLIC TRANSPORT Rail - Not applicable INTERCHANGE

Bus ● There are no bus routes close to this stop. Low High

PRIVATE TRANSPORT Kiss and Ride ●● Some potential on Kegworth Street and on Hawthorne Parade to the west. Low High INTERCHANGE

Park and Ride ●● Limited opportunities – although some potential for park and ride should the site to the north east be developed as a potential local urban Low High renewal opportunity.

LAND USE / ZONING Existing - Approximately 65% of the area within the 500m radius catchment is zoned residential, about 20% industrial and 15% special use. Dwellings are mainly detached or semi-detached, and generally single storey.

2 2 Potential local urban ●●● Several parcels totalling about 35,000 m within the catchment area, with a minimum potential floor space yield of approximately 18,000 m Low High renewal opportunities (based on maximum allowable floor space ratio between 0.5:1 and 1:1) can be potential local urban renewal opportunities, in addition to potential infill development.

CONSTRUCTABILITY Time ●●●● No major issues identified. Long Short

Cost ●●●● No major issues identified. More Less expensive expensive

GREENWAY Red Option ● Two-way light rail operations would preclude this GreenWay option. Low High COMPATIBILITY

(WITH STRATEGIC CONCEPTS Blue Option ●●●● This stop location would not preclude this GreenWay option. Low High FOR A COOKS RIVER TO IRON COVE SHARED PATH, 2010) Orange Option ●●●●● Potential to incorporate GreenWay option through Hawthorne Canal Reserve. Low High

OVERALL ASSESSMENT Location not ●●  Stop located less than 300 metres from Marion Street stop, with limited redevelopment/renewal potential. Low High supported.  Parramatta Road located 330 metres to the south, and offers higher interchange potential.

 Consider alternative stop location.

21/19469/158730 Sydney Light Rail Extension Study 10 Inner West Stop Location Assessment / Potential Local Urban Renewal Opportunities - PRELIMINARY DRAFT REGENT ST

TRESSIDER AVE

DANIEL ST DANIEL

LOFTUS ST LOFTUS DARLEY RD DARLEY

WALTER ST

MARLBOROUGH ST BURFITT ST BURFITT

HAWTHORNE ST EDITH EDITH ST

DALHOUSIE ST

Marion 2 (North)

MARION ST

ST DAVIDS RD Marion 1 (South) O'CONNOR ST

DAY ST

LOGAN AVE

NICHOLLS AVE HAWTHORNE PARD

RAMSAY ST PERCY ST FOSTERST CARY ST

MYRTLE LN DAVIES ST DAVIES STANTON RD

REUSS ST LORDS RD MYRTLE ST

TIDESWELL ST LORD ST EXCELSIOR ST

HABERFIELD RD Kegworth

ELSWICK ST

KEGWORTH ST

SEALE ST

HUME HWY

NATIONAL ST

BEESON ST TEBBUTT ST

UPWARD ST ELSWICK LN

FLOOD ST

IVORY LN

PARRAMATTA RD

GOWER ST ALBERT ST SUNNING PL HATHERN ST

GEORGE ST EASTER ST ZONING MCALEER ST Parramatta Road Residential SLOANE ST ANDREAS ST Business KENSINGTON RD General Industrial

PARK ST Special Uses Open Space CARLTON CRES BOGAN ST GROSVENOR CRES STATION ST DOVER ST Reservation

WEST ST COOK ST Road Polygons FRENCH LN BROWN ST NESTOR LN

1:4,000 LEGEND NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 020 40 80 120 160 200 Stop Location Date 04 MAY 2010 Preferred (Short list) Potential Future Stop Extended Light Rail Cadastre Metres to Dulwich Hill Preferred (Potential to Not Preferred Stop buffer (400m) Inner West Extension Map Projection: Transverse Mercator defer construction) Main Bus Routes Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) Existing Stop C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 Alternative Kegworth G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_14_LRE_Stations4KMS.mxd DRAFT © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: Street Map - 25/03/2010. Created by: qjchung, bahambly

Parramatta Road

Assessment of Key Attributes Category Sub-Category Indicative Justification / Notes Definition Rating ● ●●●●●

LOCATION - Potentially located to the north of Parramatta Road. - -

STOP REFERENCE TYPE - Alternative stop location to Kegworth. - -

STOP SPACING - 3.03 km metres to/from end of existing line (Lilyfield), 610 metres from Marion, and 320 metres from Lewisham Interchange. - -

ACCESS Pedestrians ●●●● Mixture of residential and commercial properties, offering a potentially larger employment catchment than the Kegworth location. Low High There is a pedestrian bridge over Parramatta Road, which increases the 400m catchment area on the eastern side of the stop. Access to the west would link to buses.

Cyclists ●●● Shared path along Hawthorne Canal. Low High Parramatta Road not a cyclist friendly environment.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT Rail - Not applicable INTERCHANGE

Bus ●●●● High potential to interchange with Parramatta Road bus routes (461, 480, 483). Low High

PRIVATE TRANSPORT Kiss and Ride ●●● Moderate potential for kiss and ride on Parramatta Road although would need to be managed with bus stop locations and pedestrian access to Low High INTERCHANGE light rail stop platforms.

Park and Ride ● Limited opportunities – likely dependent on Council parking schemes, unless through redevelopment of nearby properties. Low High

LAND USE / ZONING Existing - Approximately 40% of the 500m radius catchment area is zoned residential and about 60% industrial. Dwellings are mainly detached or semi- detached, and generally single storey.

2 2 Potential local urban ●●●● Several parcels totalling about 33,000 m within the catchment area, with a minimum potential floor space yield of approximately 19,000 m Low High renewal opportunities (based on maximum allowable floor space ratio between 0.5:1 and 1:1) can be potential local urban renewal opportunities, in addition to potential infill development.

CONSTRUCTABILITY Time ●●●● No major issues identified. Long Short

Cost ●●● Potentially constrained by high elevation of the rail corridor. Need for pedestrian access bridge to platform isolated by railway line. More Less There could potentially be some traffic impacts on Parramatta Road during construction. More detailed stop location and constructability work expensive expensive would need to be undertaken.

GREENWAY Red Option ● Two-way light rail operations would preclude this GreenWay option. Low High COMPATIBILITY

(WITH STRATEGIC CONCEPTS Blue Option ●●●● This stop location would not preclude this GreenWay option. Low High FOR A COOKS RIVER TO IRON COVE SHARED PATH, 2010) Orange Option ●●●●● Potential to incorporate GreenWay option through Hawthorne Canal Reserve. Low High

OVERALL ASSESSMENT Preferred stop ●●●● While constructability may be slightly more complex than Kegworth, this location offers more benefits in terms of stop spacing, links to Low High location. employment opportunities, potential local urban renewal opportunities and bus interchange possibilities.

21/19469/158730 Sydney Light Rail Extension Study 11 Inner West Stop Location Assessment / Potential Local Urban Renewal Opportunities - PRELIMINARY DRAFT EDITH ST

NICHOLLS AVE HAWTHORNE PARD PERCY ST

RAMSAY ST CARY ST

O'CONNOR ST FOSTERST

MYRTLE LN DAVIES ST DAVIES STANTON RD REUSS ST

LORDS RD MYRTLE ST

TIDESWELL ST LORD ST

HABERFIELD RD Kegworth

EXCELSIOR ST

ELSWICK ST HUME HWY KEGWORTH ST

SEALE ST

NATIONAL ST

BEESON ST TEBBUTT ST

UPWARD ST ELSWICK LN

FLOOD ST

IVORY LN JARRETT ST

PARRAMATTA RD

GOWER ST ALBERT ST

SUNNING PL HATHERN ST

GEORGE ST EASTER ST MCALEER ST Parramatta Road SLOANE ST

KENSINGTON RD

PARK ST

BOGAN ST ANDREAS ST

HAIG AVE

CARRINGTON ST NESTOR LN FRENCH LN COOK ST DOVER ST GROSVENOR CRES

CARLTON CRES STATION ST

BROWN ST ST JOHN ST

HARDIEAVE LOTUS LN BARKER ST LACKEY ST ZONING WENTWORTH ST

FLEET ST LOTUS ST Residential SMITH ST WEST ST BRIGHTON LN Business Lewisham Interchange 1 (North) THOMAS ST BRIGHTON ST General Industrial

THE AVE Special Uses LONGPORT ST

Lewisham Interchange 2 (South) OLD CANTERBURY RD Open Space MORRIS ST Reservation NOWRANIE ST RAILWAY TRC

MOONBIE ST WILLIAM ST SEARL ST LORNE ST SPENCER ST Road Polygons

1:4,000 LEGEND NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 020 40 80 120 160 200 Stop Location Date 04 MAY 2010 Preferred (Short list) Potential Future Stop Extended Light Rail Cadastre Metres to Dulwich Hill Preferred (Potential to Not Preferred Stop buffer (400m) Inner West Extension Map Projection: Transverse Mercator defer construction) Main Bus Routes Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) Existing Stop C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 Alternative Parramatta Road G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_14_LRE_Stations4KMS.mxd DRAFT © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: Street Map - 25/03/2010. Created by: qjchung, bahambly

Lewisham Interchange

Assessment of Key Attributes Category Sub-Category Indicative Justification / Notes Definition Rating ● ●●●●●

LOCATION - There are two minor variations of a stop at Lewisham Interchange, located approximately 260m to the west of Lewisham CityRail Station: - -

 Option 1: North side of Longport Street.

 Option 2: South side of Longport Street.

STOP REFERENCE TYPE - Base Case - -

STOP SPACING - North side: 3.4 km to/from end of existing line (Lilyfield), 650 metres to/from Kegworth or 320 metres to/from Parramatta Road. - - South side: 3.5 km to/from end of existing line (Lilyfield), 750 metres to/from Kegworth or 420 metres to/from Parramatta Road.

ACCESS Pedestrians ●●●● Good east-west pedestrian access to proposed stop, although the heavy rail line presents a barrier to some north-south pedestrian movement. Low High Lewisham CityRail Station is within the 400m catchment from the stop. A stop at this location would serve the northern part of the Summer Hill Flour Mill site and potential Lewisham Towers (proposed at the corner of Old Canterbury Road and Longport Street).

Cyclists ●●● Shared path to/from Hawthorne Canal. Low High

PUBLIC TRANSPORT Rail ●●●● Key interchange with the Western Rail Line, facilitating interfaces with east-west travel on the heavy rail network, although 200-300m away. Low High INTERCHANGE This would potentially require works to construct a dedicated pedestrian link to Lewisham Station. This should be subject to a more detailed investigation and would need to address associated safety issues. The northern option allows more opportunity to connect to Lewisham Station.

Bus ● Limited bus interchange potential for either option, although could potentially reroute bus route 413 via Longport Street. Low High

PRIVATE TRANSPORT Kiss and Ride ●● Limited opportunities on Longport Street for either option. Low High INTERCHANGE

Park and Ride ●● Limited on-street opportunities unless through redevelopment of nearby properties for either option. Low High

LAND USE / ZONING Existing - Approximately 50% of the 500m radius catchment area is zoned residential and about 50% industrial. Dwellings are mainly detached or semi- detached, and generally single storey.

2 Potential local urban ●●●●● Several parcels totalling about 70,000 m within the 500m radius catchment area, with a minimum potential floor space yield of approximately Low High renewal opportunities 65,000 m2 (based on maximum allowable floor space ratio between 0.5:1 and 1:1) can be potential local urban renewal opportunities, in addition to potential infill development.

CONSTRUCTABILITY Time ●●●● No major issues identified for either option. Long Short

Cost ●●●● No major issues identified for either option - there is adequate space for construction access to the east of the existing line. More Less expensive expensive

GREENWAY Red Option ● Two-way light rail operations would preclude this GreenWay route option. Low High COMPATIBILITY

(WITH STRATEGIC CONCEPTS Blue Option ●●●●● Potential to incorporate GreenWay route options. Low High FOR A COOKS RIVER TO IRON COVE SHARED PATH, 2010) Orange Option ●●●●● Potential to incorporate GreenWay route options. Low High

21/19469/158730 Sydney Light Rail Extension Study 12 Inner West Stop Location Assessment / Potential Local Urban Renewal Opportunities - PRELIMINARY DRAFT

Category Sub-Category Indicative Justification / Notes Definition Rating ● ●●●●●

OVERALL ASSESSMENT Preferred stop ●●●●  Key interchange with Lewisham CityRail Station. Low High location.  High potential local urban renewal opportunity potential.

 The northern option allows for future dedicated pedestrian connections to Lewisham Station.

 The southern option is closer to potential urban renewal sites would allow more direct access to them.

 Preferred stop location to be determined following further consideration. No clear preference at this stage.

21/19469/158730 Sydney Light Rail Extension Study 13 Inner West Stop Location Assessment / Potential Local Urban Renewal Opportunities - PRELIMINARY DRAFT HAWTHORNE PARD

ALBERT ST SUNNING PL GOWER ST HATHERN ST TEBBUTT ST

UPWARD ST EASTER ST

MCALEER ST FLOOD ST

Parramatta Road GEORGE ST SLOANE ST PARRAMATTA RD

KENSINGTON RD

PARK ST

BOGAN ST

ANDREAS ST HAIG AVE

FRENCH LN NESTOR LN DOVER ST GROSVENOR CRES COOK ST

CARLTON CRES

STATION ST BROWN ST ST JOHN ST

LACKEY ST

HARDIEAVE LOTUS LN BARKER ST

WENTWORTH ST

FLEET ST LOTUS ST SMITH ST SHORT ST Lewisham Interchange 1 (North) THOMAS ST

THE AVE

LONGPORT ST BRIGHTON ST Lewisham Interchange 2 (South)

WILLIAM ST

SEARL ST LORNE ST JUBILEE ST JUBILEE LN

CARRINGTON ST SPENCER ST REGENT ST RAILWAY TRC HUDSON ST

HOBBS ST

WELLESLEY ST VICTORIA LN

TOOTHILL LN TRAFALGAR ST NELSON PL

MORRIS ST MCGILL ST

Old Canterbury Road VICTORIA ST EDWARD ST EDWARD ZONING SADLIER CRES

NOWRANIE ST Residential SUMMERHILL ST JUNCTION RD OLD CANTERBURY RD TOOTHILL ST HUNTER ST WEST ST GORDON ST Business BLAIRGOWRIE ST DENISON RD General Industrial EDWARD LN Special Uses FAIRMOUNT ST FRED ST THE BOULEVARDE Open Space

MOONBIE ST Reservation BENHAM ST NEW CANTERBURY RD

HERBERT ST Road Polygons

WESTON ST WESTON

WINDSOR LN WINDSOR WINDSOR RD WINDSOR

1:4,000 LEGEND NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 020 40 80 120 160 200 Stop Location Date 04 MAY 2010 Preferred (Short list) Potential Future Stop Extended Light Rail Cadastre Metres to Dulwich Hill Preferred (Potential to Not Preferred Stop buffer (400m) Inner West Extension Map Projection: Transverse Mercator defer construction) Main Bus Routes Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) Existing Stop C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 Alternative Lewisham Interchange G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_14_LRE_Stations4KMS.mxd DRAFT © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: Street Map - 25/03/2010. Created by: qjchung, bahambly

Old Canterbury Road

Assessment of Key Attributes Category Sub-Category Indicative Justification / Notes Definition Rating ● ●●●●●

LOCATION - This stop would be just to the north of the Old Canterbury Road bridge. - -

STOP REFERENCE TYPE - Base Case - -

STOP SPACING - 3.7 km to/from end of existing line (Lilyfield), 350 metres from Lewisham Interchange. - -

ACCESS Pedestrians ●●●● Old Canterbury Road provides good east-west access for the stop’s 400m catchment. Direct pedestrian access will need to be considered Low High to/from potential urban renewal sites in the vicinity of the stop.

Cyclists ●●● Good accessibility for cyclists. Low High

PUBLIC TRANSPORT Rail - Not applicable INTERCHANGE

Bus ●● Some bus interchange potential (Bus route 413 along Old Canterbury Road). Low High

PRIVATE TRANSPORT Kiss and Ride ●● Limited opportunities on Old Canterbury Road. Low High INTERCHANGE

Park and Ride ●●●● Opportunity to create park and ride stop integrated with potential local urban renewal opportunity. Other on-street parking would be dependent Low High on Council parking schemes.

LAND USE / ZONING Existing - Approximately 20% of the 500m radius catchment area is zoned residential (single storey), 5% two storey multi unit buildings and 25% three storey multi unit buildings, with about 50% industrial.

2 Potential local urban ●●●● Several parcels totalling about 55,000 m are within the 500m radius catchment area, with a minimum potential floor space yield of Low High renewal opportunities approximately 55,000 m2 (based on maximum allowable floor space ratio of 1:1) and which can be potential local urban renewal opportunities.

CONSTRUCTABILITY Time ●●●● No major issues identified. Long Short

Cost ●●●● Stop would potentially be accessed from Old Canterbury Road and the Summer Hill Flour Mill site. More Less Alternatively, construction access could be in conjunction with potential local urban renewal opportunity of site along McGill Street. expensive expensive

GREENWAY Red Option ● Two-way light rail operations would preclude this GreenWay option. Low High COMPATIBILITY

(WITH STRATEGIC CONCEPTS Blue Option ●●●●● Potential to incorporate GreenWay option. Low High FOR A COOKS RIVER TO IRON COVE SHARED PATH, 2010) Orange Option ●●●●● Potential to incorporate GreenWay option. Low High

OVERALL ASSESSMENT Preferred Stop ●●●●  Potential for this stop to be part of a local urban renewal opportunity with the Summer Hill Flour Mill site. Low High Location (Potential to  Potential to defer construction. defer construction).

21/19469/158730 Sydney Light Rail Extension Study 14 Inner West Stop Location Assessment / Potential Local Urban Renewal Opportunities - PRELIMINARY DRAFT GROSVENOR CRES COOK ST

CARLTON CRES DOVER ST ST JOHN ST

BROWN ST

HARDIEAVE BARKER ST LACKEY ST

WENTWORTH ST SMITH ST FLEET ST Lewisham Interchange 1 (North) SHORT ST THOMAS ST

LONGPORT ST Lewisham Interchange 2 (South)

LINDSAYAVE WILLIAM ST LORNE ST

BARTLETT ST JUBILEE LN JUBILEE ST DRYNAN ST

CARRINGTON ST SPENCER ST RAILWAY TRC HUDSON ST REGENT ST

HOBBS ST

WELLESLEY ST VICTORIA LN

TOOTHILL LN

MORRIS ST MCGILL ST

HENSON ST

Old Canterbury Road WEST ST EDWARD ST EDWARD

NOWRANIE ST JUNCTION RD SUMMERHILL ST HUNTER ST

BLAIRGOWRIE ST DENISON RD

EDWARD LN

FRED ST THE BOULEVARDE

MOONBIE ST HERBERT ST BENHAM ST

FAIRMOUNT ST WINDSOR LN WINDSOR

TOOTHILL ST ROSEDALE ST

JAMES ST HAMPSTEAD RD ZONING

WARDELL RD

ELTHAM ST Residential

MADDOCK ST GOULD LN Business WINDSOR RD WESTON ST CONSTITUTION RD General Industrial

OLD CANTERBURY RD VICTORIA ST

SpecialALLANSAVE Uses NEW CANTERBURY RD MORGAN ST DAVIS ST GOULD AVE Open Space GELDING ST VERNON ST Reservation Waratah Mills Road Polygons MANCHESTER ST

BISHOP ST

1:4,000 LEGEND NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 020 40 80 120 160 200 Stop Location Date 04 MAY 2010 Preferred (Short list) Potential Future Stop Extended Light Rail Cadastre Metres to Dulwich Hill Preferred (Potential to Not Preferred Stop buffer (400m) Inner West Extension Map Projection: Transverse Mercator defer construction) Main Bus Routes Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) Existing Stop C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 Alternative Old Canterbury Road G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_14_LRE_Stations4KMS.mxd DRAFT © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: Street Map - 25/03/2010. Created by: qjchung, bahambly

Waratah Mills

Assessment of Key Attributes Category Sub-Category Indicative Justification / Notes Definition Rating ● ●●●●●

LOCATION - Located where Davis Street crosses the freight rail line. - -

STOP REFERENCE TYPE - Base Case - -

STOP SPACING - 4.2 km to/from end of existing line (Lilyfield), 500 metres to/from Old Canterbury Road. - -

ACCESS Pedestrians ●●●● Good connectivity with the surrounding residential area via Davis Street, Weston Street and Hoskins Park in the stop’s 400m catchment. Low High

Cyclists ●●● Good accessibility for cyclists. Low High

PUBLIC TRANSPORT Rail - Not applicable INTERCHANGE

Bus ● There are no bus routes close to this stop. Low High

PRIVATE TRANSPORT Kiss and Ride ● Limited opportunities on Davis Street. Low High INTERCHANGE

Park and Ride ● Limited on-street opportunities – likely dependent on Council parking schemes. Low High

LAND USE / ZONING Existing - Approximately 65% of the 500m radius catchment area is zoned residential (single storey), 20% two storey multi unit buildings, with about 15% industrial.

2 Potential local urban ●● Several parcels totalling about 15,000 m are within the 500 metre radius catchment area, with a minimum potential floor space yield of Low High renewal opportunities approximately 10,000 m2 (based on maximum allowable floor space ratio of between 0.7:1 and 1:1) and which can be potential local urban renewal opportunities. Additional potential would come from infill redevelopment.

CONSTRUCTABILITY Time ●●●● No major issues identified. Long Short

Cost ●●●● No major issues identified - at grade access via Weston Street. More Less expensive expensive

GREENWAY Red Option ● Two-way light rail operations would preclude this GreenWay option. Low High COMPATIBILITY

(WITH STRATEGIC CONCEPTS Blue Option ●●●●● Potential to incorporate GreenWay option. Low High FOR A COOKS RIVER TO IRON COVE SHARED PATH, 2010) Orange Option ●●●●● Potential to incorporate GreenWay option. Low High

OVERALL ASSESSMENT Preferred stop ●●●● Location supported with no major issues identified. Low High location.

21/19469/158730 Sydney Light Rail Extension Study 15 Inner West Stop Location Assessment / Potential Local Urban Renewal Opportunities - PRELIMINARY DRAFT SPENCER ST

Old Canterbury Road

MORRIS ST JUNCTION RD ST EDWARD

NOWRANIE ST SUMMERHILL ST

BLAIRGOWRIE ST

CLISSOLD ST EDWARD LN

FRED ST

MOONBIE ST TOOTHILL ST BENHAM ST HERBERT ST

FAIRMOUNT ST WINDSOR LN WINDSOR

ROSEDALE ST

JAMES ST HAMPSTEAD RD

HENSON ST VICTORIA ST

ROSEMOUNTAVE

ELTHAM ST

MADDOCK ST SEAVIEW ST WESTON ST GOULD LN

NEW CANTERBURY RD

GELDING ST CONSTITUTION RD DAVIS ST VERNON ST HURLSTONE AVE Waratah Mills

DENISON RD ABERGELDIE ST

GOULD AVE TERRY RD

MANCHESTER ST MORTON AVE

PROSPECT RD

THE BOULEVARDE WINDSOR RD

OLD CANTERBURY RD HILL ST FRAZER ST

ARLINGTON ST CONSTITUTION LN

GROVE ST ZONINGYULE ST PIGOTT ST DIXSON AVE Residential Constitution Road Business DULWICH ST

HUGH AVE LEWISHAM ST UNION LN General Industrial

FAIRFOWL ST

UNION ST Special Uses JOHNSON AVE Open Space Reservation ELIZABETH AVE WILLIAMS PARD Road Polygons

1:4,000 LEGEND NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 020 40 80 120 160 200 Stop Location Date 04 MAY 2010 Preferred (Short list) Potential Future Stop Extended Light Rail Cadastre Metres to Dulwich Hill Preferred (Potential to Not Preferred Stop buffer (400m) Inner West Extension Map Projection: Transverse Mercator defer construction) Main Bus Routes Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) Existing Stop C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 Alternative Waratah Mills G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_14_LRE_Stations4KMS.mxd DRAFT © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: Street Map - 25/03/2010. Created by: qjchung, bahambly

Constitution Road

Assessment of Key Attributes Category Sub-Category Indicative Justification / Notes Definition Rating ● ●●●●●

LOCATION - Located just north of the Constitution Road bridge. - -

STOP REFERENCE TYPE - Base Case - -

STOP SPACING - 4.66 km to/from end of existing line (Lilyfield), 440 metres to/from Waratah Mills. - -

ACCESS Pedestrians ●●●● Constitution Road provides good east-west access in the stop’s 400m catchment. The stop is also close to Arlington Recreational Reserve and Low High Johnson Park.

Cyclists ●●● Good accessibility for cyclists. Low High

PUBLIC TRANSPORT Rail - Not applicable INTERCHANGE

Bus ● There are no bus routes close to this stop. Low High

PRIVATE TRANSPORT Kiss and Ride ● Limited opportunities on Constitution Road. Low High INTERCHANGE

Park and Ride ●● Limited on or off-street opportunities unless through redevelopment of nearby properties. Low High

LAND USE / ZONING Existing - Approximately 25% of the 500m radius catchment area is zoned residential (single storey), 25% two storey multi unit buildings and 50% three storey multi unit buildings.

2 Potential local urban ●● Several parcels totalling about 25,000 m are within the 500 metre radius catchment area, with a minimum potential floor space yield of Low High renewal opportunities approximately 20,000 m2 (based on maximum allowable floor space ratio of between 0.7:1 and 1:1), which can be potential local urban renewal opportunities. Additional opportunities will likely come from infill redevelopment.

CONSTRUCTABILITY Time ●●●● No major issues identified. Long Short

Cost ●●●● No major issues identified - at grade access via Constitution Road. More Less expensive expensive

GREENWAY Red Option ● Two-way light rail operations would preclude this GreenWay option. Low High COMPATIBILITY

(WITH STRATEGIC CONCEPTS Blue Option ●●●● Potential to incorporate GreenWay option. Low High FOR A COOKS RIVER TO IRON COVE SHARED PATH, 2010) Orange Option ●●●●● Potential to incorporate GreenWay option. Low High

OVERALL ASSESSMENT Preferred Stop ●●●●  Potential to defer construction. Low High Location (Potential to defer construction).

21/19469/158730 Sydney Light Rail Extension Study 16 Inner West Stop Location Assessment / Potential Local Urban Renewal Opportunities - PRELIMINARY DRAFT HAMPSTEAD RD SEAVIEW ST MADDOCK ST

WESTON ST

GELDING ST ELTHAM ST DAVIS ST HURLSTONE AVE VICTORIA ST Waratah Mills

DENISON RD

TERRY RD

MORTON AVE GOULD AVE MANCHESTER ST

PROSPECT RD

THE BOULEVARDE WINDSOR RD FRAZER ST OLD CANTERBURY RD HILL ST

PIGOTT ST ARLINGTON ST CONSTITUTION LN YULE ST

GROVE ST

DIXSON AVE LEWISHAM ST Constitution Road DULWICH ST

HUGH AVE UNION LN

ABERGELDIE ST HERBERT ST

JOHNSON AVE CONSTITUTION RD

ELIZABETH AVE

FAIRFOWL ST PILE ST

FINDLAYS LN

WILLIAMS PARD WILLIAMS CHARLECOT ST LOFTUS ST

COBAR ST UNION ST FAIRFOWL LN

JESMOND AVE

KROOMBIT ST DURHAM LN ROSS ST Dulwich Hill Shops BARNSBURY GRV CLARGO ST ZONING

Residential MAY ST DURHAM ST MARRICKVILLE RD Business PEARCE LN KINTORE ST CONSETT ST General Industrial NEW CANTERBURY RD Special Uses

MYRA RD BEACH RD GARNET ST TERRACE LN MELFORD ST HERCULES ST MACARTHUR PARD Open Space WOODSIDE AVE Reservation Road Polygons FERNHILL ST GARNET LN TERRACE RD CANONBURY GRV WARDELL RD

1:4,000 LEGEND NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 020 40 80 120 160 200 Stop Location Date 04 MAY 2010 Preferred (Short list) Potential Future Stop Extended Light Rail Cadastre Metres to Dulwich Hill Preferred (Potential to Not Preferred Stop buffer (400m) Inner West Extension Map Projection: Transverse Mercator defer construction) Main Bus Routes Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) Existing Stop C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 Alternative Consitiution Road G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_14_LRE_Stations4KMS.mxd DRAFT © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: Street Map - 25/03/2010. Created by: qjchung, bahambly

Dulwich Hill Shops

Assessment of Key Attributes Category Sub-Category Indicative Justification / Notes Definition Rating ● ●●●●●

LOCATION - This stop would potentially be located between New Canterbury Road and Hercules Street. - -

STOP REFERENCE TYPE - Base Case - -

STOP SPACING - 4.98 km to/from end of existing line (Lilyfield), 320 metres to/from Constitution Road. - -

ACCESS Pedestrians ●●●● A stop with access points to both New Canterbury Road and Hercules Street provides a 400m walking catchment extending in all directions. Low High Dulwich Hill Public School is immediately to the south of Hercules Street. Potential for a new signalised pedestrian crossing of New Canterbury Road.

Cyclists ●●● Good accessibility for cyclists. Low High

PUBLIC TRANSPORT Rail - Not applicable INTERCHANGE

Bus ●●●● New Canterbury Road is a major bus route (418, 428, L28, 444, 445). Interchange could be facilitated with installation of a new signalised Low High pedestrian crossing of New Canterbury Road.

PRIVATE TRANSPORT Kiss and Ride ●●●● High potential on New Canterbury Road, and some kiss-and-ride bays may be provided along Hercules Street. Low High INTERCHANGE

Park and Ride ●●● Opportunity for park-and-ride can be provided through existing angle parking spaces along Consett Street and along Terrace Road. Low High Otherwise limited unless through redevelopment of nearby properties.

LAND USE / ZONING Existing - Approximately 10% of the 500m radius catchment area is zoned residential (single storey), 20% two storey multi unit buildings, 50% three storey multi unit buildings and with approximately 10% commercial and 10% industrial.

2 Potential local urban ●● Several parcels totalling about 25,000 m are within the 500m radius catchment area, with a minimum potential floor space yield of Low High renewal opportunities approximately 20,000 m2 (based on maximum allowable floor space ratio of between 0.7:1 and 1:1) can be potential local urban renewal opportunities.

CONSTRUCTABILITY Time ●●● No major issues identified – potentially longer due to slope protection works. Long Short

Cost ●●● No major issues identified - the site is potentially accessible from the north or south for construction traffic. More Less expensive expensive

GREENWAY Red Option ● Two-way light rail operations would preclude this GreenWay option. Low High COMPATIBILITY

(WITH STRATEGIC CONCEPTS Blue Option ●●●●● Potential to incorporate GreenWay option. Low High FOR A COOKS RIVER TO IRON COVE SHARED PATH, 2010) Orange Option ●●●●● Potential to incorporate GreenWay option. Low High

OVERALL ASSESSMENT Preferred stop ●●●● Location supported with no major issues identified. Low High location.

21/19469/158730 Sydney Light Rail Extension Study 17 Inner West Stop Location Assessment / Potential Local Urban Renewal Opportunities - PRELIMINARY DRAFT HILL ST FRAZER ST

ARLINGTON ST PIGOTT ST

CONSTITUTION LN

THE BOULEVARDE

GROVE ST YULE ST

DIXSON AVE LEWISHAM ST Constitution Road DULWICH ST

HUGH AVE UNION LN

ABERGELDIE ST

OLD CANTERBURY RD HERBERT ST

JOHNSON AVE DENISON RD

CONSTITUTION RD ELIZABETH AVE

FAIRFOWL ST PILE ST

FINDLAYS LN SEAVIEW ST

COBAR ST PARD WILLIAMS LOFTUS ST

UNION ST FAIRFOWL LN CHARLECOT ST LINCOLN ST

JESMOND AVE

KROOMBIT ST ROSS ST DURHAM LN Dulwich Hill Shops BARNSBURY GRV

CLARGO ST MARRICKVILLE RD

MAY ST DURHAM ST

PEARCE LN KINTORE ST CONSETT ST NEW CANTERBURY RD

WOODSIDE AVE

BARTON AVE TERRACE RD

BARRE ST GARNET LN MYRA RD HERCULES LN WARDELL RD

BLACKWOOD AVE BEACH RD BLACKWOOD LN

GARNET ST

CRAWFORD PL

WALLACE LN WALLACE AVE TERRACE LN ZONING

DARLEY ST Residential SHORT ST PINE ST Business HARNEY ST MARGARET ST MYRA LN General Industrial HERCULES ST Special Uses MARCIA ST MACARTHUR PARD Open Space DUNTROON ST FERNHILL ST CRINAN ST Reservation

CANONBURY GRV HAMPDEN ST THE PARD Road Polygons

1:4,000 LEGEND NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 020 40 80 120 160 200 Stop Location Date 04 MAY 2010 Preferred (Short list) Potential Future Stop Extended Light Rail Cadastre Metres to Dulwich Hill Preferred (Potential to Not Preferred Stop buffer (400m) Inner West Extension Map Projection: Transverse Mercator defer construction) Main Bus Routes Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) Existing Stop C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 Alternative Dulwich Hill Shops G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_14_LRE_Stations4KMS.mxd DRAFT © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: Street Map - 25/03/2010. Created by: qjchung, bahambly

Dulwich Hill Interchange

Assessment of Key Attributes Category Sub-Category Indicative Justification / Notes Definition Rating ● ●●●●●

LOCATION -  Three potential locations have been identified in the Dulwich Hill precinct: - - – Option 1: Terminus in Bedford Crescent (high intervention with good connectivity to Dulwich Hill CityRail Station). – Option 2: Terminus in the rail cutting near Macarthur Parade and Keith Lane (low intervention with low connectivity to Dulwich Hill CityRail Station). – Option 3: Terminus in Keith Street near Wardell Road (high intervention with adequate integration into Dulwich Hill station precinct).

STOP REFERENCE TYPE - Base Case - -

STOP SPACING - 5.64 km to/from end of existing line (Lilyfield), 660 metres to/from Dulwich Hill Shops. - -

ACCESS Pedestrians ●●●● Residential walk-up catchment exists around Dulwich Hill Stop and heavy rail station. While the existing rail corridors present a barrier to some Low High pedestrian movements, Wardell Road extends the 400m walking catchment in a north-south direction.

Cyclists ●●● Good accessibility for cyclists. Low High

PUBLIC TRANSPORT Rail ●●●●● High interchange potential with Bankstown Line on the CityRail network, however there is a potential limitation as Dulwich Hill Station only has INTERCHANGE access by stairs and does not currently allow for disabled / Easy Access.

Bus ●● Dulwich Hill CityRail Station interfaces with bus route 412, however the stop is located to the south of the existing rail line. Low High

PRIVATE TRANSPORT Kiss and Ride 1 ●●●● Some opportunity for Option 1 to utilise existing kiss and ride on southern side of line and Wardell Road. Low High INTERCHANGE 2 ● Limited opportunities for Option 2 on Macarthur Parade / Keith Lane. Some opportunity for Option 3 on Wardell Road. 3 ●●

Park and Ride ● Limited opportunities for all options unless through redevelopment of nearby properties. Low High

LAND USE / ZONING Existing - Approximately 55% of the 500m radius catchment area is zoned residential (single storey), 10% two storey multi unit buildings, 20% three storey multi unit buildings and with approximately 15% commercial.

2 Potential local urban ●● One block of contiguous parcels totalling about 2,000 m within the 500m radius catchment area, with a minimum potential floor space yield of Low High renewal opportunities approximately 2,000 m2 (based on maximum allowable floor space ratio of 1:1) can be potential local urban renewal opportunities.

CONSTRUCTABILITY Time ●●● Dependant on preferred stop option. Long Short

Cost 1 ●●  Option 1 would require a new ramp up from the existing line. This would potentially require the removal of at least one rail line for earthworks More Less and would include the removal of car parking outside the CityRail station. There is potential to construct a bridge (with lifts at either end) expensive expensive from the proposed stop location to land on the existing rail platform to provide for Easy Access. This would be subject to further investigation.

2 ●●●●  Option 2 is a lower intervention option and would have the stop at-grade. There is also potential to construct a bridge from this location to the existing rail platform to provide Easy Access interchange, also subject to further investigation.  Option 3 would run along Keith Street, requiring construction of the road. This option would likely require the acquisition of one property 3 ●●● opposite the end of Keith Street to provide a corridor back to the existing rail corridor.

21/19469/158730 Sydney Light Rail Extension Study 18 Inner West Stop Location Assessment / Potential Local Urban Renewal Opportunities - PRELIMINARY DRAFT

Category Sub-Category Indicative Justification / Notes Definition Rating ● ●●●●●

GREENWAY Red Option - Not applicable COMPATIBILITY Blue Option - Not applicable (WITH STRATEGIC CONCEPTS FOR A COOKS RIVER TO IRON COVE SHARED PATH, 2010) Orange Option - Not applicable

OVERALL ASSESSMENT Option 1 ●●●●  Option 1 (Bedford Crescent) would be difficult and costly to construct, but would provide the most direct service to the existing CityRail Low High Preferred stop location. station.

Option 2 ●●●  Option 2 (Keith Lane) would be the easiest to construct, however would offer a poor connection to the existing CityRail station. Alternative location.

Option 3 ●●  Option 3 (Keith Street) would require potential property acquisition and on-street running, although would offer good integration with the surrounding area and provide a relatively direct connection to the existing CityRail station. Investigated but not preferred.

21/19469/158730 Sydney Light Rail Extension Study 19 Inner West Stop Location Assessment / Potential Local Urban Renewal Opportunities - PRELIMINARY DRAFT UNION ST BARNSBURY GRV

MARRICKVILLE RD CONSETT ST KINTORE ST NEW CANTERBURY RD

WOODSIDE AVE

FERNHILL ST

BARTON AVE TERRACE RD WOODCOURT ST

GARNET LN BARRE ST MYRA RD HERCULES LN WARDELL RD

BLACKWOOD AVE BEACH RD BLACKWOOD LN

GARNET ST CRAWFORD PL

WALLACE AVE TERRACE LN

DARLEY ST

PINE ST

HARNEY ST MYRA LN MARGARET ST

HERCULES ST

MARCIA ST MACARTHUR PARD DUNTROON ST

SOUTH ST

HAMPDEN ST THE PARD KEITH ST

CANONBURY GRV CRINAN ST

CHALLIS AVE Dulwich Hill Interchange 2 KEITH LN Dulwich Hill Interchange 3 MILL LN

FLOSS ST KAYS AVE HOLLANDS AVE

MARRICKVILLE AVE EWART LN

WILGA AVE

BALFOUR ST NESS AVE Dulwich Hill Interchange 1

DUDLEY ST RANDALL ST COMMONS ST ALBERMARLE ST TENNYSON ST

RIVERSIDE CRES SCHOOL PARD MURRAY LN ZONING

TENNENT PARD Residential BAYLEY ST MONCUR ST STARKEY ST Business

TAMAR ST General Industrial EWART ST Special Uses WICKS AVE Open Space PILGRIM AVE OSGOOD AVE LIVINGSTONE RD DIBBLE AVE Reservation BURNETT ST BEAUCHAMP ST Road Polygons

1:4,000 LEGEND NSW Transport & Infrastructure Job Number 21-19469 Sydney Light Rail Extension Revision A 020 40 80 120 160 200 Stop Location Date 04 MAY 2010 Preferred (Short list) Potential Future Stop Extended Light Rail Cadastre Metres to Dulwich Hill Preferred (Potential to Not Preferred Stop buffer (400m) Inner West Extension Map Projection: Transverse Mercator defer construction) Main Bus Routes Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) Existing Stop C L I E N T S P E O P L E P E R F O R M A N C E Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 Alternative Dulwich Hill Interchange G:\21\19469\GIS\Maps\21_19469_14_LRE_Stations4KMS.mxd DRAFT © 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au GHD and NAVIGATE STREETMAP cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data Source: Navigate StreetMap: Street Map - 25/03/2010. Created by: qjchung, bahambly Appendix C Technical Assessment Report

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study Final Report Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study Engineering Assessment Final Report

July 2010 Contents

1. Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose of this Document 1 1.2 Scope and Limitations of Technical Assessment 1

2. Civil 3 2.1 Track Alignment 3 2.2 Drainage 4 2.3 Cuttings/Batter Stability 6 2.4 Vegetation 6 2.5 Formation – Track Bed 7 2.6 Track Ballast 8 2.7 Track – Sleepers 9 2.8 Track – Rail 10

3. Structural 12 3.1 Bridge – Rail Underbridges 12 3.2 Bridge – Rail Overbridges 13 3.3 Tunnel at Balmain Road 14

4. Electrical 16 4.1 Overhead Structures and Wiring 16 4.2 Traction Substations 17 4.3 Other Electrical, Signalling and Communications 18

5. Operational Noise and Vibration 22

6. Maintenance and Stabling 26 6.1 Maintenance and Stabling Facilities on Existing System 26 6.2 Preliminary Assessment of Future Fleet Requirements 26 6.3 Maintenance Facility Requirements 26 6.4 Stabling Requirements 26 6.5 Potential Locations for Stabling and Maintenance Facilities 27

7. Stop Constructability 28 Attachments 1 Contact Sheets of Track Walk Photos 2 Route Maps Showing Photo Locations 3 Track Standards from the 1998-1999 Light Rail conversion of existing goods line.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study

Engineering Assessment Report 1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of this Document This document has been prepared for the Sydney Light Rail Inner West Extension Study. This document informs a preliminary feasibility assessment of a Inner West Extension of the Sydney Light Rail between Lilyfield and Dulwich Hill. It will provide an important input into the preparation of preliminary capital cost estimates. This document reports on the technical assessment and field assessment activities required in the project brief for the Sydney Light Rail Extension Study. A contact sheet of photographs taken during the site visit is provided in Attachment 1, with a route map showing locations where photographs were taken provided in Attachment 2. In various locations throughout this report, samples from the full set of photographs are provided to aid understanding of issues discussed.

1.2 Scope and Limitations of Technical Assessment This investigation documented in this report is based on:

 Review of a range of past studies and technical specifications, including: – Ultimo Pyrmont Light Rail Transit Project Westward Extension Feasibility Study (GHD Transmark, 1994). – Ultimo Pyrmont Light Rail Transit System Specification (Booz Allen & Hamilton, 1994). – Pre-feasibility Study to Extend the Light Rail from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill (GHD, 2001). – 2007 Technical Review of the Sydney Light Rail System (Maunsell Aecom, 2008)

 A visual technical inspection of the disused goods line corridor undertaken during a track walk in April 2010.

 Input from rail and light rail specialists.

 Meeting with RailCorp track team leader responsible for the maintenance of the Metropolitan Goods Line to Rozelle from 2000 to 2008.

 Meeting with Metro Transport Sydney (current owner of the Sydney Light Rail) in April 2010.

1.2.1 Limitations The investigation did not include design-level investigations including:

 Geotechnical investigation of cuttings, embankments or track sub grade.

 Structural load assessments.

 Loading and condition assessment of OHW components.

 Hydraulic and hydrological studies.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 1 Engineering Assessment Report 1.2.2 Standards Standards were developed for the construction of a light rail line between Central and Wentworth Park in 1996. These were updated for the extension between Wentworth Park and Lilyfield in 1999. Metro Transport Sydney (the current owners of the Sydney Light Rail) contracts Veolia Transport to carry out day to day light rail operations. Veolia Transport holds Rail Safety Accreditation and maintains the track to these standards. ITSRR audit the performance of the Light Rail. It is expected that the extension between Lilyfield and Dulwich Hill will be built to the standards used on the current system. The old standards are still current within the ARTC documentation this is represented in Attachment 3. The continued use of these standards needs to be confirmed with relevant authorities. It is noted that these standards are based on the assumption of the existing light rail vehicles would run at a maximum vehicle speed of 80 km/h. It is also assumed that light locomotives, or other track maintenance vehicles would traverse the section at lower speed.

1.2.3 Referencing Conventions The Chainage referred to in this report are taken from the marks on the existing Overhead Wiring (OHW) structures. These show the nominal kilometres from Sydney. It is noted that the track kilometres differ from the OHW markings by approximately 850m, e.g. the 12km track post would coincides with a location of approximately 12.850km read from an OHW Structure.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 2 Engineering Assessment Report 2. Civil

2.1 Track Alignment

2.1.1 Project Requirements The extension to the Light Rail from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill is expected to reflect the light rail standards for the existing Central to Lilyfield alignment in terms of alignment and clearances. The track requirements associated with providing operational flexibility (for example the addition of turnouts and crossovers) are to be considered during the feasibility design process.

2.1.2 Assessment of Existing Situation The proposed light rail extension alignment is to be constructed on a disused freight line. The smallest radius curve along the route is 200m and the steepest grade is approximately 1 in 60 (1.7%). The requirements of light rail are considerably less stringent than these and, as such, the existing alignment is not expected to pose any problem. The assessment has shown horizontal track clearances in the vicinity of certain bridges are tight. The minimum clearance recorded measured from the rail running face to any structure was approximately 1.0 metre on the Up track at New Canterbury Road overbridge and approximately 1.2m on the Down Track at Constitution Road overbridge. For light rail this should provide sufficient clearance provided rail alignment design is undertaken carefully. The vertical track clearance under some of the Overbridges is less than 4.5m. This is reported under the Overhead Wiring Section (4.1) in more detail. When designing the track layout, provision could be made for single line running for maintenance or emergency situations. This can be achieved in a similar manner to that found at Lilyfield and Wentworth Park. The end stop could have a turnout which converges the dual track to a single platform. It has been estimated that the existing turnout at Lilyfield should be augmented with three new turnouts to allow for cross-overs in each direction. The Dulwich Hill Interchange stop would involve extending the light rail alignment from the existing goods line alignment up an embankment to the current park-and-ride facility on the northern side of Dulwich Hill Railway Station. There is a significant height difference between the main line track and ground level at the proposed stop location. It is likely that the light rail track would need to be cut into the side of the hill to provide a suitably graded vertical alignment.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 3 Engineering Assessment Report Overall Assessment: Track Alignment

 General: No major issues

 Caution required: Tight alignment design at overbridges especially at New Canterbury Road and Constitution Road, and at the 3 major underbridges.

 More investigation required: to prove vertical and horizontal alignment accessing stop site at Dulwich Hill Interchange stop.

2.1.3 Assessment of Works Required (and Associated Risk)

Works Required Risk / Uncertainty

Clearance Issues – Realignment of track to increase clearances. Technical - Low Vigilance during design

Either Maintenance - Medium Minimalist layout approach: relocate the Lilyfield turnout to the new end stop. Straight rail the existing end turnout at Lilyfield (or Lewisham when developing the extension in 2 stages).

Or: Financial – Higher capital cost. To provide greater operation flexibility each extension could include the installation of 4 new turnouts to provide a crossover in each direction.

Identification of the location of the preferred Dulwich Hill Stop. Financial – Higher capital cost.

2.2 Drainage

2.2.1 Project Requirements Drainage is required to remove stormwater and to lower groundwater below the level of the formation. As the proposed extension constitutes a minimal change to the rail environment, a full hydrological assessment is not considered necessary. This said, modifications to standards could require modified engineering responses.

2.2.2 Assessment of Existing Situation The drainage within cuttings along the alignment generally appears to be in poor condition. The provision for stormwater ingress from adjoining land does not appear adequate in the cuttings, especially near New Canterbury Road. At approximately 7.720km, a stormwater drain that crosses diagonally below the track has broken and this is affecting the track formation. It appears that ballast and subgrade have fallen into the drain leaving holes in the track formation.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 4 Engineering Assessment Report There is a significant amount of water ponding occurring in the cess for both sides of the track within the siltstone cutting near Constitution Road (around chainage 7.600km and 7.420km). The track formation appears to be very boggy indicating that at these locations the drainage should be lowered. Discussions with RailCorp Track Maintenance Team Leader indicate that poor drainage in this area was the cause of formation failure. It was indicated that drainage through the Balmain Road tunnel was completed, however an out let may need to be constructed from James Street nearly to Charles Street. Currently at Lilyfield station there is an open drain running parallel to the platform. This open drain will need to be covered when the future track is to be constructed through this area.

Overall Assessment: Drainage

 General: Drainage works required.

 Caution required: Adjoining landowners may call on this project to rectify current deficiencies.

 More investigation required: Further drainage investigation will be required to determine full scope.

2.2.3 Assessment of Works Required (and Associated Risk)

Works Required Risk / Uncertainty

 Lower the existing open down cess drain for approximately 400m Financial – Medium. from Lilyfield to Balmain Road. Adjoining landowners may call on this project to  Cover the drain mentioned above at Lilyfield Station. rectify existing  Clear (and lower) cess on both sides of the track for a total of 1km on deficiencies. approach to, and through the tunnel.

 Clear cess for 500m at Lewisham.

 Improve top drains within cutting areas.

 Rectify blocked pits at James Street, and at 7.7km. Financial – Medium. Risk that lowering drainage will  Clear (and lower) cess on both sides for 1km at Old Canterbury require significant length Road., drainage investigation required, assume open drain at David to reach new outlet. Street OB is accessible.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 5 Engineering Assessment Report 2.3 Cuttings/Batter Stability

2.3.1 Project Requirements To facilitate the light rail extensions, it will be necessary to provide stability of the cuttings to prevent loose material falling onto the track and to provide stability of the embankment batters to prevent fretting.

2.3.2 Assessment of Existing Situation Along the route, the exiting line traverses a number of embankments, batters and cuttings into the rock strata. A geotechnical investigation has not been undertaken. It is noted, however, that in 1994 Douglas and Partners undertook a geotechnical study from Ultimo to Marion Street as part of the Ultimo Pyrmont Light Rail Transit Project Westward Extension Feasibility Study. This report identified that further investigation is required to determine appropriate remediation which may include shotcreting. It appears that no geotechnical works were completed in the Lilyfield to Marion Street section since that report. The overall condition of the embankments and the associated surface drainage appear to be in good condition, considering the age of the route and the lack on maintenance over the past 10 years. The overall condition of the cuttings appear to be in good condition although there did appear to be minor falls from the rock face in the cutting between Balmain Road and The City West Link Tunnel at approximately 12.290km. Also there has been a minor slip near the New Canterbury Road overbridge.

Overall Assessment: Geotechnical

 General: Further Investigation required, preferably during the vegetation clearing works.

 Caution required: 1994 Geotechnical report identified further studies to scope possible remediation works.

2.3.3 Assessment of Works Required (and Associated Risk)

Works Required Risk / Uncertainty

 Minor rock falls near Balmain Road. Further geotechnical assessment Financial – Medium, during the vegetation and top drain works. possible rock bolting and/or shotcreting  Minor slip near New Canterbury Road. Further geotechnical assessment during the vegetation and top drain works.

2.4 Vegetation

2.4.1 Project Requirements It is the responsibility of landowners or lessees to control vegetation and noxious weeds.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 6 Engineering Assessment Report 2.4.2 Assessment of Existing Situation There has been limited vegetation control over the past decade, with no control work since the line closed in 2009. There are significant amounts of vegetation along the entire length of the alignment. The extent of this vegetation is particularly heavy through most of the cuttings. Vegetation in the track is heavy, however this should be relatively easy to clear, during a ballast cleaning operation. Near the Dulwich Hill Junction, along with the large amounts of grass growing within the track there are significant sized trees.

Overall Assessment: Vegetation

 General: Clearing of vegetation will be required.

 Caution required: Conduct cutting vegetation control works under supervision from a Geotechnical Engineer.

2.4.3 Assessment of Works Required (and Associated Risk)

Works Required Risk / Uncertainty

Removal of vegetation within track, cleaning of ballast. Low

Removal of tree roots. From track at Dulwich Hill. Low

Clearing and Grubbing of overgrown cuttings, in conjunction with cess Medium clearing, and Geotechnical assessment.

Control of weeds in embankment batters. Low

2.5 Formation – Track Bed

2.5.1 Project Requirements It has been assumed that the formation would be constructed to meet the current Light Rail standards for formation.

2.5.2 Assessment of Existing Situation A geotechnical assessment of the subgrade was not conducted. Having operated as a freight line for many years the formation should be reasonably well compacted.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 7 Engineering Assessment Report For most of the route there is a significant amount of ballast flooding (excess amounts of ballast) or thick vegetation making subgrade assessment difficult. At some locations along the alignment it is evident that the sub grade has been pumping, and has seeped into the ballast. These areas would require a heavy ballast clean as a minimum. Full reconditioning through the siltstone cutting near the Constitution Road overbridge may be considered once the drainage is improved. Discussions with RailCorp Track Maintenance Team Leader indicate that ballast cleaning in this area would be appropriate for Light Rail operations, provided the drainage problems where rectified.

Overall Assessment: Track Bed

 General: The formation is in reasonable condition for Light Rail operations.

2.5.3 Assessment of Works Required (and Associated Risk)

Works Required Risk / Uncertainty

There are a number of locations along the alignment where heavy ballast Low cleaning would be required, this is quantified under ballast below.

2.6 Track Ballast

2.6.1 Project Requirements The current Light Rail standards for ballast depth appear to be robust on the basis of the level of maintenance required since reconstruction for light rail operation in 1999. Track stability and ride quality of the existing light rail running on the reused freight line near Wentworth Park would indicate that low ballast depths are appropriate for Light Rail.

2.6.2 Assessment of Existing Situation A geotechnical assessment of ballast depth has not been conducted. Rather, the ballast depth was assessed from the track walk. For most of the route there is a significant amount of thick vegetation or ballast flooding (excess amounts of ballast have been laid over the track) making visual examination of rail, jewellery and sleepers difficult. Discussions with RailCorp Track Maintenance Team Leader indicate that the jewellery is in sufficient condition to withstand tamping and lifting. It is expected that ballast cleaning in selected areas as well as tamping and lifting the entire track would bring the route up to serviceable condition. It must be recognised that less work at this stage will result in more frequent ballast cleaning and tamping in the future.

Overall Assessment: Ballast

 General: The ballast is in acceptable condition for Light Rail operations.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 8 Engineering Assessment Report 2.6.3 Assessment of Works Required (and Associated Risk)

Works Required Risk / Uncertainty

Ballast cleaning over 30% of the entire route should be allowed. Low

Tamping over the entire route will adjust the line and assist with the Low removal of vegetation.

2.7 Track – Sleepers

2.7.1 Project Requirements The current Light Rail standards (timber sleepers, 53kg CWR (Continuous Welded Rail), fixed to sleepers with 2 dogs and 2 lock spikes) appear to be robust on the basis of the level of maintenance required since construction in 1999.

2.7.2 Assessment of Existing Situation The sleepers along the alignment are timber and in varying condition. There has been reconditioning work performed on some sections of track however this is limited to approximately 100m on both the Up and Down tracks between Davis Street overbridge and the Constitution Road overbridge. There are indications that particular sections of track were to be re-sleepered. These are recognisable as the particular sleepers have been marked with blue paint. In some isolated areas 60% to 70% of sleepers have been marked for replacement. For the most part Dog spikes have been used as the track fittings, however Pandrol clips are in place at the locations mentioned above that have been reconditioned. The sleepers are generally in poor condition and towards the end of service life. For the purpose of this study, and based on an initial visual inspection, it is anticipated that replacement at an average of 1 in 4 throughout the line will be adequate for Light Rail operations (under this scenario, a further 1 in 4 re- sleepering programs at 5 year intervals would be required until the track is fully concrete). The actual quantum of sleeper replacement will be determined once full condition survey of the track has been completed.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 9 Engineering Assessment Report Overall Assessment: Sleepers

 General: The sleepers are in poor condition, replacement at an average of 1 in 4 throughout the line assumed as adequate for Light Rail operations at this stage of investigation.

2.7.3 Assessment of Works Required (and Associated Risk)

Works Required Risk / Uncertainty

Sleeper Replacement – The majority of the track should be Low capital investment, further upgraded with new concrete sleepers at a rate of 1 in 4 initially, with maintenance with 1 in 4 replacement continuing. Select areas on curves should be upgraded replacement with concrete with 1 in 2. sleepers should be programmed at 5 year cycles.

2.8 Track – Rail

2.8.1 Project Requirements The current Light Rail standards (timber sleepers, 53kg CWR (Continuous Welded Rail) rail fixed to sleepers with 2 dogs and 2 lock spikes) appear to be robust on the basis of the level of maintenance required since reconstruction for light rail operation in 1999. The rail will need grinding to match the profile required for the Light Rail Vehicles.

2.8.2 Assessment of Existing Situation The rail is of varying quality along the alignment. Some locations, particularly through the curved sections of the alignment has high rail wear and this was evident in some rail profile measurements. In addition to this, it is estimated that approximately 20% of the rail has been transposed (meaning the rail has been rotated such that the outer side of the rail head is now the running face). At these areas the rail is close to life expired. Discussions with RailCorp Track Maintenance Team Leader indicate that the rail wear was within tolerance when last measured in 2008. However with the intention to grind the rail to match the Light Rail profile replacement of 20% of the rail should be allowed, pending further assessment. Another notable point was that no wheel burns were sighted, however significant lengths of rail were under heavy vegetation and close inspection was not possible. This point is raised as wheel burns are posing a problem on the current light rail alignment in the Wentworth Park area. Wheel burns are an issue as they can cause passenger discomfort when the wheel bogies travel over them. The rail appears to be mostly 53kg rail. There is an approximately 1.5km section of CWR, however the remaining track is jointed rail with lengths varying from 55m to 110m. These mechanical joints will need to be welded out and the entire length adjusted for CWR. The profile of the rail is unlikely to match that required for the current Light Rail fleet, grinding should be undertaken over the entire corridor.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 10 Engineering Assessment Report A number of turnouts along the alignment appear to be in reasonable condition, however reuse is often as costly as replacement.

Overall Assessment: Rail

 General: The rail is 53kg, with only a small section of CWR. Grinding, welding and adjustment of the rail will be required to bring the whole section up to CWR standard.

 Caution required: Some rail has been transposed and is near the end of service life. Replacement of 20% should be undertaken.

2.8.3 Assessment of Works Required (and Associated Risk)

Works Required Risk / Uncertainty

Replacement of rail for 20% of the line Low

Rail Grinding throughout the corridor. Low

Weld mechanical joints over 80% of the route Low

CWR adjustment throughout the corridor. Low

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 11 Engineering Assessment Report 3. Structural

3.1 Bridge – Rail Underbridges

3.1.1 Project Requirements The corridor will need to support light rail vehicles at a track speed of 80 km/h. Additionally track maintenance vehicles should be able to traverse the corridor at low speed.

3.1.2 Assessment of Existing Situation The underbridges appear to have been built and maintained for the freight loads of the early 1900s. Past rating reports have not been sighted, however the bridges appear in reasonable condition and would be expected to adequately accommodate the light rail loading, and maintenance vehicles. The Ultimo Pyrmont Light Rail Transit Project Westward Extension Feasibility Study (1994) cited SRA bridge section reports into the life of a number of structures. This showed that the Underbridge had a life expectancy of greater than 30 years. Fatigue and capacity are not expected to be limited for the expected Light Rail operating and maintenance loads. There are three main steel bridges which are transom topped. One of these, Marion Street, has resilient fasteners (Delkor Plates). These have been placed to reduce noise and would indicate that noise has been an issue on the corridor. A similar treatment for the bridges at Parramatta Road and Charles Street may be required. Parramatta Road bridge is signposted as having a 4.5m clearance (East bound), 4.4m (West bound). It has been hit frequently and there is strengthening on the Sydney side. Whilst trackwork is being undertaken there is an opportunity to jack this bridge at relatively low cost. Any such work will require involvement and/or approval from the RTA.

Overall Photo Ref Location Suburb Km Structure Length (m)

Water mains - Lewisham 10.195 UB - Brick Arch 24m Underbridge

Branch Sewer - Dobroyd 10.253 UB - Brick Arch 24m Crossing (DM)

Branch Sewer - Crossing Underbridge Dobroyd 10.253 UB - Brick Arch 24m (DM)

Parramatta Road 48-56 Lewisham 10.489 UB - Truss TT 30m Underbridge

Marion Street UB - PWG transom 32-37 Leichhardt 11.127 24m Underbridge top (TT)

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 12 Engineering Assessment Report Overall Photo Ref Location Suburb Km Structure Length (m)

Pedestrian Underpass Leichhardt 11.435 UB - Brick Arch 24m 42

Charles Street 17-21 Leichhardt 12.405 UB - PWG (TT) 24m Underbridge

Overall Assessment: Underbridges

 General: The underbridges will be adequate for Light Rail operations.

 Caution required: Opportunity to lift the Parramatta Road bridge before the track and OHW works are completed.

3.1.3 Assessment of Works Required (and Associated Risk)

Works Required Risk / Uncertainty

There are possible noise issues for the steel under bridges. Two of the Low - Financial three steel under bridges may still require noise reduction works.

Opportunity for lifting of Parramatta Road bridge Low - Financial

3.2 Bridge – Rail Overbridges

3.2.1 Project Requirements The change in use of the track from goods line to light rail is not expected to affect the bridges except for those with overhead wiring attachments. These are noted below. It is assumed that the ownership and maintenance arrangements for overbridges will not be transferred to the Light Rail owner or operator.

3.2.2 Assessment of Existing Situation Bridges were built to a freight standard and appear in reasonable condition. Some heights of overbridges appear to impact the overhead wire required heights.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 13 Engineering Assessment Report Overall Photo Ref Location Suburb km Structure Length (m)

Hercules Street OB – OHW Dulwich Hill 8.544 21m 83, 85 Overbridge Attached

New Canterbury Road OB – OHW Dulwich Hill 8.632 20m 82 Overbridge Attached

Constitution Road OB – OHW Dulwich Hill 8.886 17m 77 Overbridge Attached

Davies Street OB – OHW Dulwich Hill 9.310 20m 70 Overbridge Attached

Old Canterbury Road OB – OHW Lewisham 9.842 22m 65, 66 Overbridge Attached

Longport Street OB – OHW Lewisham 10.165 22m 60, 62 Overbridge Attached

OB – OHW Not Balmain Road Leichhardt 22m 5 Attached

Overall Assessment: Overbridges

 General: Overbridges are under the control of other parties, as such do not have high degree of interface with light rail.

 Caution required: Clearance issues will necessitate vigilance during the track and OHW design.

3.2.3 Assessment of Works Required (and Associated Risk)

Works Required Risk / Uncertainty

Clearances are tight for the majority of bridges in terms of the distance Low from rail centreline to structure, and for OHW. Vigilance through the design process will be required.

3.3 Tunnel at Balmain Road

3.3.1 Project Requirements The tunnel was created by covering the deep cutting during the construction of the City West Link Road. Provision for Fire and Life Systems will be required for light rail operation, similar to those provided for the Glebe tunnel on the existing light rail system.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 14 Engineering Assessment Report 3.3.2 Assessment of Existing Situation The tunnel roof and walls are in good condition. The track grade is flat and drainage appears in poor condition, this was reported earlier under drainage. During construction of the tunnel, provision for OHW structures was made, and these also appear in good condition.

Overall Assessment: Tunnel

 General: The tunnel is in good condition.

 Caution required: Works required to meet Fire Brigade inspection & approval.

3.3.3 Assessment of Works Required (and Associated Risk)

Works Required Risk / Uncertainty

Fire and Life Safety Upgrade requiring further design include: Low

 Mesh walkway over the ballast in the cess and centre.

 Lighting upgrade and egress signage.

 Train Radio rebroadcast upgrade.

 Provision of water main and fire hoses.

 Emergency telephones.

 Remote and local fire alarms.

 Fire brigade inspection and approval.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 15 Engineering Assessment Report 4. Electrical

The electrical systems required for the conversion of the track will need to be constructed specifically for the Light Rail operations. Reuse of existing assets will be minimal apart from overhead wiring (OHW). The standards for the design and construction will need to be developed to match the existing Light Rail system.

4.1 Overhead Structures and Wiring

4.1.1 Project Requirements The existing Light Rail uses a 750V DC regulated system. This system would be extended.

4.1.2 Assessment of Existing Situation The existing overhead wiring and support structures were built in approximately 1950, to an unknown design. A study of the design and loads has not been made. Consultation with RailCorp has indicated that the electrical and structural designs may not be available. The condition of the structures is poor. The OHW was constructed for heavier loads and is a minimum of 16mm cable made of cadmium copper alloy. This has not worn significantly and there is opportunity for reuse of the catenary and contact wires.

Overhead Wiring Structures The structures appear in reasonable condition, however they are rusting and holding down bolts and nuts will need to be replaced. Design reports are being sought for the structures and foundations. Without viewing the design drawings, reports and drawings it is assumed that new structures are to be built.

Overhead Wire & Support Catenary The wire was probably designed for freight loading at 1500V DC. The wire has been designed as non- regulated, with a catenary wire for support. The existing 750V DC system is regulated, which places constant tension in the wire. A detailed condition assessment of the wire has not been determined as this will require examination using elevated work platforms. Initial discussions with RailCorp indicate that the wire is minimum of 16mm made of copper cadmium alloy, and has not worn significantly. Further assessment may determine that the wire may be able to be reused.

Overhead Wire Insulation Fittings The insulation fittings have a life of approximately 10-15 years and will need to be replaced.

Overhead Wire Adjustment The OHW alignment will change for the Light Rail Vehicles. All wire would need to be re-strung.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 16 Engineering Assessment Report Overall Assessment: Overhead Wire

 General: The OHW is in poor condition.

 Caution required: Further investigation is required.

4.1.3 Assessment of Works Required (and Associated Risk)

Works Required Risk / Uncertainty

OHW Structures; either assume replacement of existing structures, Low risk – new construction Or or Further investigation can identify the original design loads, and as-built drawings. High risk potential scope increases during refurbishment.

OHW Insulating Fittings; should all be upgraded Low risk – new construction

OHW Wire; either Assume replacement of the existing wire. Low – risk new construction Or or Further investigation identifies reuse is feasible. High risk potential scope increases during refurbishment.

OHW Stringing; all wire will need to be re-strung. Low risk - new construction

4.2 Traction Substations The existing light rail system was designed with substations at approximately 3km spacing, which would be continued for this extension. Thus, it is estimated that an extra two substations would be needed, for Option 1 (Lilyfield to Lewisham). It is expected that the new substations would be placed near the Balmain Road signal box and near the Marion Street under-line bridge. A power system study will be required at a later stage to determine the detailed requirements for the extension beyond Lewisham. Current preliminary estimates indicate the possible need for a third new sub station for the extension from Lewisham to Dulwich Hill. This would mean for Option 2 (Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill) a total of three substations could be required. EnergyAustralia advise that power supply at these locations would be available. The supply voltage would be 11 kV and could be arranged to provide two independent sources for each substation to ensure reliability.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 17 Engineering Assessment Report Stray Current Mitigation Considerations The light rail system uses the rails for the return conduction of the traction current. Even though the rails are mounted on timber sleepers, or insulated on concrete sleepers there is an inherent electrical connection with the earth. While the rails provide a low resistance path for the negative return of the DC traction supply for the LRV to the traction substation some current (stray current) enters the surrounding soil due to the voltage developed by the LRV. Buried metallic structures can act as a low resistance path for the stray current travelling through the soil. Where the stray current exits from the structure and enters the surrounding soil, corrosion damage can take place. While the stray current cannot be eliminated it can be minimised by providing:

 The best possible electrical insulation of the track rails from the soil;

 An electrically continuous low resistance track system;

 An adequate number of substations giving small supply regions to minimise the rail voltage drops. The existing trackwork contains insulated jointing for signalling and fishplate joints for rail to rail connection. Mechanical joints should be fully welded, and insulated joints provided with impedance bonds to assist the return current. The Sydney Electrolysis Technical Committee will need to be involved in the detailed design of the project to ensure all appropriate measures are being taken to maintain stray current control.

Overall Assessment: Traction Substation

 General: New substations required.

 Caution required: Stray current mitigation addressed during the design process.

4.2.1 Assessment of Works Required (and Associated Risk)

Works Required Risk / Uncertainty

Traction Substations: Provide 2 new substations for Option 1 (Lilyfield- Low risk - new Lewisham), or 3 new substations for Option 2 (Lilyfield - Dulwich Hill) construction extension.

4.3 Other Electrical, Signalling and Communications

4.3.1 General Lighting and Power for Stops Each stop can have its power requirements supplied at 240 VAC from the EnergyAustralia low voltage network. The power will be distributed to:

 Ticketing machines (if used);

 Signalling system (for the light rail system);

 Area lighting;

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 18 Engineering Assessment Report  Closed circuit television equipment;

 Passenger information, public address and display systems;

 Communication equipment; and

 Help Points. Those systems such as communications and ticketing which are required to operate after a power supply failure would need to be fitted with uninterruptible power supplies.

4.3.2 Mobile Radio The light rail mobile radio system provides voice communications to form the control centre, light rail vehicles and hand portable radios, via a single radio base station. The base station has been sited to give coverage of the existing network. Coverage of the proposed extension has not been tested, however an additional base station would probably be required plus a re transmission system for the Rozelle “tunnel”.

4.3.3 Telephone The light rail system includes a conventional stored program private automatic branch exchange (PABX) with the main console at the control centre and extension handsets where required. For the extended route the PABX can be augmented to add for example extensions for system infrastructure such as traction substations as well as for hands free help/assistance telephones at LRV stops.

4.3.4 Fibre Optic Cable Network Light rail communication is based on using an optical fibre cable network for data transmission required for the supervisory/control system. The fibre optic network would be extended for the data and video requirements. However digitised transmission of video signals may need to be employed to overcome the distance limitations of the existing video transmission system.

Fibre Optical Fibre Network Cable Route The extended route will require different methods of installing the optical fibre cable network. Through the cutting from Balmain Road to James Street overhead bridge a new trough will be required as the existing trough is not in very good condition. There is sufficient room to mount a new trough. From James Street to Dulwich Hill direct buried installation or installation of a new trough would be required. The exact siting of an underground route will depend on existing cables in the area and the cabling requirements for the signals system.

4.3.5 Security and Surveillance The Light Rail system has a CCTV system installed for security as well as to provide operational assistance. The cameras are linked to the control centre via the optical fibre network.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 19 Engineering Assessment Report For the route extension, additional cameras can be added and linked to the control centre via the extended optical fibre network.

4.3.6 Supervisory and Control System The control system of the light rail provides the functionality required for ‘real time’ operations of the LRV system. Specifically the control system will provide the following functions:

 Traction power monitoring and control;

 Signalling system monitoring and control; and

 LRV traffic supervisory control. As the system is modular in design, the extension can be implemented by adding more remote terminal units at traction substations and be interfaced to the control centre by extension of the optical fibre network. The supervisory system computer at the control centre may require upgrading and the system software will need to be configured to add the extended network.

4.3.7 Signalling The current Light Rail Signalling is based on “Drive On Sight” whereby vehicles are either held at a red stop signal or allowed to drive up to speeds set by the Automatic Train Protection (ATP) system. The ATP system is made up of software programs loaded into LRVs and signal boxes for each section of track. A speed profile is calculated for each section of track and the LRV is not allowed to exceed this profile, the profile includes deceleration curves approaching stops and acceleration when departing stops. This function would be incorporated in the extended network.

4.3.8 Utility Diversions Issues occur when stops, structure foundations, drainage pipes / structures or conduits for services need to be constructed for the Light Rail system. Further identification of services will need to be undertaken during the Feasibility Study stage to ascertain construction, operation and maintenance risks to existing and future services. During the construction of the Western Extension a number of underground services had to be “pot- holed” to determine their exact location and level with regard to proposed infrastructure.

Overall Assessment: Other Electrical, Signalling and Communications

 General: These elements of the system would be built new, and will bring little complication.

4.3.9 Assessment of Works Required (and Associated Risk)

Works Required Risk / Uncertainty

General Lighting and Power for Stops Low – New Works

Mobile Radio Low – New Works

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 20 Engineering Assessment Report Works Required Risk / Uncertainty

Telephone Low – New Works

Fibre Optic Cable Network Low – New Works

Security and Surveillance Low – New Works

Supervisory and Control System Low – New Works

Signalling Low – New Works

Utility Diversions Low – New Works

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 21 Engineering Assessment Report 5. Operational Noise and Vibration

Modern light rail has been designed to operate in heavily populated urban contexts, and thus has many features to minimise noise and vibration emissions. In general, impacts arising from noise and vibration associated with modern light rail operations have proved to be of little concern to occupants of surrounding areas. This section draws on work undertaken by specialist noise sub consultants (Richard Heggie Associates Pty Ltd) during the Pre-feasibility Study to Extend the Light Rail from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill (GHD, 2001). This report was written some 9 years ago, and while standards may have changed, it still provides a relevant assessment to a level of detail generally superior to that expected for a preliminary feasibility assessment.

Light Rail Noise and Vibration Sources Noise and vibration emissions from light rail operations are predominantly caused by the rolling contact of steel wheels on steel rails. Even under ideal conditions, noise and vibration will occur as a result of the contact stresses during rolling contact, and interaction of the micro-irregularities on the wheel and rail running surfaces. Increased noise and vibration emissions occur as a result of larger irregularities, such as rail joints, turn-outs, crossings, and wheel defects. Lightly damped support structures, such as steel bridges, can also increase noise emissions. Other noise sources on the light rail vehicles (such as air conditioning fans) are generally at a lower level than the wheel-rail noise emissions, and do not a cause significant noise impact. Warning bells and horns tend to be clearly audible, due to their noise level and tonal characteristics. On the dedicated corridor, the horn is typically only used away from stop areas to warn people on the track. The bell is used to warn people at stops and to announce that the vehicle is about to move. In addition to the “airborne noise” emitted from light rail vehicles, noise within buildings can also be generated by ground vibration emissions. Ground vibration may pass into a building structure, causing walls and floors to vibrate, and hence to radiate noise. This noise typically has a low rumbling character, and is referred to as “ground-borne noise” or “regenerated noise”. Noise of this type can be an issue in buildings located over railway tunnels. Where buildings are located adjacent to a surface railway, airborne noise dominates, and the ground-borne noise can generally be disregarded.

Operational Noise and Vibration Criteria The airborne noise and ground vibration criteria presented in Table 1 and Table 2 are based on EPA draft criteria, which also formed the basis for the EPA Operating Licence for the existing light rail route. These criteria are significantly more stringent than those applying to heavy rail operations, particularly during night-time hours. Nevertheless, they still represent a compromise between the

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 22 Engineering Assessment Report objective of nil impact and the practical reality that rail operations do create noise. The criteria have been designed to ensure that the light rail operator utilises “best practice” and to minimise the risk of annoyance within the adjacent community.

Table 1 Airborne Noise Assessment Criteria

Parameter* Criterion Application

LAmax 82 dBA at 7.5m General requirement at 60 km/h on typical track.

LAmax 82 dBA At existing residential boundaries.

LAeq Day 60 dBA 7.00 am to 7.00 pm at residential facades.

LAeq Evening 55 dBA 7.00 pm to 11.00 pm at residential facades.

LAeq Night 50 dBA 11.00 pm t 7.00 am at residential facades.

* LAmax is the maximum passby noise level. LAeq is the energy averaged noise level over the indicted time period

Table 2 Vibration Assessment Criteria (dB re 1E-6mm/s)

Category Criterion Application

Residential or other sensitive 103dB Façade Lmax receivers

Commercial 112 dB Façade Lmax

Preliminary Assessment of Operational Noise and Vibration Issues Measurements on the existing route have shown the LAmax criterion of 82 dBA at 7.5 m to be achievable at 60 km/h where the wheels and rails are in good condition. Higher noise levels are to be expected in the vicinity of rail joints and special trackwork. Along the route of the proposed extension, the distance between the track and the residential boundaries is generally at least 7.5 m, which indicates that the LAmax boundary criterion is also readily achievable. In most areas the setback from the track to the residential facade is around 20 m to 30 m. At distances greater than 15m, the LAeq criteria will be met, even assuming the full number of services proposed for the recently completed Western Extension is extended on to Dulwich Hill. A small number of residences have setback distances that are less than 15 m (approximately 10 m). At the detailed design stage, it may be necessary to consider specific measures at these dwellings to comply with the LAeq criteria. The options may include a reduced number of services, reduced speed, noise barriers or acoustical treatments to individual dwellings. As the degree of noise reduction required will be relatively minor, such measures are regarded as feasible and should not significantly affect the viability of the project.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 23 Engineering Assessment Report In the case of future residential redevelopments in close proximity to the track, acoustical assessments should be carried out as part of the approval and design process to confirm whether noise mitigation measures should be included in the facade design. To ensure the rail running surface is in good condition and is not prone to excessive noise emission, it is recommended that the track be upgraded to continuously welded rail, and that mechanised rail grinding be undertaken to remove any surface irregularities or defects. Where possible (eg at the disused flour mill), special trackwork such as points and crossings should be removed to minimise noise emission. Obviously, this will not be possible at the triangle junction at Dulwich Hill. At this location, adjacent to Hercules Street, there is an existing masonry wall on one side of the track, which acts as a noise barrier protecting the primary school. On the other side of the track, a residential dwelling overlooks the track, with a setback of approximately 10 m. It is likely that the noise criteria will be exceeded at this location, requiring mitigation measures to be implemented. At Charles Street, Leichhardt, a steel bridge is located approximately 30 m from the nearest residence, and may result in an exceedance of the EPA criteria. Engineering means are available to reduce the noise emission from bridges such as this, and these should be investigated during the detailed design. Ground vibration is predicted to be within the EPA criteria, however the need to ensure that the running surfaces are in good condition and alignment also applies to the issue of vibration. Provided the track condition is brought up to a suitable standard, there is no acoustical reason why the existing track should not be retained. Noise from passengers at the stops is unlikely to present a major problem, however the distance to residences should be maximised, where possible within the constraints of the various catchment centres.

Construction Noise Responsibility for control of construction noise from Scheduled Premises (including all railway projects) is vested in the NSW Environment Protection Authority. Chapter 171-1 of the EPA's Environmental Noise Control Manual recommends three general approaches to mitigating adverse noise impacts from construction sites:

 Limited hours for construction works;

 Use of silenced equipment;

 Noise emission objectives. The EPA recommends that the noise levels emitted from a construction site and measured at the curtilage of an occupied noise-sensitive premises should not exceed the background level by more than 20 dBA where the cumulative period of noise exposure associated with the works is up to 4 weeks. In most locations, the works will not require noise intensive activities totalling more than 4 weeks, and hence this criterion is applicable.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 24 Engineering Assessment Report Some noise intensive construction works, such as track refurbishment and the use of rockbreakers, may exceed the nominated criterion for short periods of time, however this is similar to any other construction project and will need to be managed on site to minimise the noise impact.

Construction Vibration For short term vibration during the day-time, such as may occur at any fixed location while construction activities progress along the route, a limit of 5 mm/s is appropriate. This is a safe level, below which damage to buildings would not be expected. In the case of buildings with particular historical significance, a reduced limit of 3 mm/s is commonly used. No sites have yet been identified where vibration intensive activities, such as the use of rockbreakers or pile drivers would be required within close proximity to sensitive buildings. As such, there is not expected to be a significant risk of vibration damage associated with the construction works.

Overall Assessment: Operational Noise and Vibration

 General: Low level of impact expected from operational noise and vibration in this context. Good potential for Noise and Vibration mitigation measures.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 25 Engineering Assessment Report 6. Maintenance and Stabling

6.1 Maintenance and Stabling Facilities on Existing System The Metro Light Rail currently has a stabling and maintenance facility located on the eastern side of Pyrmont, close to the city end of the line. This facility currently stables the entire fleet of 7 light rail vehicles. Advice received from Metro Light Rail indicates that there is space to stable up to 10 light rail vehicles on the site (although this would require additional works).

6.2 Preliminary Assessment of Future Fleet Requirements Preliminary estimates of light rail fleet requirements are summarised below:

 Current Operation Central to Lilyfield: 7 Light Rail Vehicles.

 Option 1 - Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Lewisham. 7 Light Rail Vehicles (Preliminary Estimate).

 Option 2 - Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Dulwich Hill. 10 Light Rail Vehicles (Preliminary Estimate).

6.3 Maintenance Facility Requirements Taking into consideration the number of light rail vehicles associated with the Inner Western Extension, and their increasing age, it is expected that the heavy maintenance for these vehicles could be undertaken at the current location. However, this could require an additional light maintenance facility to be constructed to conduct more regular minor maintenance on the basis that there may not be sufficient capacity within the existing maintenance facility.

6.4 Stabling Requirements

Inner Western Extension Preliminary estimates of light rail fleet requirements are summarised below:

 Option 1 - Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Lewisham. 7 Light Rail Vehicles (Preliminary Estimate). No works required.

 Option 2 - Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Dulwich Hill. 10 Light Rail Vehicles (Preliminary Estimate). 40 metres extension to existing stabling facilities, including track work, overhead wiring and security fencing. This extension could be accommodated within the existing site.

CBD Extensions Should either of the Sussex Street or George Street CBD extensions also proceed, this will significantly alter the requirements of the stabling and maintenance facilities.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 26 Engineering Assessment Report The operating and fleet requirements of the CBD extensions have not yet been determined; however Metro Transport Sydney has indicated that:

 An extension to Barangaroo along Sussex Street / Hickson Road would require in the order of 9 additional light rail vehicles.

 An extension along George Street (from Circular Quay to Central) could require in the order of 12 or 13 light rail vehicles.

6.5 Potential Locations for Stabling and Maintenance Facilities On the basis of the above, future planning and design of the Inner West Extension will need to consider the potential need to locate stabling facilities to serve any CBD extension. Locations that require careful consideration include:

 Rozelle Goods Yard (western end);

 Lewisham (former flour mill sidings); and

 Wentworth Park (existing City of Sydney Depot). It should be noted that the optimal location of depot sites will need to be informed by more detailed service planning and operational analysis.

Overall Assessment: Maintenance and Stabling

 General: Unlikely that the provision of stabling or maintenance facilities for the Inner Western Extension would involve significant challenges from the perspective of project feasibility.

 Caution Required: – Moderate level of interrelation with assumed operating plans and fleet requirements. This interrelation needs to be monitored. – Future planning and design of the Inner West Extension will need to consider the potential need to locate stabling facilities to serve a CBD extension. Locations that require careful consideration include: Rozelle Goods Yard (western end), Lewisham (former flour mill sidings), Wentworth Park (existing City of Sydney Depot). It should be noted that the optimal location of depot sites will need to be informed by more detailed service planning and operational analysis.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 27 Engineering Assessment Report 7. Stop Constructability

The following table provides an assessment of stop constructability

Table 3 Assessment of Stop Constructability

Stop Name Assessment of Complexity Comments Constructability / Cost

High = Ɣ Low = ƔƔƔƔƔ

Overall ƔƔ While feasible, construction of a stop at this location will be complex and expensive to construct. A Norton stop located further west would provide a more constructible option.

Stop Ɣ The construction of the north platform would be complicated as space limits would Norton require the excavation of the northern wall of the cutting, on which the City West link (at James Street) structure bears. This raises complex geotechnical and structural issues. There is no scope for realignment due to proximity to tunnel. The south platform may require demolition of the disused building.

Access to Stop ƔƔƔƔƔ Uncomplicated construction of the at grade access path to Darley Road.. The proposed rail level crossing is close to the tunnel and there may be sight line issues.

Overall ƔƔƔ Construction of a stop at this location will less complex and less expensive to construct than the James Street Option.

Norton Stop ƔƔƔ For a stop in this location, the increased width would make the construction of (at Charles Street) platforms considerably less complicated or costly relative to the James Street option.

Access to Stop ƔƔ The stop would be located on an embankment in this location, requiring a moderate degree of ramps / stairs to provide direct access.

Overall ƔƔƔƔƔ Feasible, uncomplicated and relatively inexpensive construction.

Stop ƔƔƔƔƔ The rail embankment is relatively narrow but less than 1.5 metres above existing Allen ground level. Platforms can sit on minor earthworks to widen the embankment.

Access to Stop ƔƔƔƔ Ramps required to provide DDA compliant access for approximate 1.5 metre vertical grade.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 28 Engineering Assessment Report Overall ƔƔƔ While feasible, construction of a stop at this location will be moderately complex and expensive. Access to platforms on relatively high embankment will require a moderate to high engineering intervention. Marion (North and Stop ƔƔƔ Marion Street is approximately 6 metres below rail level. The embankment narrows South) close to the bridge. It is likely the embankment was constructed of non ideal material and piling will be required for the stop platforms.

Access to Stop ƔƔ Ramps of sufficient length to rise 6 metres will be required.

Overall ƔƔ While feasible, construction of a stop at this location will be complex and expensive. Staggered platform arrangement on a high embankment between a road and a canal will complicate construction. Access to platforms on a relatively high embankment will require a moderate to high engineering intervention.

Stop ƔƔ Parramatta Road is approximately 5.5 metres below rail level. The embankment Parramatta Road narrows close to the bridge. Brown Street is to the East of the rail corridor. Over Parramatta Road the road and rail bridges are close together. It is likely the embankment was constructed of non ideal material and piling will be required for the stop platforms. The Eastern platform should be moved to the North by approximately 30m to gain separation from Brown Street.

Access to Stop ƔƔ Ramps of sufficient length to rise 5.5 metres will be required.

Overall ƔƔƔ While feasible, construction of a stop at this location will be moderately complex and expensive. Access to platforms on relatively deep cutting will require a moderate to high engineering intervention.

Stop ƔƔƔƔ Longport Street overbridge is approximately 6 metres above rail level. The Lewisham overbridge crests sharply over the rail corridor. The rail corridor has sufficient width Interchange to construct the platforms at grade.

Access to Stop ƔƔ Ramps, and stairs of sufficient length to rise 6 metres will be required. The vertical rise to Longport Street diminishes as the distance from the rail corridor increases. The ramps will need some bridging or high retaining wall structure.

Overall ƔƔƔƔ Feasible, uncomplicated and relatively inexpensive construction.

Stop ƔƔƔƔƔ Davis Street overbridge is approximately 6 metres above rail level. The rail corridor Waratah Mills has sufficient width to construct the platforms at grade. Sight distance for city bound trams to be addressed during design process.

Access to Stop ƔƔƔ Ramps, at grade can be constructed to either side of the corridor.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 29 Engineering Assessment Report Overall ƔƔ While feasible, construction of a stop at this location will be moderately complex and expensive. Access to platforms on relatively deep cutting will require a moderate to high engineering intervention. Less stable rock in this cutting will complicate construction.

Stop ƔƔ The rail corridor is in an approximately 6m deep cutting through less stable soft rock. Dulwich Hill Shops The rail corridor does not have sufficient width to construct the platforms at grade. Retaining walls will be required to support the cuttings. Sight distance for trams in both directions to be addressed during design process.

Access to Stop ƔƔ Access is assumed to both New Canterbury Road, and to Hercules Street overbridges Ramps of sufficient length to rise 6 metres will be required. Stairs and a lift are also assumed

Overall ƔƔƔƔƔ Feasible, uncomplicated and relatively inexpensive stop construction. It is noted that track access to the stop would require extensive civil works (although consideration could be given to a single track leading to the platform, similar to the existing termination at Lilyfield).. Dulwich Hill Interchange Stop ƔƔƔƔƔ To reduce encroachment on the road the stop location will need to be as close to the rail corridor as possible. This will require piling, especially if the twin track arrangement is constructed.

Access to Stop ƔƔƔƔƔ Ramps, at grade can be constructed to existing rail overbridge.

Overall Assessment: Stop Constructability

 General: While several stops along the Inner West Extension entail complexities in terms of construction, it is not considered that any threaten the feasibility of establishing a stop at or near the locations adopted for the purpose of this study.

 Caution Required: The construction of the James Street stop might prove unnecessarily challenging in the currently assumed location due to spatial constraints and associated geotechnical and structural issues. Constructability should be a key consideration in determination of the final location.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 30 Engineering Assessment Report Attachment 1 Contact Sheets of Track Walk Photos

Note: Photos are available on CD

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study

Engineering Assessment Report Attachment 2 Route Maps Showing Photo Locations

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study

Engineering Assessment Report Attachment 3 Track Standards from the 1998-1999 Light Rail conversion of existing goods line.

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study

Engineering Assessment Report TRACK STANDARDS The following table shows the currency of Track Standards referenced in the 1999 Light Rail Track Standards.

1999 2010 reference ARTC ARTC Standard Title Last Updated to RIC Document Document Number

TS 3602 TMS09 Standard procedures for welding 01 Jul 2006

TS 3601 TMS08 Field Welding Standards 28 Sep 2005

TS 3105 TMS03 Track geometry maintenance standards 14 Mar 2005

Adjustment and field welding for continuous welded TS 3650 TMP07 06 Apr 2006 track

Approved Aluminothermic welding processes for field TS 3603 TMP09 14 Mar 2005 welding of rail

TS 3646 TMP10 Continuous welded rail – Control of creep 14 Mar 2005

TS 3102 TES07 Track Standards – Method of Measurement 14 Mar 2005

Track Recording Car – Recording Indices (Reference TS 3106 TES08 14 Mar 2005 Only)

TS 3604 TES09 Rails approved for welding 05 Jan 2010

Alignment Surveys – Accuracy and marking standards TS 2621 TEP22 17 Jul 2006 for existing and proposed railways

TS 3103 TCS01 Track Standards Construction 14 Mar 2005

TS 3394 TCS05 Use of glued insulated joints 14 Mar 2005

TS 3397 TCS08 Use of resilient fastenings at glued insulated joints 14 Mar 2005

C 3108 TPS03 Railway track sleeper and bridge timber specification 28 Feb 2005

TS 3402 TPS04 Specification for supply of aggregate for ballast 31 Aug 2005

Manufacture and pre-installation testing of assembled C 3363 TPS05 28 Sep 2005 glued insulated joints

C 3102 TDS04 Timber bearers and transom standards 14 Mar 2005

TS 3101 TDS11 Standard classification of lines 11 Apr 2007

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study

Engineering Assessment Report GHD 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 - T: 2 9239 7100 F: 2 9239 7199 E: [email protected]

© GHD 2010 This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Document Status

Rev Reviewer Approved for Issue Author No. Name Signature Name Signature Date

21/19469/160007 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study

Engineering Assessment Report Appendix D Cost Estimate Breakdown

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study Final Report 210047 Sydney Light Rail Extension Inner West Options

Option 1 ‐ Lilyfield to Lewisham Qty Unit Rate Subtotal Total Track 4,072,096 Relocation of existing turnout 2 ea 6,900 13,800 Re‐alignment of track 400 m 510 204,000 Straight rail existing turnout 80 m 510 40,800 Ballast cleaning (full) 2,220 m 550 1,221,000 Track tamping 7,400 m1 0 74,000 Ballast re‐surfacing 52 t 220 11,396 Rail grinding 7,400 m51 377,400 Turnout grinding 1 ea 3,450 3,450 Re‐sleepering 2,762 ea 315 870,030 Rail replacement 1,480 m 270 399,600 Clearing of vegetation 3,700 m1 4 51,800 Clear & lower cess drains 3,800 m6 0 228,000 Cover existing cess drain 100 m 140 14,000 Welding of mechanical joints 108 ea 415 44,820 Potholing for existing services 3,700 m 140 518,000 Structure 84,420 Noise reduction works 234 ea 140 32,760 Meshwalkway to tunnel 1 Item 14,000 14,000 Lighting upgrade & egress signage to tunne 1 Item 14,000 14,000 Train radio rebroadcast upgrade 1 Item 7,000 7,000 Provision of water main & fire hoses 1 Item 7,000 7,000 Emergency telephones 1 Item 2,760 2,760 Remote & local fire alarms 1 Item 6,900 6,900 Electrical 13,807,200 OHW Structures ‐ new 93 ea 51,000 4,743,000 OHW Structures ‐ removal of existing 93 ea 1,900 176,700 OHW wiring 7,400 m 360 2,664,000 Traction substation 2 ea 248,000 496,000 Extension to PABX system 1 Item 69,000 69,000 Fibre optic network cable 3,700 m 120 444,000 Upgrading of existing control system 1 Item 34,500 34,500 Signalling 3,700 m 1,400 5,180,000 Stops 8,388,800 Norton Stop (James Street) Platforms 2 ea 310,000 620,000 Pathways 60 m 320 19,200 Pedestrian crossings 2 ea 7,000 14,000 Ramps 1 ea 210,000 210,000 Stairs (18 steps) 1 ea 62,100 62,100 Stairs (25 steps) 1 ea 70,000 70,000 Power to stations 1 Item 100,000 100,000 Furniture to stations 1 Item 55,000 55,000 Allen Stop Platforms 2 ea 310,000 620,000 Pathways 45 m 320 14,400 Pedestrian crossings 2 ea 7,000 14,000 Ramps 1 ea 165,600 165,600 Stairs (8 steps) 1 ea 20,700 20,700 Power to stations 1 Item 100,000 100,000 Furniture to stations 1 Item 55,000 55,000 Marion Stop Platforms 2 ea 310,000 620,000 Pathways 60 m 320 19,200 Pedestrian crossings 2 ea 7,000 14,000 Ramps 1 ea 880,000 880,000 Stairs 1 ea 125,000 125,000 Power to stations 1 Item 100,000 100,000 Furniture to stations 1 Item 55,000 55,000

1 210047 Sydney Light Rail Extension Inner West Options

Parramatta Road Stop Platforms 2 ea 310,000 620,000 Piling to platforms 45 ea 17,500 787,500 Pathways 150 m 320 48,000 Pedestrian crossings 2 ea 7,000 14,000 Ramps 1 ea 440,000 440,000 Stairs 1 ea 125,000 125,000 Power to stations 1 Item 100,000 100,000 Furniture to stations 1 Item 55,000 55,000 Lewisham Interchange Stop Platforms 2 ea 310,000 620,000 Piling to platforms 45 ea 17,500 787,500 Pathways 30 m 320 9,600 Pedestrian crossings 2 ea 7,000 14,000 Ramps 2 ea 330,000 660,000 Power to stations 1 Item 100,000 100,000 Furniture to stations 1 Item 55,000 55,000

Total Contractor's Costs $ 26,352,516

Client Costs Project management & project controls 6.00% $ 1,581,200 Design 8.00% $ 2,108,300 Planning & Environment 1.00% $ 263,600 Geotechnical investigations 1.00% $ 263,600 Communications & community consultation 1.50% $ 395,300

Subtotal $ 30,964,516

Contingency 50.00% $ 15,482,300

Total CAPEX Cost $ 46,446,816

2 210047 Sydney Light Rail Extension Inner West Options

Option 2 ‐ Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill Qty Unit Rate Subtotal Total Track 8,223,400 New crossover 1 ea 560,000 560,000 Turnout grinding 1 ea 3,450 3,450 Re‐sleepering 4,032 ea 315 1,270,080 Rail replacement 2,160 m 270 583,200 Clearing of vegetation 5,400 m1 4 75,600 Clear & lower cess drains 5,800 m6 0 348,000 Cover existing cess drain 100 m 140 14,000 Potholing for existing services 5,400 m 140 756,000 Welding of mechanical joints 158 ea 415 65,570 Relocation of existing turnout 2 ea 6,700 13,400 Re‐alignment of track 400 m 510 204,000 Straight rail existing turnout 80 m 510 40,800 Ballast cleaning (full) 3,240 m 550 1,782,000 Track tamping 10,800 m1 0 108,000 Ballast re‐surfacing 76 t 220 16,632 Rail grinding 10,800 m5 1 550,800 Potholing for existing services 5,400 m 140 756,000 Extension of existing track 400 m 1,380 552,000 Cutting for new track 200 m 1,800 360,000 Additional Stabling Requirement 1 Item 150,000 150,000 Rectification of blocked pits 4 ea 3,450 13,800 Structure 84,500 Noise reduction works 234 ea 140 32,760 Meshwalkway to tunnel 1 Item 14,000 14,000 Lighting upgrade & egress signage to t 1 Item 14,000 14,000 Train radio rebroadcast upgrade 1 Item 7,000 7,000 Provision of water main & fire hoses 1 Item 7,000 7,000 Emergency telephones 1 Item 2,760 2,760 Remote & local fire alarms 1 Item 6,900 6,900 Electrical ‐ 20,459,400 OHW Structures ‐ new 136 ea 51,000 6,936,000 OHW Structures ‐ removal of existing 136 ea 1,900 258,400 OHW wiring 10,800 m 360 3,888,000 Traction substation 3 ea 248,000 744,000 Signalling 5,400 m 1,400 7,560,000 Fibre optic network cable 5,400 m 120 648,000 Extension to PABX system 1 Item 75,000 75,000 Additional Stabling Requirement 1 Item 275,000 275,000 Upgrading of existing control system 1 Item 75,000 75,000 Stops 12,400,400 Norton Stop (James Street) Platforms 2 ea 310,000 620,000 Pathways 60 m 320 19,200 Pedestrian crossings 2 ea 7,000 14,000 Ramps 1 ea 210,000 210,000 Stairs (18 steps) 1 ea 62,100 62,100 Stairs (25 steps) 1 ea 70,000 70,000 Power to stations 1 Item 100,000 100,000 Furniture to stations 1 Item 55,000 55,000

3 210047 Sydney Light Rail Extension Inner West Options

Option 2 ‐ Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill Qty Unit Rate Subtotal Total Allen Stop Platforms 2 ea 310,000 620,000 Pathways 45 m 320 14,400 Pedestrian crossings 2 ea 7,000 14,000 Ramps 1 ea 165,600 165,600 Stairs (8 steps) 1 ea 20,700 20,700 Power to stations 1 Item 100,000 100,000 Furniture to stations 1 Item 55,000 55,000 Marion Stop Platforms 2 ea 310,000 620,000 Pathways 60 m 320 19,200 Pedestrian crossings 2 ea 7,000 14,000 Ramps 1 ea 880,000 880,000 Stairs 1 ea 125,000 125,000 Power to stations 1 Item 100,000 100,000 Furniture to stations 1 Item 55,000 55,000 Parramatta Road Stop Platforms 2 ea 310,000 620,000 Piling to platforms 45 ea 17,500 787,500 Pathways 150 m 320 48,000 Pedestrian crossings 2 ea 7,000 14,000 Ramps 1 ea 440,000 440,000 Stairs 1 ea 125,000 125,000 Power to stations 1 Item 100,000 100,000 Furniture to stations 1 Item 55,000 55,000 Lewisham Interchange Stop Platforms 2 ea 310,000 620,000 Piling to platforms 45 ea 17,500 787,500 Pathways 30 m 320 9,600 Pedestrian crossings 2 ea 7,000 14,000 Ramps 2 ea 330,000 660,000 Power to stations 1 Item 100,000 100,000 Furniture to stations 1 Item 55,000 55,000 Waratah Mills Stop Platforms 2 ea 310,000 620,000 Pathways 45 m 320 14,400 Pedestrian crossings 2 ea 7,000 14,000 Stairs 1 ea 125,000 125,000 Power to stations 1 Item 125,000 125,000 Furniture to stations 1 Item 55,000 55,000 Dulwich Hill Shops Stop Platforms 2 ea 310,000 620,000 Pathways 30 m 320 9,600 Pedestrian crossings 2 ea 7,000 14,000 Stairs 2 ea 125,000 250,000 Ramps 1 ea 440,000 440,000 Lift (including structure) 1 ea 800,000 800,000 Power to stations 1 Item 125,000 125,000 Furniture to stations 1 Item 55,000 55,000 Dulwich Hill Interchange Stop Platforms 1 ea 520,000 520,000 Pathways 30 m 320 9,600 Power to stations 1 Item 125,000 125,000 Additional Security Fencing 1 Item 35,000 35,000 Furniture to stations 1 Item 55,000 55,000

4 210047 Sydney Light Rail Extension Inner West Options

Option 2 ‐ Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill Qty Unit Rate Subtotal Total Total Contractor's Costs $ 41,167,700

Client Costs Project management & project controls 6.00% $ 2,470,100 Design 8.00% $ 3,293,500 Planning & Environment 1.00% $ 411,700 Geotechnical investigations 1.00% $ 411,700 Communications & community consultation 1.50% $ 617,600

Subtotal $ 48,372,300

Contingency 50.00% $ 24,186,200

Total CAPEX Cost $ 72,558,500

5 210047 Sydney Light Rail Extension Inner West Options

Option 1 ‐ Lilyfield to Lewisham (Every Four Years) Qty Unit Rate Subtotal Total Track 1,855,700 Ballast cleaning (full) 2,220 m 400 888,000 Track tamping 7,400 m7 50,320 Ballast re‐surfacing 52 t 160 8,288 Rail grinding 7,400 m3 7 273,800 Re‐sleepering 2,762 ea 230 635,260 Generally 671,200 Allow for bridge inspection works (every four years) 7 No 20,000 140,000 Allow for tunnel inspection works (annually) 4 No 30,000 120,000 Anti‐graffiti paint treatment to bridges etc. 2,800 m2 25 70,000 Graffiti removal 2,800 m2 10 28,000 Weeding and general cleanup of track length (3,700 metres) (three out of four years) 36 Months 5,000 180,000

Repairs/replacement to trackside fencing (say 5% per annum) 1,480 m9 0 133,200

Subtotal $ 2,526,900

Corporation charge 8.00% 202,200

Subtotal $ 2,729,100

Contingency 50.00% 1,263,500

Corporation charge on contingency 8.00% 101,100

Total OPEX Cost $ 4,093,700

6 210047 Sydney Light Rail Extension Inner West Options

Option 2 ‐ Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill (Every Four Years) Qty Unit Rate Subtotal Total Track 2,716,800 Ballast cleaning (full) 3,240 m 400 1,296,000 Track tamping 10,800 m7 73,440 Ballast re‐surfacing 127 t 160 20,384 Rail grinding 10,800 m3 7 399,600 Re‐sleepering 4,032 ea 230 927,360 Generally 956,500 Allow for bridge inspection works (annually) 11 No 20,000 220,000 Allow for tunnel inspection works (annually) 4 No 30,000 120,000 Anti‐graffiti paint treatment to bridges etc. 7,700 m2 25 192,500 Graffiti removal 2,800 m2 10 28,000 Weeding and general cleanup of track length (5,400 metres) (three out of four years) 36 Months 7,300 262,800

Repairs/replacement to trackside fencing (say 5% per annum) 1,480 m90 133,200

Subtotal $ 3,673,300

Corporation charge 8.00% 293,900

Subtotal $ 3,967,200

Contingency 50.00% 1,836,700

Corporation charge on contingency 8.00% 147,000

Total OPEX Cost $ 5,950,900

7 210047 Sydney Light Rail Extension Inner West Options

Option 1 ‐ Lilyfield to Lewisham Qty Unit Rate Subtotal Total Maintenance of Structures 239,400 Allow for bridge inspection works (once every four years) 1.4 No 20,000 28,000

Allow for tunnel inspection works 1 No 30,000 30,000

Minor repairs to bridges and abutments (incl design & prelims) (once on every four years) 1.4 No 50,000 70,000 Minor repairs to stanchions and overhead structures (say 20% per annum) 10 No 3,000 30,000 Repairs/replacement to trackside fencing (say 10% per annum) 740 m 110 81,400 General Maintenance 84,500 Anti‐graffiti paint treatment to bridges etc. 700 m2 25 17,500 Graffiti removal 700 m2 10 7,000 Weeding and general cleanup of track length (3,700 metres) 12 Months 5,000 60,000

Subtotal $ 323,900

Corporate Charge 8.00% 26,000

Subtotal $ 349,900

Contingency 50.00% 162,000

Corporate Charge on Contingency 8.00% 13,000

Total OPEX Cost $ 524,900

8 210047 Sydney Light Rail Extension Inner West Options

Option 2 ‐ Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill Qty Unit Rate Subtotal Total Maintenance of Structures 309,200 Allow for bridge inspection works (once every four years) 2.2 No 20,000 44,000

Allow for tunnel inspection works 1 No 30,000 30,000

Minor repairs to bridges and abutments (incl design & prelims) (once on every four years) 2.2 No 40,000 88,000 Minor repairs to stanchions and overhead structures (say 20% per annum) 20 No 2,500 50,000

Repairs/replacement to trackside fencing (say 10% per annum) 1,080 m9 0 97,200 General Maintenance 126,100 Anti‐graffiti paint treatment to bridges etc. 1,100 m2 25 27,500 Graffiti removal 1,100 m2 10 11,000 Weeding and general cleanup of track length (5,400 metres) 12 Months 7,300 87,600

Subtotal $ 435,300

Corporate Charge 50.00% 217,700

Subtotal $ 653,000

Contingency 50.00% 217,700

Corporate Charge on Contingency 8.00% 17,500

Total OPEX Cost $ 888,200

9 Appendix E Economic Assessment

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study Final Report Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study Benefit Cost Analysis Final Report

July 2010 Contents

Executive Summary i

1. Introduction 1 1.1 Structure of this Section 1

2. Base and Project Case Options 2

3. BCA Methodology and Assumptions 3 3.1 Overall Framework 3 3.2 Benefits and Costs 3 3.3 Project Evaluation Period 5 3.4 Construction Period and Operational Commencement of Project 5

4. Project Costs 6 4.1 Light Rail Line and Associated Infrastructure CAPEX Costs 6 4.2 Residual Value 7 4.3 Light Rail Regular Maintenance Costs 8 4.4 Light Rail Major Periodic Maintenance Costs 9 4.5 Light Rail Vehicle CAPEX Costs 9 4.6 Light Rail Vehicle Operating Costs 10

5. Project Benefits 11 5.1 Benefit Drivers 11 5.2 Value of Time Benefits 12 5.3 Road Vehicle Accident Benefits 12 5.4 Road Vehicle Operating Benefits 12 5.5 Externality Benefits 13

6. Overall Project Results 14 6.1 Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 15

7. Sensitivity Analysis 16

8. Conclusions 17

9. References 18

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 2 Benefit Cost Analysis Report Table Index Table 1 Scope of Base and Project Case Options 2 Table 2 BCA Evaluation Period 5 Table 3 Project construction and operational commencement year assumptions 5 Table 4 Project CAPEX Item Expenditures, $million, 2010 Dollars 6 Table 5 Project Management and other Cost Expenditures, $million, 2010 Dollars 7 Table 6 Total Project Investment Costs, $million, 2010 Dollars 7 Table 7 Timing of Project CAPEX, 2010 Dollars 7 Table 8 Project Life Assumptions 8 Table 9 Residual Value of Light Rail Assets, $million, 2010 Dollars 8 Table 10 Annual Maintenance Costs of Light Rail Line and Associated Infrastructure, $million, 2010 Dollars 8 Table 11 Annual Maintenance Costs of Disused Rail Freight Line, Base Case, $million, 2010 Dollars 9 Table 12 Major Periodic Maintenance Costs of Light Rail Line and Associated Infrastructure, $million 2010 Dollars 9 Table 13 Number of Light Rail Vehicles Required in Base and Project Case Options 9 Table 14 Annual Capital Cost per Light Rail Vehicle 10 Table 15 Light Rail Vehicle Annual Operating Costs, $million, 2010 Dollars 10 Table 16 Value of Time Parameters 12 Table 17 Accident Cost Parameters 12 Table 18 Typical Road Vehicle Operating Costs 12 Table 19 Externality Unit Cost Parameters 13 Table 20 Summary of Benefits and Costs of Project Case Options, $million, 2010-2040 14 Table 21 NPV and BCR of Project Case Options, 2010-40, $million, 2010 Dollars 15 Table 22 Sensitivity of Project BCRs 16

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 3 Benefit Cost Analysis Report Figure Index Figure 1 BCA Approach 3 Figure 2 Direct Project Case Benefits and Costs Over Base Case 4

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 4 Benefit Cost Analysis Report Executive Summary

The results of the preliminary benefit cost analysis indicate that extending Sydney's light rail system to Dulwich Hill is justifiable on economic grounds, albeit at the margin. Both extension options (Option 1 to Lewisham) and Option 2 (to Dulwich Hill) are expected to deliver net economic benefits to the community as both recorded Net Present Values (NPV) greater than 0 and Benefit Cost Ratios (BCR) of 1 or more. Option 1 performs better in economic terms than Option 2 with an NPV of $25.2 m and a BCR of 1.6 compared with values of $1.5m and 1.0 for option 2, respectively. The extra costs of extending the light rail line to Lewisham are modest in infrastructure terms whilst the benefits of capturing an increased number of commuter passengers are notable. Extending the existing line further from Lewisham to Dulwich Hill is more marginal as this necessitates some uplift in costs that are counter-balanced by a comparable uplift in benefits. Overall, the economic assessment undertaken as part of this study was based on a range of preliminary investigations, including patronage modelling and order-of-magnitude estimation of infrastructure and operating costs. As with any economic assessment for a public transport project, it will be sensitive to a range of assumptions relating to the transport product, including fare and ticketing arrangements as well as decisions regarding service and operational planning. The extent of the study was also limited with a number of potential benefits associated with, for example, decongestion, induced demand for light rail and the reorganisation of bus services and modal interchange points not included. Furthermore, benefits associated with avoided or deferred expenditure on other modes due to a movement of trips to light rail have not been captured. Accordingly, the analysis, particularly with respect to the benefits that could accrue, can be considered to be conservative. While the level of economic assessment is appropriate for a preliminary assessment of feasibility, more in-depth analysis would be required to inform financial and contractual negotiations.

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study i Benefit Cost Analysis Report 1. Introduction

GHD Pty Ltd (GHD) was commissioned by New South Wales Transport and Infrastructure (NSWTI) to undertake the Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study. The study provides an initial assessment of feasibility of the proposed Inner Western Extension to the Sydney Light Rail System. The extensions are classified as follows:

 Option 1 - Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Lewisham; and

 Option 2 - Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Dulwich Hill. This chapter summarises the results of a preliminary draft benefit-cost analysis (BCA) undertaken to determine the economic merit of extending the Sydney light rail network. A BCA is a systematic means of analysing the economic, social and environmental benefits and costs directly arising from a project. It provides an objective decision-making framework that considers the net impacts of an alternative project case option (or set of options) against a base case (or status quo). The project options can be considered as the ‘with project’ cases and the base case, the ‘without project’ case. The economic assessment requires inputs from several other technical areas. The critical inputs used in the assessment include:

 Capital cost information.

 Vehicle purchase and operating cost information.

 Patronage output data. It is critical to appreciate that the results of this preliminary draft BCA are subject to strong caveats, and considerable caution must be employed in drawing conclusions. This reflects some data gaps and uncertainties relating to the light rail patronage forecasts. The results of the economic assessment are clearly sensitive to the patronage and cost estimates as these drive the various benefit and cost streams. The realisation of benefits of the project will be critically dependent upon measures being put in place to underpin the ridership of the extended light rail. In the same way the cost estimates are sensitive to operational assumptions such as number of light rail vehicles required for the services. 1.1 Structure of this Section This Section is structured as follows:

 Section 2 – Base and project options.

 Section 3 – BCA methodology and assumptions.

 Section 4 – Project costs (in undiscounted terms).

 Section 5 – Project benefits (in undiscounted terms).

 Section 6 – Overall project results (in discounted terms).

 Section 7 – Sensitivity analysis.

 Section 8 – Conclusions.

 Section 9 – References.

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 1 Benefit Cost Analysis Report 2. Base and Project Case Options

The scope of the base and project case options that form the basis of the BCA are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Scope of Base and Project Case Options

Option Scope

Base case* Existing light rail line from central rail station to Lilyfield is kept as is into the future

Option 1 Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Lewisham

Option 2 Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Dulwich Hill * The current base case includes costs associated with ongoing maintenance of the existing disused rail freight line which traverses the study area. This includes maintenance of structures (i.e., bridge and tunnel inspection works, repairs to trackside fencing) and general maintenance (i.e., graffiti removal and weeding). Costs are estimated by Currie & Brown to be $0.5 million per year.

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 2 Benefit Cost Analysis Report 3. BCA Methodology and Assumptions

3.1 Overall Framework This preliminary draft BCA is undertaken in accordance with the approaches outlined by the Australian Transport Council (ATC) and Infrastructure Australia (IA)1. These two approaches complement each other and allow for improved robustness in identifying the monetised benefits and costs of new transport infrastructure projects. Both approaches have been and are currently used in the evaluation of new transport infrastructure proposals submitted for government funding. The approach to undertaking a BCA is summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1 BCA Approach

3.2 Benefits and Costs

3.2.1 Direct Benefits and Costs A typical BCA will usually focus on quantifying the direct benefits and costs of proceeding with the project options. Figure 2 displays the directly quantifiable benefits and costs of undertaking the project case options. These are ‘incremental’ costs and benefits since they are necessarily estimated ‘over and above’ the base case. This economic assessment does not include benefits such as wider economic benefits.

1 Australian Transport Council 2006, ‘National Guidelines for Transport System Management in Australia’, Volume 3, Appraisal of Initiatives. Infrastructure Australia (IA) 2008, ‘Outline of Infrastructure Australia’s Prioritisation Methodology’.

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 3 Benefit Cost Analysis Report Figure 2 Direct Project Case Benefits and Costs Over Base Case

Note: The benefits could include an amount of incremental net fares revenue not ‘captured’ in generalised cost analysis. Source: GHD preliminary draft assumptions.

3.2.2 Indirect benefits As outlined in the previous section, a typical BCA will usually limit its focus to quantifying the direct benefits and costs of a project. The net benefits of a project are subsequently calculated by subtracting all incremental direct costs from all incremental direct benefits associated in moving from a base case to a project case. If indirect effects, and specifically indirect benefits, are to be included in the BCA, they must be productivity or economic efficiency benefits. These are collectively called Wider Economic Benefits (WEBs). Infrastructure Australia has acknowledged WEBs and they are beginning to be introduced into transport project BCAs across Australia2. WEBs consist of a number of components, with spill-over productivity externalities known as agglomeration benefits generally being the most significant type of WEBs. They are almost exclusive to very significant transport infrastructure projects in large metropolitan locations. Any WEBs arising from the Light Rail Extension project option(s) are outside the scope of this study. This BCA only focuses on direct project benefits and costs.

3.2.3 Broader Economic Impacts This BCA does not represent an Economic Impact Study. Such studies seek to quantify the broader economic flow-on impacts of the Light Rail Extension project on Sydney and NSW more generally. This

2 Guidance on WEBs in the Australian context is available from the following Infrastructure Australia paper ‘Reform and Investment Framework for Use by Proponents - Templates for Stage 7’ (2009), available at; http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/publications.aspx

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 4 Benefit Cost Analysis Report includes impacts on construction and engineering sector employment, manufacturing production, household consumption expenditure and total state output. Economic Impact Studies do not address the issue of net benefits, which is the focus of a BCA. Rather, Economic Impact Studies can compliment information that BCAs provide to a decision maker.

3.3 Project Evaluation Period Table 2 displays evaluation period assumptions for the BCA.

Table 2 BCA Evaluation Period

Item Assumption

All project benefit and cost items Expressed in 2010 dollars

First year of evaluation period 2010

Last year of evaluation period 2040

Length of evaluation period 30 years Source: GHD preliminary draft assumptions.

3.4 Construction Period and Operational Commencement of Project Table 3 displays construction and operational commencement date assumptions for the BCA.

Table 3 Project construction and operational commencement year assumptions

Item Option 1 Option 2

First year of construction 2011 2011

Last year of construction 2013 2014

Operational commencement year 2014 2015 Source: GHD preliminary draft assumptions.

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 5 Benefit Cost Analysis Report 4. Project Costs

This section outlines the assumptions and estimates for each project cost items outlined in Figure 2.

4.1 Light Rail Line and Associated Infrastructure CAPEX Costs

4.1.1 Base Case The base case assumes no new capital upgrades or improvements are made to the existing light rail line over the 2010-40 evaluation period. The current operational configuration and capacity of the existing light rail line is taken as given in this BCA.

4.1.2 Project Case The project investment cost figures used in the BCA were obtained from Currie & Brown. Investment costs comprise:

 Project capital expenditure costs items (including expenditure on track, structure, electrical systems and stops).

 Project management and other cost expenditures (including expenditure on project management, design, planning and environment, geotechnical investigations and, communications and community consultations). It is important to note that the Currie & Brown investment cost estimates reported here are different from those displayed in Chapter 8 ‘Assessment of Costs – Capital’. The estimates in Chapter 8 include contingency costs. However, for economic assessment purposes contingency costs do not represent actual resource costs incurred. Therefore, they are excluded from the project investment cost estimates in this chapter. Table 4 displays estimates for each major CAPEX item involving the insertion of new light rail track and setting up the supporting infrastructure. The major CAPEX items include the relevant project contractor costs.

Table 4 Project CAPEX Item Expenditures, $million, 2010 Dollars

Item Option 1 Option 2

Track 4.1 8.2

Structure 0.1 0.1

Electrical 13.8 20.5

Stations 8.4 12.4

Total 26.4 41.2

Source: Currie & Brown.

In addition to infrastructure CAPEX, estimates of project management costs are displayed in Table 5.

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 6 Benefit Cost Analysis Report Table 5 Project Management and other Cost Expenditures, $million, 2010 Dollars

Item Option 1 Option 2

Total 4.61 7.06

Source: Currie & Brown. Due to current data gaps, estimates of light rail vehicles-induced level crossing delay costs have not been captured in this evaluation. These could be material, particularly due the am and pm peak periods where some queuing at crossings may occur. The total project investment costs used in the economic assessment sums the project CAPEX, project management and other cost expenditures. The total project investment costs are shown in Table 6.

Table 6 Total Project Investment Costs, $million, 2010 Dollars

Item Option 1 Option 2

Total 31.0 48.4

4.1.3 Timing of Project CAPEX All the cost items outlined in the above section are spread over a three year project construction period as per Table 3. Table 7 displays the percentage splits of costs attributable to each of the three years between 2011 and 2013.

Table 7 Timing of Project CAPEX, 2010 Dollars

Option Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

% of total costs incurred

Option 1 - Light rail extension between 25% 50% 25% Lilyfield and Lewisham

Option 2 - Light rail extension between 25% 50% 25% Lilyfield and Dulwich Hill Source: GHD preliminary draft assumptions.

4.2 Residual Value The BCA accounts for the remaining asset life of the extended light rail lines. Given the operational commencement date of 2014 and a total asset life of 50 years thereafter, the extended light rail line is only utilised for 27 years its total life by the end of the evaluation period (2040). This leaves 23 years worth of asset life after the evaluation period. This is shown in Table 8.

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 7 Benefit Cost Analysis Report Table 8 Project Life Assumptions

Item Assumption

Total asset life 50 years First year of evaluation period 2010 Length of evaluation period 30 years Last year of evaluation period 2040 Operational commencement date 2014 Asset life utilised during evaluation period 27 years Asset life remaining after evaluation period 23 years Source: GHD preliminary draft assumptions.

A straight line method was used to estimate the value of the remaining asset lives in the project options. The resultant residual value estimates are displayed in Table 9.

Table 9 Residual Value of Light Rail Assets, $million, 2010 Dollars

Project Option Cost ($m)

Option 1 - Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Lewisham 14.2

Option 2 - Light rail extension between Lilyfield and Dulwich Hill 22.3 GHD preliminary draft assumptions.

4.3 Light Rail Regular Maintenance Costs There is regular annual light rail line and associated infrastructure maintenance costs incurred in the base and project case options. Table 10 displays these annual maintenance expenditures. An extra $0.2 million and $0.3 million of annual maintenance expenditure over and above the base case expenditure of $0.4 million, needs to be incurred for Option 1 and Option 2, respectively.

Table 10 Annual Maintenance Costs of Light Rail Line and Associated Infrastructure, $million, 2010 Dollars

Base Case Option 1 Option 2 Maintenance

Annual maintenance 0.4 0.2 0.3 Source: GHD preliminary draft assumptions.

In addition to the normal ongoing maintenance costs associated with the existing light rail line, the base case has incorporates maintenance expenditure for the old rail freight line. If the project is not undertaken, maintenance costs will still need to be incurred for the disused rail freight line that runs from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill.

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 8 Benefit Cost Analysis Report These maintenance costs can be divided into two categories, maintenance of structures and general maintenance.

 Maintenance of Structures: includes allowance for bridge and tunnel inspection, and repairs to bridges, abutments, stanchions overhead structures and trackside fencing.

 General maintenance: includes anti graffiti treatment and removal, weeding and general cleanup. Table 11 displays the annual expenditure associated with disused freight line in the base case.

Table 11 Annual Maintenance Costs of Disused Rail Freight Line, Base Case, $million, 2010 Dollars

Item Base Case

Total 0.5

4.4 Light Rail Major Periodic Maintenance Costs In addition to regular annual maintenance expenditures, the BCA assumes that major periodic maintenance (in the form renewals and upgrades) are undertaken once every four years over the evaluation period. This is applicable to both the base and project case options. Table 12 displays estimates of major periodic maintenance costs in the base and project case options. Table 12 shows that for Option 1 and Option 2 an extra $2.7 million and $4.0 million of major periodic maintenance expenditure, respectively, is incurred over and above the base case.

Table 12 Major Periodic Maintenance Costs of Light Rail Line and Associated Infrastructure, $million 2010 Dollars

Base Case Option 1 Option 2 Maintenance

Major periodic maintenance 4.8 2.7 4.0 Source: Currie & Brown.

4.5 Light Rail Vehicle CAPEX Costs If the project options were to proceed, a number of new light rail vehicles (ie, rolling stock) may be needed to be purchased to service the extended light rail line. No extra vehicles are required for Option 1 as the current fleet would be sufficient to meet operational needs. For Option 2, an additional three vehicles will need to be purchased (Table 13).

Table 13 Number of Light Rail Vehicles Required in Base and Project Case Options

Base Case Option 1 Option 2 Vehicles Required

Number of light rail vehicles 7 0 3 Source: GHD preliminary draft estimates.

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 9 Benefit Cost Analysis Report In terms of light rail unit purchase costs, Table 14 displays unit purchase costs. Taken together with useful lifespan and weighted average cost of capital assumptions, it is possible to estimate the annual amortised capital cost of additional light rail vehicles required in the project case options. Table 14 shows an annual capital cost per light rail vehicle of $0.3 million. This is applicable to the project case options.

Table 14 Annual Capital Cost per Light Rail Vehicle

Item Criteria

Upfront purchase cost per vehicle ($million, 2010 dollars) $4 m

Useful life 30 yrs

Weighted average cost of capital 7%

Annual capital cost over asset life ($million, 2010 dollars) 0.3

Source: GHD preliminary draft assumptions, ATC National Guidelines.

4.6 Light Rail Vehicle Operating Costs The operating costs of light rail vehicles need to be included in the BCA. Table 15 displays the estimated operating costs for the existing fleet in the base and project case options. For option 1, extra light rail vehicle operating costs “over and above” the base case are estimated at $1.7 million per annum as more vehicle kilometres would be needed, while for option 2, extra light rail vehicle operating costs over and above the base case are estimated at $3.3 million per annum.

Table 15 Light Rail Vehicle Annual Operating Costs, $million, 2010 Dollars

Base Case Option 1 Option 2 Item

Annual light rail vehicle OPEX 5.8 1.7 3.3 Source: GHD preliminary draft estimates.

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 10 Benefit Cost Analysis Report 5. Project Benefits

This section outlines the assumptions and estimates for each project benefit items outlined in Figure 2. The estimation of benefits has focussed on the main categories – travel time savings to those diverting to light rail; vehicle operating costs savings due to reduced car travel; accident cost and negative externality savings associated with trip diversion to light rail. Due to current data gaps, estimates of decongestion benefits and overall increases in net incremental fare revenues (i.e., producer surplus) have not been estimated for this preliminary draft BCA. Other minor benefit categories such as passenger amenity benefits to new users as well as existing users have not been estimated. These are associated with diverting to a different transport mode for those moving from bus to light rail, for example and with new vehicles being available for existing users for some journeys as the fleet is increased. Benefits associated with travelling on a less crowded mode have also not been estimated. No induced demand benefit has been estimated, i.e. that amount of demand over the existing total travel demand associated with a stimulus of travel due to new ‘opportunities’ being made available by new infrastructure and services. Benefits associated with a possible re-organisation of bus services upon commencement of the extended light rail services have not be estimated. No avoided costs are included streams in this economic assessment. Avoided costs are a form of benefit resulting from the implementation of the project options. If the light rail system is extended upgrades to other modes of the public transport system may not need to be undertaken (ie, highway widening) or they can be deferred until some later date. Such foregone and/or deferred costs have not been estimated in this economic assessment. This reflects two reasons; there is uncertainty in precisely how an extended light rail system will alter the broader public transport landscape, and, this assessment does not include induced demand effects.

5.1 Benefit Drivers The BCA uses patronage outputs from the light rail patronage model. The light rail patronage model uses output data from the STM (Sydney Strategic Transport Model) to calculate the likely number of people who would use the light rail. The light rail patronage model provides outputs on the number of trips induced and diverted to use the light rail, the amount of travel time saved and the reduction in vehicle kilometres travelled by road. The two main sources that drive the project benefits are:

 Public transport travel time savings - Public transport users are now able to switch to using the light rail system. This would result in a travel time savings for some users.

 Reduction in vehicle km travelled by road vehicles - Another source of benefit is from road users switching to light rail. This lessens vehicle km travelled, which reduces vehicle operating cost for road vehicles, road vehicle accidents and externalities. This BCA incorporates patronage outputs from ‘Scenario A - Diverted Trips Only’. Key outputs from the patronage model include; the number of diverted trips, reduction in vehicle kilometres travelled and travel time savings for public transport. Detail on the patronage outputs and assumptions underpinning them can be found in Section 5 of the report.

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 11 Benefit Cost Analysis Report 5.2 Value of Time Benefits A potential benefit arising from the extension of the light rail line across Sydney’s inner western suburbs is savings in time. This is the value of savings that commuters derive from using light rail over alternative public transport. The rule of half is applied for diverter, consistent with the ATC guidelines. Table 16 displays the value of time parameters used in the model.

Table 16 Value of Time Parameters

Year Unit Value

2010 $(Person-hour) 11.01 Source: ATC National Guidelines.

5.3 Road Vehicle Accident Benefits The extension of the light rail line to Lewisham and Dulwich Hill is expected to result in a modest number of commuters diverting from car transport to light rail. This implies lower vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) by cars compared to the base case. Since accident rates are positively correlated with vehicle kilometres travelled, the project case options will generate an accident benefit via reduction in passenger vehicle kilometres travelled (i.e., less accidents where minor, major injuries and fatalities). Crash cost per VKT for road is calculated by using average cost per crash (Austroads, 2008) and then incorporated into crash rate per km data (Austroads, 2004). Anecdotal evidence has suggested that light rail transport modes have low accident rates. This is supported by monthly reports supplied by the current light rail operator. Table 17 displays road vehicle accident parameters for road vehicles.

Table 17 Accident Cost Parameters

Year Mode Unit Value

2010 Road $ per VKT 0.072 Source: GHD estimates using Austroads 2004 and Austroads 2008.

5.4 Road Vehicle Operating Benefits For those diverters switching from car to light rail, there will be a reduction in vehicle operating costs since car trips - from the inner western areas around Lewisham and Dulwich Hill - will no longer be undertaken in the project case options. These savings in vehicle resource costs (tyres, fuel and maintenance) represents a benefit in the project case options. Table 18 displays average road vehicle operating cost parameters.

Table 18 Typical Road Vehicle Operating Costs

Year Mode Unit Value

2010 Road $ per VKT 0.058 Source: Austroads 2008.

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 12 Benefit Cost Analysis Report 5.5 Externality Benefits Different modes of passenger transport impact the environment to varying degrees. The magnitude of noise, vibration, air pollution, greenhouse gas etc impacts associated with different transport modes varies. Table 19 displays the externality unit cost parameters used in this report.

Table 19 Externality Unit Cost Parameters

Year Item Unit Externality

2010 Air Pollution $ per VKT 0.04 2010 Greenhouse $ per VKT 0.01 2010 Noise $ per VKT 0.22 2010 Total $ per VKT 0.27 Source: Austroads 2008, ACT TAMS 2008.

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 13 Benefit Cost Analysis Report 6. Overall Project Results

This section summarises the results of Section 4 and Section 5 gives a central case estimate of the overall economic worth or viability of the inner western Sydney light rail extension project options. This is done by using the two key indicators of the project’s economic worth – Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR). The undiscounted annual estimates of each project cost and benefit item in Section 4 and Section 5, respectively, are summed over the evaluation period. A central case discount rate of 7% per annum is applied to each undiscounted project cost and benefit item to obtain a present day value for each project benefit and cost item. These discounted values are also summed over the evaluation period. Table 20 displays undiscounted and discounted estimates of project costs and benefits in Option 1 and 2.

Table 20 Summary of Benefits and Costs of Project Case Options, $million, 2010-2040

Cost and benefit items Option 1 Option 2

Undiscounted Discounted Undiscounted Discounted

Cost items

Light rail costs

Investment costs 30.9 27.08 48.4 42.30

Residual value -14.2 -1.87 -22.3 -2.92

Regular maintenance costs 13.5 -3.72 -11.0 -2.72

Periodic maintenance costs 11.6 2.75 19.0 5.37

Light rail vehicle costs

Vehicle investment costs 0.0 0.0 27.1 10.25

Vehicle operating costs 45.9 16.63 89.1 32.29

Total costs 60.4 40.88 150.3 84.56

Benefit items

User benefits

Light rail value of time benefits 31.3 11.0 52.2 18.4

Non-user benefits

Road vehicle accident benefits 58.3 17.0 71.7 20.9

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 14 Benefit Cost Analysis Report Cost and benefit items Option 1 Option 2

Road vehicle operating benefits 72.3 21.1 89.0 26.0

Externality benefits 57.9 16.9 71.2 20.8

Total benefits 219.9 66.1 284.1 86.1

Source: GHD preliminary draft results.

Table 20 implies that the direct user benefits are approximately 17% and 21% of total benefits in Option 1 and 2, respectively. This is because the extension of the light rail system is not primarily intended to offer shorter passenger travel times or increases in service frequency. Consequently, the majority of benefits of an extended light rail system stem from reductions in car use.

6.1 Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Total present value costs are subtracted from total present value benefits to obtain the NPV of the project case options over the base case. NPV is the measure of the economic worth of a project. A positive NPV is where total project benefits exceed total project costs and the project is economically justified. A negative NPV implies is where total project costs exceed total project benefits and the project has no overall economic merit. Table 21 below shows each project case has a (positive or negative) NPV compared to the base case. A logical follow-on from the NPV estimates is to calculate a BCR for the project case options. The BCR is calculated by dividing total benefits by total costs in each option. If the BCR is higher than one, the investment project is considered to be economically justified since total benefits outweigh total costs. If the BCR is lower than one, the investment project is not economically justifiable as total costs are greater than total benefits. Table 21 below shows the results of the preliminary benefit cost analysis indicates that extending Sydney's light rail system to Dulwich Hill is justifiable on economic grounds, albeit at the margin. Both the BCA and NPV indicate that both extension options are expected to deliver net economic benefits to the community.

Table 21 NPV and BCR of Project Case Options, 2010-40, $million, 2010 Dollars

Item Option 1 Option 2

Total benefits (discounted, $m) 66.1 86.1

Total costs (discounted, $m) 40.9 84.6

NPV ($m) 25.2 1.5

BCR 1.6 1.02

Source: GHD preliminary draft results.

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 15 Benefit Cost Analysis Report 7. Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity tests were conducted on the two project case options to gauge how robust each BCR outcome is to changes in key BCA modelling assumptions, including project CAPEX costs, value of time and discount rates. The effect of these alternative values on the BCR outcome of each light rail extension option is displayed in Table 22.

Table 22 Sensitivity of Project BCRs

Description Option 1 Option 2

Based on central case assumptions 1.6 1.02

CAPEX costs: 20% lower than central case assumption 1.7 1.12

CAPEX costs: 20% higher than central case assumption 1.5 0.92

Value of time parameter: 20% lower than central case assumption 1.6 1.02

Value of time parameter: 20% higher than central case assumption 1.6 1.02

Externalities parameter: 20% lower than central case assumption 1.6 1.02

Externalities parameter: 20% higher than central case assumption 1.6 1.02

Discount rate @ 4% 1.9 1.22

Discount rate @ 10% 1.3 0.82 Source: GHD preliminary draft results.

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 16 Benefit Cost Analysis Report 8. Conclusions

The key results from this preliminary draft BCA indicates that extending Sydney's light rail system to Dulwich Hill is justifiable on economic grounds, albeit at the margin. Both extension options (Option 1 to Lewisham) and Option 2 (to Dulwich Hill) are expected to deliver net economic benefits to the community as both recorded Net Present values greater than 0 and Benefit Cost Ratios of 1 or more. Option 1 performs better in economic terms than Option 2 with an NPV of $25.2 m and a BCR of 1.6 compared with values of $1.5m and 1.0 for option 2, respectively. The extra costs of extending the light rail line to Lewisham are modest in infrastructure terms whilst the benefits of capturing an increased number of commuter passengers are notable. Extending the existing line further from Lewisham to Dulwich Hill is more marginal as this necessitates some uplift in costs that are counter-balanced by a comparable uplift in benefits. The results of the economic assessment are clearly sensitive to the patronage and cost estimates as these drive the various benefits and cost streams. The realisation of benefits of the project will be critical upon measures being put in place to underpin the ridership of the extended light rail. Operational assumptions, such as the number of vehicles purchased and used, would also have a significant effect. Additional research to enable a wider ‘capture’ of benefits to both existing and new users of the light rail may add to the economic case for implementation.

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 17 Benefit Cost Analysis Report 9. References

Australian Capital Territory Department of Territory and Municipal Services (ACT TAMS) (2008) ACT Light Rail: Proposal to Infrastructure Australia, prepared by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Publication no.09/0056. Austroads (2008) Guide to Project Evaluation, Part 4: Project Evaluation Data - Third Edition, November 2008. Austroads (2004) Road Safety Engineering Risk Assessment – Stage 1. Austroads Report, AP-R248/04. RTA (2009) RTA Economics Manual, Appendix B. National Transport Council (2006) National guidelines for transport system management in Australia Volume 4: Appraisal of initiatives, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 18 Benefit Cost Analysis Report GHD 133 Castlereagh St Sydney NSW 2000 - T: 2 9239 7100 F: 2 9239 7199 E: [email protected]

© GHD 2010 This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Document Status

Rev Reviewer Approved for Issue Author No. Name Signature Name Signature Date

21/19469/160009 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study

Benefit Cost Analysis Report Appendix F Impact Identification Report

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study Final Report Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study Impact Identification Final Report

July 2010 Contents

1. Impact Identification 1 Synopsis – Impact Identification 1 1.1 Introduction 3 1.2 Process of identification of impacts 3 1.3 Identification of Impacts 5

2. References 24

Table Index Table 1 Summary of Potential Impacts 2 Table 2 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Entire corridor 5 Table 3 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Norton 7 Table 4 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Allen 9 Table 5 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Marion 10 Table 6 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Parramatta Road 12 Table 7 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Lewisham Interchange 14 Table 8 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Old Canterbury Road 16 Table 9 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Waratah Mills 17 Table 10 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Constitution Road 19 Table 11 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Dulwich Hill Shops 20 Table 12 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Dulwich Hill Interchange 22

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study

Impact Identification Report 1. Impact Identification

Synopsis – Impact Identification GHD has undertaken a preliminary identification of potential impacts of the proposed Inner West Extension of the Sydney Light Rail system along the freight rail corridor between Lilyfield and Dulwich Hill. Impacts were classified as either relating to the corridor (the light rail corridor between stop locations) or as relating to a specific stop location. These potential impacts are summarised and rated in Table 1. The following system of ratings has been applied:

 None – no potential impacts are expected;

 Low – potential for impacts to occur however impacts are considered to be relatively minor;

 Moderate – potential for impacts are expected but they are not considered to be significant; and

 High – potential impacts are considered to be significant. Overall it was found that the impacts identified as having the potential to occur as a result of the construction and operation of the light rail extension are considered relatively low largely due to much of the works being located within an existing corridor and therefore minimising impacts on surrounding areas. No impacts have been found to be of high significance with a number of impacts considered to be of moderate significance. The impacts found to be of a moderate significance are as follows:

 Heritage issues due to the Lewisham Railway Viaduct and the Lewisham Aqueduct being present within the corridor and therefore in the vicinity of any potential works;

 Potential impacts to the Lewisham Railway Viaduct due to its positioning directly to the north of the Lewisham Interchange Stop;

 Flora and fauna impacts due to the potential removal of vegetation along the corridor (particularly at stops) and the impacts generated from the removal on threatened and native species of fauna;

 Operational noise and vibration impacts throughout the corridor due to the corridor being used for light rail services which currently do not exist along the corridor;

 Contamination issues due to the pass use of the corridor and some neighbouring properties having the potential to contaminate the corridor;

 Visual impacts due to overlooking to neighbouring properties from Light Rail Extension;

 Visual impacts at the Dulwich Hill Interchange in Bedford Crescent due to introduction of light rail infrastructure within the existing residential environment; and

 Traffic and transport impacts at a number of stops identified in Table 1.

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 1 Impact Identification Report Table 1 Summary of Potential Impacts

Location Fauna Visual Cyclists Heritage Vibration transport Flora and Land Use Noise and Traffic and Contamination Pedestrian and

Entire corridor Moderate Moderate None Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low

Norton None Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Low

Allen None Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Low None

Marion Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low

Parramatta Road Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low

Lewisham Moderate Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Interchange

Old Canterbury Road None Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Low

Waratah Mills None Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Low

Constitution Road None Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Low

Dulwich Hill Shops None Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Low

Dulwich Hill None None Low None Low Moderate Moderate Low Interchange

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 2 Impact Identification Report 1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 Scope The purpose of this chapter is to identify any potential impacts associated with the construction of the Light Rail Inner West Extension between Lilyfield and Dulwich Hill. Identification of potential impacts was undertaken based on a desktop review of key environmental risks. The process for undertaking this review is described in Section 1.2. The study area for the identification of impacts was largely confined to the disused rail corridor between the existing Lilyfield Light Rail Stop and Dulwich Hill due to minimal impacts expected outside of the corridor. The study area was however widened to assess the potential impacts around the proposed stops.

1.1.2 Assumptions and limitations Underpinning the identification of impacts are a number of key assumptions and limitations which shape the assessment findings.

Assumptions

 Stop locations as identified in Section 3 of the main report. No additional stop locations were assessed.

 Extent of stops taken as ‘extent of assessment’ marked on the concept design layouts located in Appendix B of the main report.

 Track between stops would be located entirely within the corridor with minimal works required outside the corridor. Works outside the corridor would be limited to areas immediately surrounding stops.

Limitations

 The review was a high level desktop study only with limited opportunities for ground truthing.

 The ecology assessment was limited to desktop review only, with no field surveys. Confirmation of vegetation conservation value was therefore not possible.

1.2 Process of identification of impacts

1.2.1 Potential impacts and risks Reflecting the high level nature of this study, a list of potential impacts for assessment was identified based on past experience in similar projects. The impacts considered include:

 Heritage;  Noise and vibration;

 Flora and fauna;  Visual;

 Land use (both current and future);  Traffic and transport; and

 Contamination;  Pedestrian and cyclist.

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 3 Impact Identification Report 1.2.2 Assessment of potential impacts The assessment of potential impacts was based on a high level desktop study. The study utilised online databases, aerial photography, reports undertaken along the corridor and general experience in similar projects to identify potential impacts along the corridor and in the vicinity of the stops. The following past investigations were reviewed during this investigation:

 Inner West Sydney Light Rail Extension – Stage 2 - Lilyfield to Ashfield Prefeasibility Study (Arup, 1998);

 Strategic Concepts for a Cooks River to Iron Cove Shared Path Towards a GreenWay Trail for the Metro Sydney Strategic Cycle Network (The Environment Works Pty Ltd, 2010);

 Proposed Light Rail Extensions - Environmental Impact Statement (Manidis Roberts Consultants, 1997). Below is an outline of the searches undertaken for the heritage and ecology desktop assessments.

Heritage A desktop assessment of heritage items was undertaken using the following heritage lists:

 State Heritage Register (search under taken through the NSW Heritage Branch Search);

 s170 Register (search under taken through the NSW Heritage Branch Search);

 Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2001 heritage list;

 Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2000 heritage list; and

 Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 heritage list.

Ecology A desktop assessment was undertaken to identify potential ecological constraints on the Light Rail Extension and to identify potential impacts associated with its construction and operation. Information and databases reviewed included:

 Aerial photography of the proposed route which was visually scanned for areas of remnant vegetation or other habitats;

 NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) Atlas of NSW Wildlife Database Records for threatened species and endangered ecological communities listed under the TSC Act and FM Act. Maps showing the location of threatened species previously recorded within the LGAs surrounding the proposed route were created and reviewed based on the results of the database searches;

 Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) Protected Matters Search Tool for matters of national environmental significance listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The database was queried for a 10km buffer around the proposed route; and

 Draft Cooks River to Iron Cove GreenWay Flora and Fauna Literature Review (Ward, 2010).

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 4 Impact Identification Report 1.3 Identification of Impacts

1.3.1 Entire corridor Table 2 outlines the existing environment located along the corridor (defined as the area located between stops, i.e. excludes area around stops), as well as the potential impacts as a result of works within the corridor (i.e. not stop-specific impacts) and any specific impacts that are not covered by any of the individual stops (from Table 3 to Table 12). Potential impacts for each issue are highlighted in bold.

Table 2 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Entire corridor

Heritage Numerous heritage items are located along the corridor. As construction of the Light Rail Extension is unlikely to go beyond the corridor boundaries, no heritage items besides those within 200 metres of stops (see Table 3 to Table 12) would be impacted directly. However, two heritage items identified within 200 metres of the proposed Lewisham Stop (see Table 7) are located within the corridor. These items are:

 Lewisham Railway Viaduct (listed on the State Heritage Register, RailCorp s170 Register, Ashfield LEP 1985 and Marrickville LEP 2001).

 Lewisham Sewage Viaduct (listed on the State Heritage Register, Sydney Water s170 Register and Ashfield LEP 1985). Impacts to heritage items due to work along the corridor (excluding works at the proposed stops) is considered minimal as works would generally remain within the corridor. The exception to this is the potential impacts to the Lewisham Railway Viaduct and the Lewisham Sewage Viaduct which are both State Heritage Items which are located within or cross the corridor. See Table 7 for discussion.

Flora and There are no known threatened plant species recorded in the vicinity of the corridor and fauna there is unlikely to be any threatened plant habitat or endangered ecological communities in the corridor given the extent of vegetation clearing and urban development in the locality. However, field surveys would be required to confirm the conservation value of some dense areas of vegetation that are visible on air photos. The GreenWay corridor, adjacent to the light rail corridor, contains planted native species that are representative of the original vegetation (Ward, et. al. 2010). Plants within these areas have intrinsic conservation value as well as habitat value for native fauna. A number of threatened fauna species and their habitats have been identified in the vicinity of the corridor. These include records of the Long-nosed Bandicoot population in inner western Sydney (Perameles nasuta) and Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) at areas along the corridor. Some mature native trees and dense understorey vegetation would potentially provide habitat for these species and other native fauna. Construction of the light rail (in particular stops) has the potential to remove potential habitat for native fauna, including the Long-nosed Bandicoot and the Grey-headed Flying Fox. The operation of the light rail may also increase the risk of vehicle collisions.

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 5 Impact Identification Report Land use Land uses surrounding the stops are discussed from Table 3 to Table 12. Land use along sections of the corridor between stops is dominated by residential areas; however a wide range of other uses are located along the corridor. The most notable is the open space corridor (containing a walkway/bike path) that follows Hawthorne Canal between approximately the proposed William Street Stop and Old Canterbury Road. Impacts to land use between the proposed stops are not considered to be significant, as the proposed light rail tracks would be wholly contained within the corridor and therefore would not impact directly on surrounding land uses.

Contamination A search of the DECCW contaminated land record has highlighted only one site which has previously held a notice located near the proposed light rail route. This site is the former SRA site located between Derbyshire Street and Balmain Road and is located to the south of the corridor. This site has been remediated as part of the redevelopment of the site as a bus depot. The Light Rail Extension is located almost entirely within the corridor which has previously been used for freight trains and therefore there is potential for contamination to occur within the corridor. A number of industrial uses are located adjacent to the corridor and therefore there is potential for contamination of the corridor from these sites. Contamination impacts within the corridor are considered to be moderate due to the medium to high potential for existing contamination.

Noise and Noise levels in the surrounding area can be classified as typical for an inner city urban vibration area with traffic noise being the main contributor to noise levels. Train movements along the Inner West and Bankstown lines contribute to background noise levels in the vicinity of the Lewisham Interchange and Dulwich Hill Interchange stops respectively. The corridor in which the light rail would run is not currently in use and therefore does not contribute to background noise levels. However, until recently, the corridor was used by freight trains (dating back to the 1920s). Vibration levels are currently low due to the absence of train movements along the corridor. The corridor is lined with a number of sensitive receivers, such as residential dwellings, schools, child care centres. The majority of sensitive receivers located along the corridor consist of residential dwellings. Noise and vibration impacts are expected during both construction and operation of the Light Rail Extension to Dulwich Hill. Construction impacts would be short term in nature and would be mainly concentrated around stop locations. Construction noise impacts would be associated with the operation of machinery and plant. Operational noise and vibration impacts are expected as the operation of the Light Rail Extension would increase the number of rail movements along the corridor significantly as the corridor is currently not in use. This said, noise and vibration impacts associated with light rail are considerably lower than those associated with freight rail. Refer to the Technical Assessment for further discussion of noise and vibration.

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 6 Impact Identification Report Visual The corridor is lined with a large number of visually sensitive receptors which are predominately residential dwellings that back or front on to the corridor. Visual impacts are expected as a result of the increase in people using the corridor and therefore the number of people having views into neighbouring properties.

Traffic and The light rail route principally utilises the Rozelle freight rail line, and its operation is transport likely to have minimal direct impacts on traffic in the surrounding road network. Key issues would include passenger interface with current bus operations and access to parking. Indirect impacts on traffic will include potential increased vehicle trip generation for park-and-ride and kiss-and-ride and bus interchange trips, increased pedestrian flows in the vicinity of light rail stops and potentially affecting traffic signal conditions with the increased flows. Traffic management during construction would also be an important issue. During the construction phase, traffic generation will likely concentrate in the vicinities around light rail stops, with construction traffic mainly comprised of material deliveries, personnel transport, and potentially some spoil removal. The option of utilising the rail line itself for construction deliveries and any spoil removal needs to be further investigated to alleviate construction traffic impacts. Traffic and transport impacts are considered to be generally low to moderate. Indirect impacts are anticipated to occur at the stops on key road and bus route corridors where levels of passenger interface with the light rail would be expected to be relatively high.

Pedestrian The corridor was most recently used as a freight only rail line and therefore access to and bicycle the corridor is not provided for pedestrians or cyclists. Pedestrians and cyclist impacts movements currently occur throughout the area surrounding the corridor. This includes movements adjacent to the corridor and in some case across the corridor. Pedestrian and cyclist impacts are considered to be minimal along the corridor with the exception of around the proposed stops where construction impacts may be experienced. Outlines of these potential impacts at stops are provided from Table 3 to Table 12. It is noted that while a shared path has been proposed as part of the Greenway project, either within or adjacent to the rail corridor, the impacts of the Greenway were not considered as part of this assessment (including at stop locations).

1.3.2 Norton (at James Street) Table 3 outlines the key characteristics of the area surrounding the proposed Norton light rail stop located at James Street. Table 3 also outlines whether impacts could potentially occur as a result of the construction of the Norton light rail stop (potential impacts in bold).

Table 3 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Norton

Heritage No items located on the State Heritage Register located within 200 metres of the light rail stop. Two local heritage items listed under the Leichhardt LEP 2000 are located within 200 metres of the Norton light rail stop. The nearest of these items are the two adjacent stone homes at 134-136 James Street (classified as one item) approximately 60 metres to the north of the light rail stop.

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 7 Impact Identification Report Impacts on heritage items are unlikely to occur in the vicinity of the Norton Stop due to the distance to surrounding heritage items. The nearest item is located on the opposite side of the City West Link.

Flora and Some vegetation is located within the neighbouring commercial property. The fauna conservation value of this vegetation is low. Impacts to vegetation are considered to be low due to the likely low conservation value of any vegetation which is potentially to be removed. Impacts to threatened species at this stop are addressed in Table 2.

Land use Land use surrounding the proposed Norton Stop is dominated by residential development which is generally medium density. Commercial/business uses are located to the east along Norton Street. A further business use is located between the corridor and Darley Road, this business is currently not operating with the site being relatively run down. Land use impacts at the proposed Norton Stop are considered to be minimal as works would mostly remain within the corridor and with potential non corridor impacts limited to the currently vacant business property located on Darley Road.

Contamination See Table 2 for the corridor wide contamination description and potential impacts.

Noise and See Table 2 for the corridor wide noise and vibration description and potential impacts. vibration

Visual Numerous visually sensitive receptors are located in the vicinity of the stop with the majority of these being residential dwellings. The construction and operation of the proposed Norton Stop would result in some potential visual impacts due to the introduction of new infrastructure (e.g. a new light rail stop) into the visual environment for sensitive visual receptors located to the south of the stop.

Traffic and The proposed stop is located between Darley Road and the City West Link. transport Access to the stop from the northern side may require crossing the busy City West Link. There is potential for the relocation of existing bus stops to better integrate with the proposed light rail stop, this relocation would however potentially result in impacts to existing bus users due to the relocation of stops and increased impacts on the surrounding road network and land uses due to the rerouting of bus routes.

Pedestrian The corridor at the proposed Norton Stop is currently not accessible. Pedestrian and and bicycle cyclist movements currently occur along and adjacent to the existing road network. impacts Minimal impacts would potentially occur during construction due to the construction of new infrastructure (i.e. lifts or access stairs) at the new stop which could potentially decrease the available footpath area. Pedestrian volumes would potentially increase in the area due to the presence of a stop.

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 8 Impact Identification Report 1.3.3 Allen Table 4 outlines the key characteristics of the area surrounding the proposed Allen light rail stop. Table 4 also outlines whether impacts could potentially occur as a result of the construction of the Allen light rail stop (potential impacts in bold).

Table 4 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Allen

Heritage No items located on the State Heritage Register located within 200 metres of the light rail stop. One local heritage item listed under the Leichhardt LEP 2000 is located within 200 metres of the Allen light rail stop. This item is street trees located in Allen Street approximately 75 metres to the east of the stop. The Haberfield Conservation Area is located on the western side of the Hawthorne Canal and is within 200 metres of the Allen light rail stop. This conservation area is listed on the Ashfield LEP 1985. Impacts on heritage items are unlikely to occur in the vicinity of Allen Stop due to the small number of items and the distance to these items.

Flora and Some vegetation is located in the vicinity of the proposed Allen Stop. fauna Impacts are considered to be low due to the likely low conservation value of any vegetation located around the proposed stop. Impacts to threatened species at this stop are addressed in Table 2.

Land use Neighbouring land uses at the proposed Allen Stop are generally open space associated with the open space corridor along Hawthorne Canal. The areas to the east of the stop are dominated by medium density residential dwellings. Further residential areas that form part of the suburb of Haberfield are located to the west of the Hawthorne Canal. Land use impacts at the proposed Allen Stop are considered to be minimal as works would mostly remain within the corridor, with some minor impacts to potentially to occur to neighbouring land uses.

Contamination See Table 2 for the corridor wide contamination description and potential impacts.

Noise and See Table 2 for the corridor wide noise and vibration description and potential impacts. vibration

Visual Numerous visually sensitive receptors are located in the vicinity of the stop with the majority of these being residential dwellings. The construction and operation of the proposed Allen Stop would result in some potential visual impacts due to the introduction of new infrastructure (e.g. new light rail stop) into the visual environment for sensitive visual receptors located along Darley Road and Loftus Street.

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 9 Impact Identification Report Traffic and The proposed stop would be in the vicinity of the end of Allen Street. transport Parking around station may be required to be managed by resident parking schemes. Options for vehicle routing associated with kiss-and-ride demand may need to be investigated. There is potential for the relocation of existing bus stops to better integrate with the proposed light rail stop, this relocation would however potentially result in impacts to existing bus users due to the relocation of stops.

Pedestrian The corridor at the proposed Allen Stop is currently not accessible. Pedestrian and and bicycle cyclist movements currently occur along and adjacent to the existing road network. impacts No pedestrian and bicycle impacts have been identified at the Allen Stop.

1.3.4 Marion Table 5 outlines the key characteristics of the area surrounding the proposed Marion light rail stop. Table 5 also outlines whether impacts could potentially occur as a result of the construction of the Marion light rail stop (potential impacts in bold).

Table 5 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Marion

Heritage No items located on the State Heritage Register located within 200 metres of the light rail stop. One local heritage item listed under the Leichhardt LEP 2000 is located within 200 metres of the light rail stop. This item (listed as a former house) is located approximately 10 metres from the light rail stop. This listing includes both the former house located approximately 200 metres from the stop and Lambert Park which is located within 10 metres of the stop. The Haberfield Conservation Area is located on the western side of the Hawthorne Canal and is within 200 metres of the Marion light rail stop, this conservation area is listed on the Ashfield LEP 1985. The Hawthorne Canal (between Marion Street and Old Canterbury Road) is listed on the Sydney Water s170 Register. This item runs parallel to the corridor in the vicinity of the stop. There is potential for impacts on the former house (potential impacts mainly to the Lambert Park component of the listing) due to its proximity to the light rail stop. The proposal is also located adjacent to the Hawthorne Canal which is located on the Sydney Water s170 Register. Impacts to this item could potentially occur due to its proximity to the light rail stop.

Flora and Vegetation is located along the western side of the corridor at the proposed stop. fauna Vegetation is denser at the Marion (south) stop. The conservation value of this vegetation would need to be confirmed during further investigations. Impacts to due to vegetation removal along the western side of the corridor are considered moderate due to the potential use of this vegetation by threatened fauna species and other native species. Further investigations would be required to determine the conservation value of this vegetation.

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 10 Impact Identification Report Land use Land directly to the east of the proposed Marion Stop is used for industrial purposes and some open space (Lambert Park). Beyond these uses the surrounding area is dominated by residential areas which are generally low-medium density. Some special use and business/commercial are located in the surrounding area. To the west of the stop are some vegetated areas and a pedestrian/bike part to the north of Marion Street along the banks of Hawthorne Canal. Further to the west is a residential area that is part of the suburb of Haberfield. Land use impacts at the proposed Marion stop are considered to be minimal as works would mostly remain within the corridor, with some minor impacts to potentially to occur to neighbouring land uses.

Contamination See Table 2 for the corridor wide contamination description and potential impacts.

Noise and See Table 2 for the corridor wide noise and vibration description and potential impacts. vibration

Visual Numerous visually sensitive receptors are located in the vicinity of the stop with the majority of these being residential dwellings. Views of the stop would be limited with vegetation along western side of Hawthorne Canal acting as a screen for residential dwellings located to the west. The construction and operation of the proposed Marion stop would result in some potential visual impacts due to the introduction of new infrastructure (e.g. new light rail stop) into the visual environment for sensitive visual receptors located to the west the stop.

Traffic and The stop is located on the southern side of Marion Street which is a major road running transport parallel to Parramatta Road. The impacts associated with providing kiss-and-ride kerbside pick-up/drop-off facilities closer to the corridor may include time restrictions on on-street parking along Marion Street. There is potential for the relocation of existing bus stops to better integrate with the proposed light rail stop, this relocation would however potentially result in impacts to existing bus users due to the relocation of stops.

Pedestrian The corridor at the proposed stop is currently not accessible. Pedestrian and cyclist and bicycle movements currently occur along and adjacent to the existing road network. A shared impacts path is located along the western side of the corridor adjacent to the Hawthorne Canal. Potential impacts to the footpaths on both the southern and northern sides of Marion Street (depending on the stop location selected) are expected during the construction of the stop. The construction period would potentially impact upon the shared path along the Hawthorne Canal to the west of the corridor.

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 11 Impact Identification Report 1.3.5 Parramatta Road Table 6 outlines the key characteristics of the area surrounding the proposed Parramatta Road light rail stop. Table 6 also outlines whether impacts could potentially occur as a result of the construction of the Parramatta Road light rail stop (potential impacts in bold).

Table 6 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Parramatta Road

Heritage No items located on the State Heritage Register located within 200 metres of the light rail stop. One local heritage item listed under the Leichhardt LEP 2000 is located within 200 metres of the Parramatta Road light rail stop. This item is two houses located at 18 and 20 Beeson Street, Leichhardt (classified as one item) which is approximately 70 north of the stop. The Haberfield Conservation Area is located on the western side of the Hawthorne Canal and is within 200 metres of the Parramatta Road light rail stop, this conservation area is listed on the Ashfield LEP 1985. The Battle Bridge which crosses Parramatta Road at the Hawthorne Canal is also listed on the Ashfield LEP, this item is located approximately 50 metres to the south of the stop. The Hawthorne Canal (between Marion Street and Old Canterbury Road) is listed on the Sydney Water s170 Register. This item runs parallel to the corridor in the vicinity of the stop. Impacts to heritage in the vicinity of the Parramatta Road Stop are considered limited to some potential impacts to Hawthorne Canal and the Battle Bridge which are located adjacent to the stop. These impacts are considered to be minimal. The remaining heritage items are considered unlikely to be impacted upon due to their distance from the stop.

Flora and Vegetation is located along the western side of the corridor at the proposed Parramatta fauna Road Stop. The conservation value of this vegetation would need to be confirmed during further investigations. Impacts due to removal of vegetation at Parramatta Road Stop are considered moderate due to the potential use of this vegetation by threatened fauna species and other native species. Further investigations would be required to determine the conservation value of this vegetation.

Land use Land surrounding the proposed Parramatta Road Stop contains a large amount of residential dwellings however significant industrial uses are located to the east of the stop along Parramatta Road. A strip of business/commercial uses are located along Parramatta Road to the west of the proposed stop. Land use impacts at the proposed Parramatta Road Stop are considered to be minimal as works would mostly remain within the corridor, with some minor impacts to potentially to occur to neighbouring land uses.

Contamination See Table 2 for the corridor wide contamination description and potential impacts.

Noise and See Table 2 for the corridor wide noise and vibration description and potential impacts. vibration

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 12 Impact Identification Report Visual Numerous visually sensitive receptors are located in the vicinity of the stop with the majority of these being residential dwellings. Views from sensitive receptors to the east of the stop would be limited to a few residential dwellings, while dwellings to the west of the stop would have limited views of the stop due to vegetation along the eastern edge of the Hawthorne Canal. The construction and operation of the proposed Parramatta Road Stop would result in some potential visual impacts due to the introduction of new infrastructure (e.g. new light rail stop) into the visual environment for sensitive visual receptors located around the stop.

Traffic and The stop is located to the north of Parramatta Road. Parramatta Road is a major transport transport artery with several major bus routes. The road is extremely busy and congested. Vehicle accessibility to the stop is limited to Parramatta Road. Limited opportunities exist for passenger/drop off or interchange facility and parking demand may have to be managed by resident parking schemes. There is potential for the relocation of existing bus stops to better integrate with the proposed light rail stop, this relocation would however potentially result in impacts to existing bus users due to the relocation of stops.

Pedestrian The corridor at the proposed Parramatta Road Stop is currently not accessible. and bicycle Pedestrian and cyclist movements currently occur along and adjacent to the existing impacts road network. A shared path is located along the western side of the corridor adjacent to the Hawthorne Canal. There is potential for impacts to the shared path located adjacent to Hawthorn Canal and to the continuity of the footpath along Parramatta Road.

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 13 Impact Identification Report 1.3.6 Lewisham Interchange Table 7 outlines the key characteristics of the area surrounding the proposed Lewisham Interchange light rail stop. Table 7 also outlines whether impacts could potentially occur as a result of the construction of the Lewisham Interchange light rail stop (potential impacts in bold).

Table 7 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Lewisham Interchange

Heritage Two heritage items are located within 200 metres of the Lewisham Interchange light rail stop. The first is the Lewisham Railway viaducts over Long Cove Creek (now Hawthorne Canal). This item is located directly to the north of the proposed stop and is listed on the following heritage lists:

 State Heritage Register;

 RailCorp s170 Register;

 Ashfield LEP 1985; and

 Marrickville LEP 2001. The second heritage item is the Lewisham Sewage Aqueduct located approximately 60 metres to the north of the proposed stop. This item is listed on the following heritage lists:

 State Heritage Register;

 Sydney Water s170 Register; and

 Ashfield LEP 1985. The Hawthorne Canal (between Marion Street and Old Canterbury Road) is listed on the Sydney Water s170 Register. This item runs parallel to the corridor in the vicinity of the stop. Impacts to the Lewisham Railway Viaducts could potentially occur due to the close proximity of the item directly to the north of the proposed stop. Impacts to the sewage aqueduct as a result of the stop construction are considered lower due to its distance further to the north of the proposed stop. Impacts to the heritage listed section of the Hawthorne Canal could potentially occur due to its proximity.

Flora and Some vegetation is located to the western side of the corridor at the Lewisham fauna Interchange Stop. The conservation value of this vegetation would need to be confirmed during further investigations. Impacts to the dense vegetation at Lewisham Interchange Stop are considered low due to the relatively small amount of vegetation. Further investigations would be required to determine the conservation value of this vegetation. Impacts to threatened species at this stop are addressed in Table 2.

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 14 Impact Identification Report Land use Land directly to the north of the proposed Lewisham Interchange Stop is used for existing CityRail network. Land to the north east is dominated by residential uses, while to the south east further residential areas are located beyond industrial uses. To the north west of the stop land uses are generally for residential purposes, while to the south west uses are for industrial uses with some residential uses located further to the south west. Parts of the industrial areas located to the south of the stop are proposed for redevelopment into mixed use sites with significant residential components. Land use impacts at the proposed Lewisham Interchange Stop are considered to be minimal as works would mostly remain within the corridor, with some minor impacts to potentially to occur to neighbouring land uses.

Contamination See Table 2 for the corridor wide contamination description and potential impacts.

Noise and See Table 2 for the corridor wide noise and vibration description and potential impacts. vibration

Visual Numerous visually sensitive receptors are located in the vicinity of the stop with the majority of these being residential dwellings. Views of this stop would be limited due to its positioning between the Longport Street overbridge and the railway overbridge. The small number of sensitive receptors (located along Longport Street on the eastern side of the corridor) would have views of the stop location. The construction and operation of the proposed Lewisham Interchange Stop would result in some potential visual impacts due to the introduction of new infrastructure (e.g. new light rail stop) into the visual environment for sensitive visual receptors located around the stop.

Traffic and The proposed stop is located to the north of Longport Street and is located adjacent to transport the Inner West and Western Line. There are limited opportunities for providing passenger pick-up/drop-off close to the proposed stop location with the existing configuration of Longport Street.

Pedestrian The corridor at the proposed Lewisham Interchange Stop is currently not accessible. and bicycle Pedestrian and cyclist movements currently occur along and adjacent to the existing impacts road network. There is potential for impacts to pedestrian and cycle flows along Longport Street during construction. Access to the existing CityRail network at Lewisham would be required to better integrate the two networks.

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 15 Impact Identification Report 1.3.7 Old Canterbury Road Table 8 outlines the key characteristics of the area surrounding the proposed Old Canterbury Road light rail stop. Table 8 also outlines whether impacts could potentially occur as a result of the construction of the Lewisham Interchange light rail stop (potential impacts in bold).

Table 8 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Old Canterbury Road

Heritage No items located on the State Heritage Register located within 200 metres of the light rail stop. Two local heritage items listed under the Marrickville LEP 2001 are located within 200 metres of the light rail stop at Old Canterbury Road. The closest of these items is some stone terracing and steps located on the southern side of Old Canterbury Road, this item is 40 metres away. The second item is a former shop and residence. Three local heritage items and one conservation area listed under the Ashfield LEP 1985 are located within 200 metres of the light rail stop. The closest of these items are the group residential dwellings located on the southern side of Wellesley Street approximately 150 metres to the northeast of the proposed stop. The two other items are the Quarantine Grounds Conservation Area and a dwelling on Old Canterbury Road. Impacts to heritage in the vicinity of Old Canterbury Road Stop are considered unlikely due to the distance to the items.

Flora and Vegetation is located in the vicinity of the proposed Old Canterbury Road Stop. The fauna conservation value of this vegetation would need to be confirmed through further investigations. Impacts vegetation at Old Canterbury Road Stop are considered low due to the small amount of vegetation located on site. Further investigations would be required to determine the conservation value of this vegetation. Impacts to threatened species at this stop are addressed in Table 2.

Land use Land to the north of the proposed Old Canterbury Road Stop on either side of the corridor is used for industrial purposes, however much of this land is proposed to be redeveloped for mixed development which have a significant residential component. Further residential areas are located beyond these industrial areas. Land use to the south of the proposed stop is dominated by residential dwellings. Land use impacts at the proposed Old Canterbury Road Stop are considered to be minimal as works would mostly remain within the corridor, with some minor impacts to potentially to occur to neighbouring land uses.

Contamination See Table 2 for the corridor wide contamination description and potential impacts.

Noise and See Table 2 for the corridor wide noise and vibration description and potential impacts. vibration

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 16 Impact Identification Report Visual Numerous visually sensitive receptors are located in the vicinity of the stop with the majority of these being residential dwellings. Future residential dwellings are to be constructed as part of a redevelopment on existing industrial lands surrounding the site. The construction and operation of the proposed Old Canterbury Road Stop would result in some potential visual impacts due to the introduction of new infrastructure (e.g. new light rail stop) into the visual environment for sensitive visual receptors located around the stop, including potential future dwellings.

Traffic and The proposed stop is located to the north of Old Canterbury Road. Old Canterbury transport Road travels between Parramatta Road in the north and Canterbury Road in the south. Old Canterbury Road is an established bus transit corridor. Access to the stop from the west would require crossing the busy Old Canterbury Road. Traffic considerations may require grade separated pedestrian access to the stop.

Pedestrian The corridor at the proposed Old Canterbury Road Stop is currently not accessible. and bicycle Pedestrian and cyclist movements currently occur along and adjacent to the existing impacts road network. There is potential for impacts due to potential need to close the footpath along the northern side of Old Canterbury Road in the vicinity of the stop.

1.3.8 Waratah Mills Table 9 outlines the key characteristics of the area surrounding the proposed Waratah Mills light rail stop. Table 9 also outlines whether impacts could potentially occur as a result of the construction of the Waratah Mills light rail stop (potential impacts in bold).

Table 9 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Waratah Mills

Heritage No items located on the State Heritage Register located within 200 metres of the light rail stop. Two local heritage items listed under the Marrickville LEP 2001 are located within 200 metres of the Waratah Mills light rail stop. The closest of these items is the Waratah Flour Mill in Terry Street, Dulwich Hill which is located approximately 50 metres to the south west of the proposed railway stop on the opposite side of Davis Street. This item has been redevelopment for residential purposes. Impacts to the surrounding area are considered to be minimal with the nearest heritage item is unlikely to be impacted upon.

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 17 Impact Identification Report Flora and Some vegetation is located within the corridor in the vicinity of the proposed Waratah fauna Mills Stop. The conservation value of this vegetation would be required to be considered during further investigations. The Grey-headed Flying-fox which is a threatened species has been recorded in the past in the vicinity of the Waratah Mills Stop. Impacts to the vegetation in the vicinity of the Waratah Mills Stop is considered low however due to past sighting of a threatened species in the vicinity of the stop the conservation value of the corridor is increased and therefore impacts are considered to be moderate. Further investigations would be required to determine the conservation value of this vegetation and the potential presence of threatened species.

Land use Land use in the vicinity of the proposed Waratah Mills Stop is dominated by residential uses, with a few pockets of open space located throughout the area. Land use impacts at the proposed Waratah Mills Stop are considered to be minimal as works would mostly remain within the corridor, with some minor impacts to potentially to occur to neighbouring land uses.

Contamination See Table 2 for the corridor wide contamination description and potential impacts.

Noise and See Table 2 for the corridor wide noise and vibration description and potential impacts. vibration

Visual Numerous visually sensitive receptors are located in the vicinity of the stop with the majority of these being residential dwellings. Views of the proposed stop would predominantly be from residential receptors backing onto the corridor north of the Davis Street overbridge. The construction and operation of the proposed Waratah Mills Stop would result in some potential visual impacts due to the introduction of new infrastructure (e.g. new light rail stop) into the visual environment for sensitive visual receptors located around the stop.

Traffic and The proposed stop is located to the north east of the Davis Street overbridge. transport Parking at the Waratah Mills Stop may need to be managed through resident parking schemes.

Pedestrian The corridor at the proposed Waratah Mills Stop is currently not accessible. Pedestrian and bicycle and cyclist movements currently occur along and adjacent to the existing road network. impacts There is potential for impacts due to potential need to close the footpath along the northern side of Davis Street in the vicinity of the stop.

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 18 Impact Identification Report 1.3.9 Constitution Road Table 10 outlines the key characteristics of the area surrounding the proposed Constitution Road light rail stop. Table 10 also outlines whether impacts could potentially occur as a result of the construction of a light rail stop at Constitution Road (potential impacts in bold).

Table 10 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Constitution Road

Heritage No items located on the State Heritage Register located within 200 metres of the light rail stop. No local heritage items are located within 200 metres of the proposed light rail stop at Constitution Road. Impacts to heritage in the vicinity of Constitution Road Stop are considered unlikely due to the lack of such items in the surrounding area.

Flora and Vegetation is located in the corridor in the vicinity of the proposed Constitution Road fauna Stop. Impacts are considered to be low due to the potential low conservation value of any vegetation located around the proposed stop. Further investigations would be required to determine the conservation value of this vegetation. Impacts to threatened species at this stop are addressed in Table 2.

Land use Land use in the vicinity of the proposed Constitution Road Stop is dominated by residential uses, which are generally medium density dwellings, however medium to high density residential blocks are located to the south of the proposed stop. Some open space is located along the western side of the corridor in the vicinity of the stop. Land use impacts at the proposed Constitution Road Stop are considered to be minimal as works would mostly remain within the corridor, with some minor impacts to potentially to occur to neighbouring land uses.

Contamination See Table 2 for the corridor wide contamination description and potential impacts.

Noise and See Table 2 for the corridor wide noise and vibration description and potential impacts. vibration

Visual Numerous visually sensitive receptors are located in the vicinity of the stop with the majority of these being residential dwellings. Views of the proposed stop would be limited to the nearest receptors which are industrial lands which are not considered sensitive receivers. Sensitive receptors would have limited views due to their distance from the proposed stop and adequate vegetation screening. The construction and operation of the proposed Constitution Stop would result in some potential visual impacts due to the introduction of new infrastructure (e.g. new light rail stop) into the visual environment for sensitive visual receptors located around the stop.

Traffic and The proposed stop is located to the north of the Constitution Road overbridge. transport Resident parking schemes may need to be implemented in the vicinity of Constitution Road.

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 19 Impact Identification Report Pedestrian The corridor at the proposed Constitution Road Stop is currently not accessible. and bicycle Pedestrian and cyclist movements currently occur along and adjacent to the existing impacts road network. Movements along occur on a shared path that travels along the western side of the corridor through Johnson Park. There is potential for impacts due to potential need to close the footpath along the northern side of Constitution Road in the vicinity of the stop. Disruptions to the shared path through Johnson Park during construction could potentially occur.

1.3.10 Dulwich Hill Shops Table 11 outlines the key characteristics of the area surrounding the proposed Dulwich Hill Shops light rail stop. Table 11 also outlines whether impacts could potentially occur as a result of the construction of a light rail stop at Dulwich Hill Shops (potential impacts in bold).

Table 11 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Dulwich Hill Shops

Heritage No items located on the State Heritage Register located within 200 metres of the light rail stop. No local heritage items are located within 200 metres of the proposed Dulwich Hill Shops light rail stop. One item listed on the EnergyAustralia s170 Register is located approximately 180 metres to the east of the proposed stop at 10 Hercules Street. This item is an Electricity substation. Impacts to heritage in the vicinity of Dulwich Hill Shops Stop are considered unlikely due distance to the nearest item.

Flora and Some vegetation is located within the corridor in the vicinity of the proposed Dulwich fauna Hill Shops Stop. This vegetation is likely to be of a low conservation value due to its small area. Impacts are considered to be low due to the likely low conservation value of any vegetation located around the proposed stop. Further investigations would be required to determine the conservation value of this vegetation. Impacts to threatened species at this stop are addressed in Table 2.

Land use Land use to the western side of the corridor in the vicinity of the proposed Dulwich Hill Shops Stop is dominated by residential uses. Land to the eastern side of the corridor is much more varied with industrial uses located directed adjacent to the proposed stop and the Dulwich Hill Primary School located to the south of the stop. Business/commercial uses are located to the east of the stop and are associated with the Dulwich Hill Shopping strip along New Canterbury Road. Residential uses are spread throughout the eastern side of the corridor among the abovementioned land uses. Land use impacts at the proposed Dulwich Hill Shops Stop are considered to be minimal as works would mostly remain within the corridor, with some minor impacts to potentially to occur to neighbouring land uses.

Contamination See Table 2 for the corridor wide contamination description and potential impacts.

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 20 Impact Identification Report Noise and See Table 2 for the corridor wide noise and vibration description and potential impacts. vibration

Visual Numerous visually sensitive receptors are located in the vicinity of the stop with the majority of these being residential dwellings. Views would be limited at this stop due to its positioning within a cutting. Views of the stop would be possible from the residential units located to the west of the corridor. The remaining receptors are considered to be non sensitive receptors. The construction and operation of the proposed Dulwich Hill Shops Stop would result in some potential visual impacts due to the introduction of new infrastructure (e.g. new light rail stop) into the visual environment for sensitive visual receptors located around the stop.

Traffic and The proposed stop is located within the corridor between the New Canterbury Road transport and Hercules Street overbridges. Traffic impacts associated with a light rail stop at this location would include increased vehicle trips generated by kiss-and-ride activity. On-street parking along New Canterbury Road may need to be time-managed to make provision for drop-off/pick-up bays. There is potential for the relocation of existing bus stops to better integrate with the proposed light rail stop, this relocation would however potentially result in impacts to existing bus users due to the relocation of stops. Kiss-and-ride bays may be provided along Hercules Street.

Pedestrian The corridor at the proposed Dulwich Hill Shops Stop is currently not accessible. and bicycle Pedestrian and cyclist movements currently occur along and adjacent to the existing impacts road network. Potential impacts during construction may include closing the footpath on the southern side of New Canterbury Road and on the northern side of Hercules Street in the vicinity of the stop.

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 21 Impact Identification Report 1.3.11 Dulwich Hill Interchange Table 12 outlines the key characteristics of the area surrounding the proposed Dulwich Hill Interchange light rail stop. Table 12 also outlines whether impacts could potentially occur as a result of the construction of the Dulwich Hill Interchange light rail stop (potential impacts in bold).

Table 12 Existing environment and identification of potential impacts – Dulwich Hill Interchange

Heritage No items located on the State Heritage Register located within 200 metres of the light rail stop. No local heritage items are located within 200 metres of the proposed Dulwich Hill Interchange light rail stop. One item (Dulwich Hill Railway Station) is listed on the RailCorp s170 Register and is located approximately 40 metres to the south of the proposed stop. Impacts to the railway station are considered unlikely due to the stop not being directly impacted upon due to its location in the centre of the existing rail corridor.

Flora and Vegetation is minimal in the vicinity of the proposed Dulwich Interchange Stop. fauna Vegetation is generally associated with street trees and therefore is considered to have a low conservation value. Impacts to flora and fauna at the proposed stop are not expected.

Land use Land use in the area surrounding the proposed Dulwich Hill Interchange is dominated by residential uses. A small area of business/commercial uses are located are located on either side of the CityRail station at Dulwich Hill. Land use impacts at the proposed Dulwich Hill Interchange Stop would have minimal impacts to residential uses located adjacent to the proposed stop and access to this stop.

Contamination See Table 2 for the corridor wide contamination description and potential impacts.

Noise and See Table 2 for the corridor wide noise and vibration description and potential impacts. vibration Noise and vibration impacts highlighted in Table 2 are reduced at this proposed stop due to the close proximity of the existing CityRail and freight lines.

Visual Numerous visually sensitive receptors are located in the vicinity of the stop with the majority of these being residential dwellings. The construction and operation of the proposed Dulwich Hill Interchange Stop would result in some potential visual impacts due to the introduction of new infrastructure (e.g. new light rail stop) into the visual environment for sensitive visual receptors located around the stop. Visual impacts would be relatively high for residents in Bedford Crescent. More distant views of the stop would be possible from the southern side of the existing railway line due to the elevated nature of Bedford Crescent. The stop is also likely to be visible from Dulwich Hill CityRail Station.

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 22 Impact Identification Report Traffic and The stop is to be located within the Bedford Crescent Roadway which is located to the transport north of the Dulwich Hill CityRail Station and currently contains some commuter parking. The stop is located to the west of Wardell Road which travels through the suburb of Dulwich Hill in a north-south direction. The proposed stop would bring moderate impacts associated with access to the commuter car park. Being a terminus stop, there would likely be higher light rail movements including temporary stabling, which may further impact on road traffic access.

Pedestrian The proposed Dulwich Hill Interchange Stop is to be located within the roadway or car and bicycle parking areas. A pedestrian path is located along the north side of Bedford Crescent. impacts During construction, access to Bedford Crescent, including access to the footpath to Macarthur Parade would be restricted therefore generating impacts for pedestrian access along Bedford Crescent.

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 23 Impact Identification Report 2. References

Ward, A. (2010) Draft Cooks River to Iron Cove GreenWay Flora and Fauna Literature Review. GreenWay Sustainability Project, Ashfield Council, Ashfield NSW.

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study 24 Impact Identification Report GHD 133 Castlereagh St Sydney NSW 2000 - T: 2 9239 7100 F: 2 9239 7199 E: [email protected]

© GHD 2010 This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Document Status

Rev Reviewer Approved for Issue Author No. Name Signature Name Signature Date

21/19469/160008 Sydney Light Rail - Inner West Extension Study

Impact Identification Report “This Sydney Light Rail Inner West Extension Study (“Report”): has been prepared by GHD Pty Ltd (“GHD”) for NSWTI; (i)may only be used and relied on by NSW TI; (ii) must not be copied to, used by, or relied on by any person other than NSW TI without the prior written consent of GHD; (iv) may only be used for the purpose of a feasibility study (and must not be used for any other purpose).

GHD and its servants, employees and officers otherwise expressly disclaim responsibility to any person other than NSW TI arising from or in connection with this Report.

To the maximum extent permitted by law, all implied warranties and conditions in relation to the services provided by GHD and the Report are excluded unless they are expressly stated to apply in this Report.”

GHD 133 Castlereagh St Sydney NSW 2000 - T: 2 9239 7100 F: 2 9239 7199 E: [email protected]

© GHD 2010 This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

21/19469/161861 Inner West Extension Study Final Report