New South Wales Parliamentary Library cataloguing-in-publication data:

Impact of the CBD and South East Light Rail Project / Public Accountability Committee [Sydney, N.S.W.] : the Committee, 2019. [140] pages ; 30 cm. (Report no. 2 / Public Accountability Committee)

"January 2019"

Chair: Rev. Hon. Fred Nile, MLC.

ISBN 9781922258748

1. CBD and South East Light Rail Project (N.S.W.)—Design and construction—Costs.

2. CBD and South East Light Rail Project (N.S.W.)—Design and construction—Planning—Evaluation.

3. Railroads, Local and light—New South Wales—Sydney.

4. Local transit—New South Wales—Sydney.

5. Street railroads—New South Wales—Sydney.

I. Nile, Fred.

II. Title.

III. Series: New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. Public Accountability Committee. Report ; no. 2

388.46099441 (DDC22)

Committee comment 10

Completion date 11

Schedule of work in each zone and delays 13

Mitigation of delays 14

Perceived 'go slow' by Acciona 15

Where is work up to? 16

Committee comment 18

Project budget 19

Penalty clauses for delays 21

Contract modifications 21

Claims under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 23

Committee comment 25

Ausgrid's explanation of their Adjustment Guidelines 26

Acciona's claims 27

Transport for NSW's response 30

Ausgrid's evidence 33

Court case 35

Contract management issues 36

Committee comment 38

Committee comment 43

Projected capacity 45

Configuration of the light rail vehicles 46

Concerns about capacity 47

Committee comment 49

Estimated journey times 50

Concerns about journey times 51

Junction optimisation 51

Committee comment 53

Committee comment 55

Concerns 57

Compliance and monitoring 59

Impact of the 'Critical State Significant Infrastructure' declaration 63

Committee comment 64

Alternative accommodation 64

Mitigation measures 66

Committee comment 69

Committee comment 72

Response to Doncaster residents' concerns 75

Committee comment 77

Committee comment 81

Committee comment 85

Hoardings and signage 92

Committee comment 96

Stakeholder concerns 100

Committee comment 105

Committee comment 109

Committee comment 113

1. That the Public Accountability Committee inquire into and report on the impact of the construction of the CBD and South East Light Rail Project ("the project") on residents and businesses in the vicinity of the light rail route, including:

    a) the adequacy of the government's response to the financial impact and diminution in social amenity caused by the project on residents and businesses including access to financial compensation and business support services,

    b) the appropriateness and adequacy of the financial compensation process established by the assessment process and consistency of outcomes,

    c) the effectiveness of the government's communication with residents and businesses concerning project delays and financial compensation, and

    d) any other related matters.

2. That the committee report by 25 January 2019.1

The CBD and South East Light Rail (CSELR) project is a major infrastructure project in Sydney that will connect Circular Quay to Kingsford and Randwick. It aims to improve public transport capacity, and to ease traffic congestion which is costing the economy a substantial amount of money each year. It is a complex and large project, with construction occurring down one of Sydney CBD's most congested streets, and the benefits of the project, once finalised, are potentially significant.

Unfortunately though, serious questions have been raised in relation to the project's timeframes and costs. It is already delayed by at least a year, and although Transport for NSW would like it to be finalised by December 2019, the official completion date is currently March 2020. There may also be a further two month delay, according to the evidence provided by ALTRAC and Acciona.

In terms of costs, unresolved claims for contract modifications, undetermined penalties for delays, and a complex legal dispute between Transport for NSW and Acciona, have raised questions about whether the project will exceed its $2.1 billion budget. This is understandable, given a liquidity facility fund has had to be established for ALTRAC and the department has had to provide $100 million to a contractor to keep the project moving.

With infrastructure projects of this magnitude, a degree of disruption is to be expected. However, as this inquiry has shown, the impacts of construction have been profoundly experienced by residents and businesses located along the light rail route. Many have experienced excessive noise, dust, vibration and damage to their homes. Some of these issues have been heightened due to construction delays.

The committee acknowledges that the level of noise during works undertaken out of hours has been impinging particularly on residents' lives and that noise has not been adequately monitored. Although alternative accommodation has been offered as a mitigation measure to some residents, the committee understands that this has often been an impracticable option.

The impact of this project on businesses has been particularly significant. It was clear to the committee just how much businesses have struggled since the commencement of construction of the light rail, with some having closed down. It has been especially hard for small businesses that have been impacted by barricades, disruption in foot traffic and the severe loss of trade and goodwill. Not only have they endured significant financial losses, their physical and mental wellbeing has also been negatively impacted. This was particularly distressing for committee members to see, and we thank those who came forward to share with us so honestly the affect this project has had on their personal lives.

There are lessons to be learnt from how this project has been managed. With this in mind, many of the committee's recommendations are aimed at informing how future major infrastructure projects are planned and implemented, particularly in terms of how construction may affect residents, businesses and the wider community. While it has been a tough time for many affected by this project, I personally hope that once completed, this light rail service will deliver its anticipated benefits.   What are the anticipated benefits?

Finally, I would like to thank all those who participated in this inquiry. Your input is greatly valued in assisting the committee's work. I also thank my committee colleagues for their hard work and the committee secretariat for their support. We look forward to seeing this complex project finalised soon.

Revd the Hon Fred Nile MLC

That the NSW Government formally request the Auditor-General to undertake a review into the effectiveness of Public Private Partnership contracts for significant state infrastructure projects, in light of contractual issues that have arisen in relation to the CBD and South East Light Rail project.

That the NSW Government ensure that a full investigation is undertaken into the mishandling of human remains on 29 October 2018 in Chalmers Street, Surry Hills, by workers from Acciona Infrastructure Australia.

That, once the CBD and South East Light Rail service becomes operational, Transport for NSW:

 closely monitor patronage on the service, to ensure it can respond effectively to future demand

 publish, on at least a quarterly basis, patronage data.

That Transport for NSW publicly release the outcomes of modelling in relation to journey times between Randwick/Kingsford and the Sydney CBD, upon finalisation of the designs for each junction along the CBD and South East Light Rail route.

That Transport for NSW investigate the need for, with a view to giving favourable consideration, an additional stop at Wimbo Park in Surry Hills, once the CBD and South East Light Rail project has been finalised.

That the NSW Government undertake a review of the exemptions provided to projects declared 'Critical State Significant Infrastructure'.

That Transport for NSW review whether the role of the Independent Environmental Representative for the project needs to be expanded or whether a separate independent entity needs to be established specifically to conduct noise monitoring during construction work undertaken out of hours.

That Transport for NSW, in relation to claims for property damage:

 conduct an urgent review of all claims, which shall include recommendations for compensation for residents whose properties have been found to be adversely impacted by the CBD and South East Light Rail project

 provide an update to those property owners on the status of their claim as soon as possible

 work with the residents and contractors to resolve these issues as soon as possible.

That Transport for NSW distribute information to all property owners along the CBD and South East Light Rail route as to the process for claiming property damage, the timeframes for rectification, the escalation process and any other relevant material.

That Transport for NSW arrange, as a matter of urgency, for shields to be installed on the flood lights in the Randwick stabling yard, to ensure that the lights do not stream into homes located along Doncaster Avenue, Randwick.

That Transport for NSW review its revegetation program, with the aim of increasing the number of trees to be replanted along the CBD and South East Light Rail route, ensuring that any trees are replanted as close to the site of removal as reasonably possible.

That the NSW Government ensure significant trees are adequately protected and that the design and development of state infrastructure prioritises their retention.

That the NSW Government revise the guidelines for the Small Business Assistance Program and implement this scheme for all other major infrastructure projects.

That Transport for NSW and the Small Business Commissioner encourage and support businesses to apply for financial assistance under the Small Business Assistance Program, even in circumstances where businesses may not meet eligibility criteria.

That Transport for NSW continue to provide financial assistance under the Small Business Assistance Program until the CBD and South East Light Rail project is completed.

That Transport for NSW provide ongoing mental health support to affected business owners and their families, at no cost to the recipients, and clearly communicate to each business the process for accessing this support.

That the NSW Government, in its planning for all future major infrastructure projects, develop effective strategies to address the potential mental health impacts that may be experienced by residents and business owners in the vicinity of construction work.

That Transport for NSW, in consultation with business owners, expand the Business Activation Program developed for the CBD and South East Light Rail project, focusing on marketing, communication and other initiatives to attract visitors.

That the NSW Government commission and publish the outcomes of an independent review of the effectiveness of financial and non-financial support provided to businesses during the CBD and South East Light Rail project.

The terms of reference for the inquiry were self-referred by the committee on 22 May 2018.

The committee received 195 submissions and 5 supplementary submissions, one of which includes survey responses from Surry Hills residents. The committee also received 62 pro-formas.

The committee held five public hearings at Parliament House in Sydney.

Inquiry related documents are available on the committee’s website, including submissions, hearing transcripts, tabled documents and answers to questions on notice.

A significant procedural issue arose during the conduct of this inquiry. During a hearing on 4 October 2018, representatives from Transport for NSW took a number of questions on notice. In response to a question about the costs spent on the project to date, the department claimed commercial confidentiality and declined to answer the question. In response to a separate question relating to Infrastructure NSW's Health Checks and Gateway Reviews associated with the project, Transport for NSW objected to providing the information on the basis of Cabinet confidentiality, challenging the committee's powers to obtain such information.

3 Advice from the Clerk of the Parliaments, to committee, 14 November 2018.

In his advice, the Clerk noted that whilst it is not unusual for witnesses to object to the provision of information on the grounds of public interest immunity, including commercial confidentiality, these claims generally have no application to parliamentary inquiries. In terms of claims of privilege on the basis of Cabinet confidentiality, the Clerk noted that on 21 June 2018, the House reasserted its power to require the production of Cabinet documents.

The Clerk also noted that the documents in question, that is the Health Check Reports and Gateway Reviews, had been the subject of a decision of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal in relation to a request made under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act). The Tribunal determined that there was no reasonable grounds for Transport for NSW to refuse a GIPA request in relation to these documents on the basis of Cabinet confidentiality.

In terms of the committee's power to order the production of documents in question, the Clerk advised that committees have two options to pursue this information:

*    via the power to order the production of documents under standing order 208(c), and/or

*    via a summons under section 4 of the Parliamentary Evidence Act 1901, which would require a witness to attend and produce documents.

The committee subsequently resolved to write to Transport for NSW to request that it reconsider its refusal to provide the information sought, particularly in light of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal's decision. The committee also recalled witnesses from Transport for NSW to appear again at a further public hearing. In its letter to Transport for NSW, the committee noted that if it failed to produce a copy of the Health Checks and Gateway Reviews, the committee would order the production of documents under standing order 208(c).

This chapter provides background information about the CBD and South East Light Rail (CSELR) project, including details of the route and a timeline for the project. It also explains the contractual arrangements between Transport for NSW and the ALTRAC Light Rail consortium (ALTRAC), including the roles of Acciona Infrastructure Australia (Acciona), Alstom Transport Australia and Transdev Sydney. After highlighting the purported benefits of the project, the chapter will detail the findings of two Auditor-General's reports into procurement, planning and financing of the project.

Submission 39, Transport for NSW, Appendix 6.2, p 41. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE

12 NSW Government Gazette, No 223, 17 May 2013, pp 1-2.

15 Submission 39, Transport for NSW, Appendix 6.2, pp 17-22.

22 Evidence, Mr James Bramley, Chairman, ALTRAC Light Rail, 4 October 2018, p 25.

and commissioning.25 Transdev Sydney will then be responsible for operating and maintaining the light rail services - and it currently operates the existing inner west light rail system.26

1.18 Mr Brian Brennan, Managing Director from Transdev Sydney, advised the committee that Transdev Sydney will be the operator of the light rail vehicles once the design and construction of the project has been completed. He explained that from the completion date, there is a 15 year operating contract in place.27

1.19 Once the service is operational, Transdev Sydney will then subcontract Alstom Transport Australia to maintain infrastructure and the light rail vehicles throughout the term of the contract.28 Light maintenance of the vehicles will take place generally at the Randwick stabling yard, whereas heavy maintenance will take place at the heavy maintenance depot in Rozelle, Lilyfield.29

1.20 Two other parties that have played a key role in the project are Ausgrid and the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA). Ausgrid are responsible for operating, maintaining, repairing and building the network assets that are situated along the CSELR route. Its role on the CSELR project has involved approving treatment plans submitted by the contractor, endorsing various detail design works undertaken by the contractor, providing co-located resources to help support delivery and facilitating physical access and arranging network outages that are required by the project.30 Ausgrid's involvement in the project is discussed in chapter 2.

1.21 The EPA's role for the CSELR project was to provide advice to the Department of Planning and Environment in regards to the types of conditions that would be detailed in the environment protection licence, which was granted to Acciona following approval of the development. The EPA is the regulator of this licence and its infrastructure team in the metropolitan region has direct responsibility for the ongoing regulation of the activity with respect to the conditions of the licence and other EPA-administered legislation. The team is also responsible for responding to community complaints and concerns relating to the project and engaging directly across government with other regulators.31 The EPA's involvement in the regulation of construction noise is discussed in chapter 4.

26 Transport for NSW, Sydney Light Rail Public Private Partnership: Contract Summary, 25 August 2015, p 19; Evidence, Mr Brennan, 3 October 2018, p 54.

27 Evidence, Mr Brennan, 3 October 2018, p 54.

28 Evidence, Mr Coxon, 3 October 2018, p 38.

29 Evidence, Mr Coxon, 3 October 2018, p 47.

30 Evidence, Mr Richard Gross, Chief Executive Officer, Ausgrid, 5 November 2018, pp 11-12.

31 Evidence, Mr Mark Gifford, Chief Environmental Regulator, NSW Environment Protection Authority, 5 November 2018, pp 2-3.

1.22 The Sydney CBD and the South East of Sydney are busy transit and destination corridors. In its 2012 Light Rail plan, Transport for NSW indicated that 'a total of 509,000 trips are made into the city centre each weekday, including 205,000 in the morning peak hour'. This number was expected to grow to around 242,000 trips by 2031 – representing an 18 per cent increase. Employment was also predicted to grow within the same period by 31 per cent to 415,000 jobs.32

1.23 In its submission to the inquiry, Transport for NSW suggested that congestion across the Sydney CBD currently costs the NSW economy more than $5.1 billion per year, and without network changes was projected to reach $8.8 billion by 2021.33

1.24 Light rail, Transport for NSW suggested, would help to ease traffic congestion in the Sydney CBD, and associated challenges with the existing bus network – unpredictable arrival times, clogged roads, lengthy journey times, and limited capacity to create new routes:

32 Transport for NSW, Sydney's Light Rail Future, December 2012, p 4.

34 Submission 39, Transport for NSW, p 7; Transport for NSW, Sydney's Light Rail Future, December 2012, p 6.

35 Transport for NSW, Sydney's Light Rail Future, December 2012, p 23.

Competition for finite road and footpath space in the city is increasing due to additional activity and travel demand … The radial network, with the majority of commuters travelling to the Sydney CBD, has also contributed to current capacity challenges. It sees multiple bus routes converge on the CBD at key streets including George, Elizabeth, York and Park Streets – creating competition for limited road space. Buses often travel the length of the CBD, even when many commuters have already alighted. In addition, with so many bus routes in the city, a large amount of space is needed for bus stops and layovers.34

1.25 Yet, Transport for NSW was unable to provide specific improvements on travel times to the committee. The South East corridor, which was chosen over the University of Sydney as a preferred transit route, also generates significant travel demand from several major key activity hubs, including:

 high density centres in Surry Hills, Randwick and Kensington.35

1.26 For major sporting and entertainment events, capacity could also be increased through additional services.36 Mr Brennan explained that once the CSELR was operational:

…[for] special events, say leaving from Central to Moore Park, for instance, there will be a two-minute service and we anticipate at least one of those every week. That is going to move significant numbers of people as required to major events in those regions. From the point of view of Kingsford and Randwick, there is going to be a four-minute PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE

Report 2 - January 2019 7

service, even off-peak, which will give people great opportunities to use the light rail and to traverse between Kingsford, Randwick and the CBD.37

37 Evidence, Mr Brennan, 3 October 2018, p 63.

39 Evidence, Ms Prendergast, 20 August 2018, p 20.

42 Evidence, Ms Lindsay Shurey, Mayor, Randwick City Council, 20 August 2018, p 32.

1.27 Transport for NSW believes that the CSELR service will deliver city bound morning peak capacity increases of more than 10 per cent from Kingsford and 30 per cent from Randwick and would double the morning peak capacity from the CBD to the University of NSW and the Randwick hospital precinct.38

1.28 Ms Margaret Prendergast, Coordinator General of the Transport Coordination Office in Transport for NSW, also explained the benefits for pedestrians in the CBD:

1.29 At the outset, the City of Sydney and Randwick City Council were supportive of the CSELR project, on the basis of its proposed benefits to the economy and local communities. Ms Monica Barone, Chief Executive Officer from the City of Sydney Council told the committee that they are contributing $220 million to the project, in recognition of the 'tangible economic benefits for our small and large businesses, our residents, workers and visitors, and …the role it plays in creating a sustainable and thriving city'. Ms Barone said 'we believe that the light rail project could be a game changer for Sydney', although she outlined to the committee the Council's concerns regarding the impact of construction work on businesses and residents.40

1.30 Randwick City Council also expressed its early support for the project, stating that the 'Council had strongly advocated for the return of the light rail system to the eastern suburbs …and has been a supporter of the light rail ever since.41 Ms Lindsay Shurey, Mayor of the Council, said:

Randwick city was totally behind the light rail project from the beginning. We have been a great supporter of light rail and we have been working with Transport for NSW and ALTRAC really closely to try to get the best outcome. We have actually invested quite a lot of our ratepayers' money into this.42

1.31 Like City for Sydney, Randwick City Council expressed concerns about the impact of construction work, particularly on businesses in Kensington and Kingsford.43 These impacts are discussed in chapters 4 and 5.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Impact of the CBD and South East Light Rail Project

8 Report 2 - January 2019

1.32 In November 2016, the Auditor-General released a performance audit report which focused on how well Transport for NSW ensured that planning and procurement for the CSELR project achieved value for money within the parameters set by the NSW Government, including timeframes related to planning, procurement and delivery.44

1.33 The Auditor-General made three key findings:

 probity and due diligence processes met NSW Government requirements, although Transport for NSW had used incorrect assumptions in the tender evaluation process when benchmarking value for money.45

1.34 Commenting on the extent to how the project was affected by the departure from the Major Project Assurance Framework and its own Investment Gating and Investment System, the Auditor-General stated:

44 Audit Office of NSW, CBD and South East Light Rail Project, 30 November 2016, p 2.

45 Audit Office of NSW, CBD and South East Light Rail Project, 30 November 2016, pp 3-4.

46 Audit Office of NSW, CBD and South East Light Rail Project, 30 November 2016, p 3.

47 Audit Office of NSW, CBD and South East Light Rail Project, 30 November 2016, p 4.

48 Audit Office of NSW, CBD and South East Light Rail Project, 30 November 2016, p 4.

TfNSW [Transport for NSW] pursued tight project timelines for the CSELR project without fully documenting its consideration of the impact on costs, risks and benefits, and it presented a business case with an inadequate economic appraisal.46

1.35 The Auditor-General also highlighted the impact of failing to finalise the project's design and scope of works. The capital budget for the work increased by $549 million to $2.1 billion, with some of this increase being attributed to scope changes and planning modifications. In fact, the Auditor-General noted that $517 million of this increase 'was caused by mispricing and omissions in the business case'.47

1.36 Further, the projected benefits decreased from the business case, from $4 billion to an estimate of $3 billion in December 2014, due mainly to increases in travel time assumptions flowing from changes in project scope.48

Report 2 - January 2019 9

1.37 The Auditor-General in the report recommended:

2. For all capital projects, Transport for NSW should comply with the Infrastructure Investor Assurance Framework.49

1.38 On 28 November 2018, the Auditor-General released its Transport 2018 Financial Audit Report. The report provided a further update on the CSELR project, noting overall that it 'is delayed and over budget'.50

1.39 In particular, the Auditor-General stated that internal documents and discussions with Transport for NSW confirmed the project was delayed and would not meet its original completion date of March 2019.51

1.40 The Auditor-General also noted that Transport for NSW had not yet officially revised the budget, indicating that the original budget for the project was $1.6 billion, which was revised upwards by $500 million in December 2014 to $2.1 billion. According to the Auditor-General the project also included a contingency fund of $207 million, which as at 30 June 2018, had been exhausted. Given this, and that Transport for NSW are in a facilitation process to resolve claims made by the contractor, the Auditor-General concluded that 'additional costs to the project are expected'.52

1.41 The Auditor-General noted that the governance of the project includes the CBD and South East Light Rail Advisory Board (the Board). The Auditor-General commented that:

49 Audit Office of NSW, CBD and South East Light Rail Project, 30 November 2016, p 4.

50 Audit Office of NSW, Transport 2018 Financial Audit Report, 28 November 2018, p 36.

51 Audit Office of NSW, Transport 2018 Financial Audit Report, 28 November 2018, p 36.

52 Audit Office of NSW, Transport 2018 Financial Audit Report, 28 November 2018, p 36.

53 Audit Office of NSW, Transport 2018 Financial Audit Report, 28 November 2018, p 36.

The Board's role is to provide assurance and strategic oversight of the procurement and delivery stages so there is an independent, critical review of how TfNSW is managing the project. During our review of the Board minutes we noted the Board expressed concerns it was not receiving updates on the final forecasted cost on a timely basis.53

1.42 It was further noted that Transport for NSW had disclosed contingent liabilities in relation to the project as at 30 June 2018. However, the Auditor-General observed: 'Management have not

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Impact of the CBD and South East Light Rail Project

10 Report 2 - January 2019

quantified the liability as they believe it cannot be measured reliably due to uncertainties as to the extent of the future liability'.54

1.43 Further, the Auditor-General noted that in July 2018 Transport for NSW entered into an agreement with ALTRAC that provided a debt guarantee of up to $500 million against a borrowing facility provided by two large banks.55 The Auditor-General also highlighted that Transport for NSW had made an advanced payment of $100 million to the contractor in October 2017.56

1.44 These payments, in addition to broader issues related to the project's costs and delays, are discussed in the next chapter.

54 Audit Office of NSW, Transport 2018 Financial Audit Report, 28 November 2018, p 36.

55 Audit Office of NSW, Transport 2018 Financial Audit Report, 28 November 2018, p 36.

56 Audit Office of NSW, Transport 2018 Financial Audit Report, 28 November 2018, p 36.

1.45 The committee notes that since the CSELR project started the Auditor-General has made several observations regarding the project, particularly on the planning and procurement of the project and it's financing. It is concerning that issues are arising during the pre-planning stages of this project and other major infrastructure projects across New South Wales, such as the WestConnex project. Not only were concerns highlighted by the Auditor-General early on, there continues to be concerns with the CSELR project that will be discussed later in the report.

Report 2 - January 2019 11

2.1 This section will consider when the project is due for completion and how it has been affected by delays to the civil works. It will also set out the progress of work on the project.

2.2 The CSELR project has been delayed by at least a year. The original completion date was 16 March 2019.57

2.3 At a hearing in August 2018, Mr Stephen Troughton, the former Deputy Secretary at Transport for NSW, indicated that the forecasted completion date for the project was March 2020.58 His position was that the department was 'not overly happy' with a completion date of March 2020 and would be working with ALTRAC Light Rail (ALTRAC) to try and bring that date forward.59

2.4 However, in early October 2018, Mr Bede Noonan, the Managing Director of Acciona Infrastructure Australia (Acciona), and Mr James Bramley, Chairman, ALTRAC, both told the committee that the completion date for the project is May 2020.60 Mr Noonan said that this timeframe was included in the August progress report for the project, which was provided to Transport for NSW.61 Mr Noonan explained the cause of this additional delay to the project:

57 Evidence, Mr Stephen Troughton, former Deputy Secretary, Infrastructure and Services, Transport for NSW, 20 August 2018, p 8; Answers to questions on notice, ALTRAC Light Rail, 1 November 2018, p 4.

58 Evidence, Mr Troughton, 20 August 2018, p 8.

59 Evidence, Mr Troughton, 20 August 2018, p 8.

60 Evidence, Mr James Bramley, Chairman, ALTRAC Light Rail, 4 October 2018, p 27.

61 Evidence, Mr Bede Noonan, Managing Director, Acciona Infrastructure Australia, 4 October 2018, p 5.

62 Evidence, Mr Noonan, 4 October 2018, p 5.

The cause of the additional two-month delay is in Anzac Parade at the south end of Anzac Parade where we are being delayed by having overhead wires that need to be brought down and that is part of the project that we are unable to do. It can only be done by Ausgrid.62

2.5 In a subsequent hearing, Mr Troughton advised that this extra two month timeframe to project finalisation was 'rejected' by Transport for NSW, and that the completion date was still officially March 2020:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Impact of the CBD and South East Light Rail Project

12 Report 2 - January 2019

Transport for NSW has rejected their schedule. I also understand at the time that they had been advising the public that in general they were aiming for March 2020. Currently we are also working with them …to a December 2019 schedule. Once I have all that information required, I can make a determination on what I think will be the finish date. Currently, we are working towards March 2020.63

63 Evidence, Mr Troughton, 4 October 2018, p 40.

64 Evidence, Mr Troughton, 4 October 2018, p 41.

65 Answers to supplementary questions, Transport for NSW, 4 November 2018, p 8.

66 Answers to supplementary questions, Transport for NSW, 4 November 2018, p 17.

2.6 At that time, Mr Troughton emphasised how the department and consortium were working together to try and achieve an even earlier completion date of December 2019:

We are working with them to understand what is achievable through the many forms of communication we receive from them. Once we have got an agreement on what is achievable and once they have provided me with a program that is accurate and that we can stand by and agree on, I will then provide formal advice. I would like to be providing formal advice that it is December 2019 but I will not do that until I am sure of it …I will not fall into traps that contractors provide commercial programs to benefit themselves commercially. We will work through it as we do with every project and I will provide the advice when I am comfortable with what I think the finish date is. At the moment I am sticking by March 2020.64

2.7 In response to a supplementary question on this issue, received on 4 November 2018, Transport for NSW acknowledged that ALTRAC had advised of a forecast completion date of 29 May 2020, but stated:

Given the extent of the non-compliances, TfNSW has little confidence in the current forecast completion date provided by ALTRAC and continues to work with ALTRAC to see how the program can be improved to achieve an earlier than forecast completion date.65

2.8 Transport for NSW raised concerns over ALTRAC's current delivery program, stating that it does not comply with contractual requirements as it 'contains insufficient information, including about current and planned resourcing and staffing, and also contains unexplained delays and departures made from the previous program'.66

2.9 In relation to the additional two month delay flagged by Acciona due to the need for Ausgrid to cut and reconnect power supplies, the department added:

Detailed construction staging of fee zones is dependent on a number of constraints, including heritage, environment, utilities and weather.

Building down one of Sydney's oldest streets, we always expected to encounter challenges including utilities and heritage.

Under certain circumstances, ALTRAC will be able to make a claim for an extension of time for delays in accordance with the terms of the SLR Project Deed.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE

84 Evidence, Mr Bramley, 4 October 2018, p 33.

93 Evidence, Mr Coxon, 3 October 2018, p 48.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE

108 Evidence, Mr Bramley, 4 October 2018, p 32.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE

116

117

118

119

120

121

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE

147 Answers to supplementary questions, Transport for NSW, 4 November 2018, p 14.

prospective tenderers to seek written consent from Transport for NSW to communicate with Ausgrid

that the draft document was disclosed to tenderers prior to signing the project deed, andthe deed required a collaborative process to be undertaken between Ausgrid and thesuccessful tenderer on the development of treatment plans for Ausgrid's assets

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE

I think you also need to remember that the basis of the misrepresentation claim over the period since we received it earlier this year has changed. The original premise was that we had somehow misled Acciona in 2014 because we had access to Ausgrid guidelines, which we clearly did not.

 that for a PPP, there was 'unusually' a large number of unresolved scope issues

 that scope issues have contributed to a large amount of 'open' modifications which needed to be reduced

 certain planning conditions for the project needed to be finalised

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE

 there were a wide variety of third party stakeholders, with many having little understanding of the impacts of introducing scope changes into PPP contracts, with the need for urgent stakeholder engagement to improve this

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE

236 Evidence, Mr Noonan, 29 November 2018, p 14.

237 Evidence, Mr Noonan, 29 November 2018, pp 14-15.

238 Evidence, Mr Noonan, 29 November 2018, p 18.

239 Evidence, Mr Noonan, 29 November 2018, p 17.

240 Evidence, Mr Noonan, 29 November 2018, p 14.

241 Evidence, Mr Noonan, 29 November 2018, p 18.

242 Evidence, Mr Noonan, 29 November 2018, p 15.

243 Evidence, Mr Staples, 29 November 2018, p 52.

244 Evidence, Mr Staples, 29 November 2018, p 52.

245 Evidence, Mr Staples, 29 November 2018, p 53.

247 Evidence, Mr Staples, 29 November 2018, p 53.

248 Evidence, Mr Staples, 29 November 2018, p 55.

249 Evidence, Mr Staples, 29 November 2018, p 53.

250 Evidence, Mr Staples, 29 November 2018, p 54.

even entitled to make a claim'.251 Following this, in an answer to a question taken on notice, Mr Noonan noted that the discovery of bones entitles the 'Design & Construct' contractor to a 'relief event' under the contract, and while the contractor has issued a written notice on 20 November 2018 stating that a 'relief event' had likely occurred, the contractor 'has not issued Claim Particulars and has not claimed time or cost in relation to this event'.252

2.176 In regards to the correct protocol that should be followed in these circumstances, Ms Prendergast noted that human remains discovered during construction must be managed in accordance with the Heritage Council of NSW Skeletal Remains: Guidelines for Managements of Human Remains, which was part of the conditions of approval for the Sydney Light Rail project.253 During a hearing she read out what the plan stipulates:

251 Evidence, Mr Noonan, 29 November 2018, p 24.

255 Answers to questions on notice, Acciona Infrastructure Australia, 21 December 2018, p 3.

Ensure that no further disturbance occurs. Do not handle any of the findings so as to prevent further misplacement. Inform the project site manager, who will inform the project archaeologist. Report the finding immediately to the NSW Police and the New South Wales Coroner's office. A special forensic anthropologist will be consulted to determine the nature of the remains. If the remains are suspected to be Aboriginal, OEH [Office of Environment and Heritage], or from a community group, they are also to be advised. An investigation will be undertaken in consultation with the Department of Planning and Environment and in accordance with the appropriate guideline—which in this case is Skeletal Remains-Guidelines for Management of Human Skeletal Remains—Works will not recommence in the area unless authorised by the Department of Planning and Environment and/or NSW Police.254

2.177 Acciona acknowledged in their response to questions on notice that this protocol applies. It also confirmed that there is also a requirement to lodge a Human Remains Management Plan to the Department of Planning and Environment to enable the recommencement of works in the vicinity of the find. Acciona noted that this document was submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment on 21 December 2018.255

2.178 The committee were appalled by the disrespectful handling of human remains discovered by Acciona's workers. It is clear that the workers on site did not follow the appropriate protocol and the remains were not 'respectfully' removed as was reported in the media.

2.179 The committee believes this situation was made worse by the conflicting messages reported in the media. We do not accept that the statements were technically correct, as Mr Noonan argued. Indeed, it is our view that the statements made in the media were clearly an inaccurate representation of what occurred.

2.180 The committee commends the worker who took the video for having the courage to expose this type of inappropriate behaviour. Like Mr Staples, we question whether there is an underlying cultural issue within the organisation that deterred this individual from feeling

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Impact of the CBD and South East Light Rail Project

44 Report 2 - January 2019

2.181 The committee considers that it would be inappropriate for Acciona to include in their claim any delays in time that can be attributed to the assessment process being undertaken by the Department of Planning, given mishandling of the remains is what triggered this process. We note that Transport for NSW will likely take steps to ensure that this issue is considered when determining the claim.

2.182 While Transport for NSW indicated that it will continue to discuss matters surrounding this issue with Acciona, the committee believes that it is necessary for the government to undertake a full investigation into the mishandling of these remains, and we therefore make this recommendation.

This chapter will focus on the projected capacity of the CBD and South East Light Rail (CSELR) service and estimated journey times. It will outline some concerns from inquiry participants on both of these matters and discuss factors such as the configuration of light rail vehicles and optimisation of intersections along the route.

The latter part of this chapter will detail a related patronage issue, on whether an additional stop should have been included in Surry Hills, near Wimbo Park, to allow for demand in this location.

3.1 The NSW Government maintains that the CSELR will increase public transport capacity between the city and Kingsford/Randwick. This section will discuss the projected capacity of light rail services, the configuration of the light rail vehicles themselves, and concerns held by stakeholders about whether the forecasted capacity is accurate.

3.2 As outlined in chapter 1, Transport for NSW support the need for light rail due to congestion in Sydney CBD and challenges with the existing bus network. In particular, it supported the need for a light rail route between Kingsford/Randwick and the CBD, given forecasted growth in the number of passengers commuting along these corridors, and the location of major key activity hubs, such as sporting precincts and recreation and entertainment facilities.

3.3 Transport for NSW stated that each light rail vehicle will be able to carry up to 450 people, which is equivalent to nine standard buses, and the capacity will be up to 13,500 passengers per hour, which is up to 6,750 in each direction. It noted that the system can also grow to meet future demand in growth by operating at increased frequency.256

3.4 Based on 6,750 passengers per hour per direction, Mr Brian Brennan, the Managing Director of Transdev Sydney, the company that will be operating the light rail service, explained that there would be approximately '21 to 22 trams in service with three spares', which would use '50 of the 60 that have been purchased'. He clarified that this is based on the configuration of two light rail vehicles coupled together (discussed further below).257

3.5 In terms of the frequency of services, Mr Brennan advised the committee that it will be 'eight minutes on both of the branches and four minutes on the trunk'. He clarified that this means a four minute service from Moore Park to Circular Quay between seven in the morning to seven in the evening, and then eight minutes between Moore Park and Randwick/Kingsford.258

3.6 Transport for NSW also told the committee that a combined bus and light rail network will deliver city bound morning peak capacity increases of more than 10 per cent from Kingsford

257 Evidence, Mr Brian Brennan, Managing Director, Transdev Sydney, 3 October 2018, pp 56-57.

258 Evidence, Mr Brennan, 3 October 2018, p 63. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Impact of the CBD and South East Light Rail Project

46 Report 2 - January 2019

and 30 per cent from Randwick, and a doubling of morning peak capacity from the CBD to the University of New South Wales and the Randwick Hospital Precinct.259

259 Submission 39, Transport for NSW, p 7.

260 Evidence, Mr Mark Coxon, Managing Director, Alstom Transport Australia, 3 October 2018, p 38.

261 Evidence, Mr Coxon, 3 October 2018, p 39.

262 Evidence, Mr Coxon, 3 October 2018, p 39.

263 Evidence, Mr Coxon, 3 October 2018, p 39.

264 Evidence, Mr Tony Braxton-Smith, Deputy Secretary, Customer Services, Transport for NSW, 4 October 2018, p 58.

265 Answers to questions on notice, Alstom Transport Australia, 2 November 2018, p 6.

3.7 The vehicles that will be used on the light rail route are the Citadis XO5's. Mr Mark Coxon, Managing Director, Alstom Transport Australia, the company responsible for providing the vehicles, explained that the configuration includes a 33 metre long vehicle which will be coupled together into two vehicles.260

3.8 Mr Coxon said that the capacity of the two coupled vehicles is 450 people, which is based on 'four people per square metre standing'.261 In terms of what this means for standing and seating, he clarified:

On the vehicle itself there are seating areas and there are standing areas. Typically on a light rail vehicle, because the journeys are quite short, people often elect to stand. Therefore, to maximise capacity you have a standing environment and you have a seated environment. Just over, I think, 20 per cent of the capacity is seated. The rest of that is standing.262

3.9 While Mr Coxon said that the vehicles have 'the potential to go to six people per square metre', in this instance Alstom Transport Australia responded to technical specifications imposed by the government, which were based on the need for four people per square metre:

We have basically addressed a tender specification that required 9,000 people per hour per direction and we felt that was the best solution and the customer, in this case ALTRAC and the government, selected that solution. It can increase. We have cities around the world where we will go to six people per square metre but it was felt I think in Australia that would be too cramped and the four is the right configuration.263

3.10 Four people per square metre, as noted by Mr Tony Braxton-Smith, Deputy Secretary, Customer Services, Transport for NSW, 'is a common standard … used, particularly in Europe'.264 As to jurisdictions that operate at a higher standard, Alstom Transport Australia told the committee that 'high density cities in countries such as Japan and Hong-Kong operate above 4p/m2 on a usual basis'.265

Report 2 - January 2019 47

3.11 Several inquiry participants questioned whether the light rail service between the city and Kingsford/Randwick will offer increased capacity to transport passengers.266

3.12 Mr John Bellamy, from the Sydney Light Rail Action Group, argued that the project would cut peak hour public transport capacity by up to 75 per cent. He contended that the light rail vehicles will not have 'sufficient capacity to carry the existing number of passengers per hour and the service will be full from commencement'.267

3.13 Mr Peter Egan, a civil engineer and member of the same action group as Mr Bellamy, echoed these concerns. He suggested that the department's projected benefits in terms of capacity are problematic as they do not compare like for like. He said that the 'analysis ran off the road in the first instance when they used the crush load capacity for the metro and light rail versus the operational capacity of the double-deckers and the buses'.268

3.14 In his submission, Mr Egan asserted that the 'nominal capacity' of about 466 passengers on Sydney light rail, based on 4p/m2 in standing areas, is nearly twice the operational capacity. He contended that 'nominal capacity' makes no allowance for wheelchairs, prams, bags, bicycles and other large items. He also said that it 'makes no allowance for the usability of "standing" space, or the desirability of bringing … strangers to each other, into such close proximity that they are in continual body contact with other passengers'.269

3.15 In Mr Egan's opinion, the vehicles will hold about 240 passengers, which he said is 'about 53 per cent of the 450 that the government has been using ...'.270 Ms Rosemary Mackenzie, also a member of the Sydney Light Rail Group, referred to a study undertaken on behalf of Randwick City Council which looked at this issue.271

3.16 The report commissioned by Randwick City Council included an analysis of capacity requirements for future public transport commuter services along the Anzac Parade corridor, as part of the Council's residential growth strategy. In the January 2017 report produced by EMM, the author stated:

266 See for example, Submission 17, Name suppressed, p 1; Submission 8, Name suppressed, p 1; and Submission 51, Ms Jane and Katey Grusovin, pp 4-5.

267 Evidence, Mr John Bellamy, Founding member, Sydney Light Rail Action Group, 20 August 2018, p 66.

268 Evidence, Mr Peter Egan, Transport Analyst, Sydney Light Rail Action Group, 20 August 2018, p 68.

269 Submission 83, Mr Peter Egan, p 4.

270 Evidence, Mr Egan, 20 August 2018, p 68.

271 Evidence, Ms Rosemary Mackenzie, Lawyer, Sydney Light Rail Action Group, 20 August 2018, pp 69-70.

It is a significant concern that the proposed Light Rail system capacity will actually be lower than the capacity of the existing peak hour bus services which are currently using Anzac Parade and Todman Avenue and the future corridor public transport system will effectively be operating at full capacity from the commencement of operations in 2019. This will require a significant number of existing peak hourly bus services (mainly the existing express bus service) to be retained if the system is to provide adequate public LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Impact of the CBD and South East Light Rail Project

48 Report 2 - January 2019

transport capacity for all the relevant areas of Randwick LGA [local government area] in the future.272

272 EMM, Anzac Parade corridor future Light Rail station and system capacity analysis (20 January 2017), p 33.

273 EMM, Anzac Parade corridor future Light Rail station and system capacity analysis (20 January 2017), p 33.

274 EMM, Anzac Parade corridor future Light Rail station and system capacity analysis, Addendum Report (2 March 2018), p 14.

275 Evidence, Ms Mackenzie, 20 August 2018, p 70.

276 Evidence, Ms Mackenzie, 20 August 2018, p 70.

277 Submission 8, Name suppressed, p 1; Submission 36, Mrs Mary Richard, p 4; Submission 52, Mr John Boyle, p 6; Submission 53, Ms Adnil Ramos, p 1; Submission 77, Ms Cat Wright, p 2; Submission 98, Name suppressed, p 1.

278 Submission 184, Name suppressed, p 2; Submission 6, Name suppressed, p1; Submission 17, Name suppressed, p 1; Submission 44, Name suppressed, p 7; Submission 51, Ms Jane and Katey Grusovin, p 1; Submission 52, Mr John Boyle, pp 1-14; Submission 77, Ms Cat Wright, p 2; Submission 83; Submission 91, Ms Vivian Ward, p 3; Submission 96, Ms Maria Bradley, p 1.

3.17 Further, the report said that if bus services are not maintained within the light rail system, 'future peak hour passenger crowding levels on the Anzac Parade public transport system will significantly worsen in comparison to current levels'.273

3.18 An addendum to the report, dated 2 March 2018, clarified that the capacity per tram would be approximately 380 persons:

An analysis of maximum passenger crowding rates has been undertaken in the original report. The proposed 66 m long Randwick Light Rail tram vehicles can have 466 persons/143 m2 area available to passengers = 3.3 persons per m2, which is about 25% higher than the average of the previously identified maximum crowding levels (which were defined as crush capacity) for either Sydney trains or buses.

Realistically, the maximum practical crowding level for the proposed 66 m long Randwick trams is probably about 80% of the maximum stated capacity of 466 persons and is about 380 persons per tram. Once an operating trams gets above this level of crowding (which is 2.65 persons per m2), there is going to be a tendency for passengers to wait on the platform and hope the next tram is less crowded rather than try to force their way on.274

3.19 Ms Mackenzie suggested that buses will still be needed given the shortfall in capacity at the time the light rail service will commence.275 Referring to the EMM report, she added that 'it is going to require between 26 and 29 buses per hour to support this light rail'.276

3.20 Some inquiry participants were not clear on whether buses would still operate along the CSELR route once light rail commences.277 Others felt that these corridors were already well serviced by buses, such that a light rail service is not required.278

3.21 While the NSW Government maintains that the CSELR is needed to help ease the congestion of buses travelling along these busy corridors and into the city, it also emphasised that buses will complement light rail services along the route.

3.22 Ms Margaret Prendergast, Coordinator General, Transport Coordination Office, Transport for NSW, highlighted to the committee how bus services will complement the CSELR, and how the department will consider patronage data to ensure it develops the network to respond to demand:

The redesign of the bus network will occur next year in line with actual Opal patronage data—knowing where people are coming from and knowing that we have had incredible growth in south-east bus services—and the provision of bus services to complement light rail is flexible and can be adapted to actual demand as well as land-use changes. The high-capacity buses, of which there is only a very small percentage in the area—that is articulated buses and 14.5 metre buses—will be prioritised for the express services. The solution has always been light rail plus bus.279

3.23 The committee acknowledges that there are concerns in the community about whether the CSELR project will actually increase or decrease the capacity for commuters to travel into the city. We note that there are concerns that the vehicles will be full at the time of commencement, such that buses will still be required along the route.

3.24 The committee accepts that this project was always predicated on the basis that buses will complement light rail services. This project is part of a broader plan aimed at addressing congestion issues the Sydney CBD is currently experiencing.

3.25 The CSELR route is a busy corridor, and its capacity, if fully realised, to transport people between the CBD and Kingsford and Randwick will help to drive improvements in reliability and sustainability of the overall network. There will also be the capacity to increase services if future demand requires it.

3.26 These benefits are potentially significant – and will likely be realised to a greater extent by community members once services become operational. This was indeed the case for the light rail service in the inner west, which has now become a valued and highly utilised mode of transport.

3.27 To ensure services meet patronage demands, the committee recommends that Transport for NSW closely monitor patronage on the CSELR service once it becomes operational, to ensure it can respond effectively to future demand. Furthermore, we recommend that Transport for NSW publish, on at least a quarterly basis, patronage data on the CSELR service.

3.28 Another key issue raised by inquiry participants related to journey times along the CSELR route. There were concerns that the estimated journey time has increased since the project began. This section will outline what the projected journey times are, what stakeholders are concerned about and how journey times will depend on junction optimisation.

3.29 Transport for NSW said that planning documents for the project estimated that the end-to-end journey time of the CSELR from Kingsford/Randwick to Circular Quay would be 34-38 minutes, although it considered this 'indicative only'. The department noted that traffic signaling designs and modelling are occurring which will affect the journey time (discussed below).280

3.30 By comparison, the department outlined the journey time for buses between Randwick and Martin Place between 2013 to 2018:

280 Answers to supplementary questions, Transport for NSW, 18 September 2018, p 3.

281 Answers to supplementary questions, Transport for NSW, 18 September 2018, p 3.

282 Answers to supplementary questions, Transport for NSW, 18 September 2018, p 3.

283 Evidence, Ms Prendergast, 4 October 2018, p 38.

284 Evidence, Mr Brennan, 3 October 2018, p 57.

285 Answers to supplementary questions, Transport for NSW, 18 September 2018, p 3.

From 2013 to 2018 the average journey time from Randwick to Martin Place has increased from 30 to 34-35 mins on bus routes 373 and 377. By 2031, about 780,000 trips will be made to the city centre each weekday, 150,000 more than in 2013.281

3.31 However, Transport for NSW stressed that the light rail service is necessary as 'existing infrastructure cannot keep pace – Sydneysiders need better transport options and a fully integrated system'. It maintained that light rail will provide increased capacity and reliable journey times from the South East to the CBD.282

3.32 As Ms Prendergast asserted: 'Light rail will provide a more reliable journey time with less variability than the current bus service'.283 Mr Brennan also agreed that the purpose of the project was to help address unreliable journey times on the existing network and traffic congestion.284

3.33 Transport for NSW contended that traffic signaling detailed designs are being finalised and that as traffic movements changed over time, detailed modelling must be undertaken closer to the light rail becoming operational, particularly to ensure the latest network demands are considered. It said that this is standard practice for transport projects. It added: 'We need to balance the needs of the new light rail with existing road users, and up-to-date traffic modelling will ensure that we get that balance right'. 285

Report 2 - January 2019 51

3.34 Concerns related to the estimated journey time arose in the Auditor-Generals report on the CSELR project.

3.35 The Auditor-General noted that the project's benefits had reduced, due in part to the estimated journey time. Although, the report acknowledged that the 'final benefits the CSELR project will realise remain uncertain', as journey times may change when traffic priority arrangements are finalised. The report said:

The PPP project deed currently specifies journey times up to 38 minutes from Circular Quay to both Randwick and to Kingsford. Journey times may be revised to reflect operational performance once full services start. Any reductions in traffic priorities that RMS [Roads and Maritime Services] deems necessary will limit TfNSW’s ability to achieve service frequencies.286

286 Report included in Submission 18, Auditor-General of NSW, p 17.

287 Submission 51, Ms Jane and Katey Grusovin, p 1; Submission 54, Mr John Bellamy, p 3; Submission 96, Ms Maria Bradley, p 1; Submission 9, Mr Larry Vincent, p 1.

288 Submission 52, Mr John Boyle, p 6.

289 Submission 51, Ms Jane and Katey Grusovin, pp 1-2; Submission 54, Mr John Bellamy, p 1; Submission 154, Name suppressed, p 2;

290 Evidence, Mr Bellamy, 20 August 2018, p 67.

291 Report included in Submission 18, Auditor-General of NSW, p 4.

3.36 Some participants queried why the NSW Government has not released recent modelling in relation to journey times.287 One submission author argued that 'tram journey times are longer than the buses they replace'.288 Others were equally concerned about whether the estimated journey times are accurate.289

3.37 A representative of the Sydney Light Rail Action Group questioned whether the estimated journey time is still currently 38 minutes, and noted that the Auditor-General's report recommended that information be publicly released about the proposed benefits of the project.290

3.38 The recommendation made by the Auditor-General was that, by December 2016, Transport for NSW 'update and consolidate information about project costs and benefits and ensure that it is readily accessible to the public'.291 The committee is unclear whether this occurred.

3.39 Relevant to journey time are how junctions are optimised and whether light rail vehicles are given priority over other road users.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Impact of the CBD and South East Light Rail Project

52 Report 2 - January 2019

3.40 Mr Stephen Troughton, former Deputy Secretary, Infrastructure and Services, Transport for NSW advised that ALTRAC Light Rail is responsible for providing the design for the 67 junctions along the CSELR route. He outlined the process that applies:

So they [ALTRAC] design the junctions. They will then submit that to RMS for review, and then a number of software programs will be used and probably because there are 67, there are interphases. They will split it up into certain sections and they will link those signals basically through a process of iteration using complex algorithms.292

292 Evidence, Mr Stephen Troughton, former Deputy Secretary, Infrastructure and Services, Transport for NSW, 4 October 2018, p 56.

293 Evidence, Ms Prendergast, 4 October 2018, p 56.

294 Evidence, Mr Troughton, 4 October 2018, p 57.

295 Evidence, Mr Brennan, 3 October 2018, p 58.

297 Evidence, Mr Troughton, 4 October 2018, p 57.

298 Evidence, Mr Brennan, 3 October 2018, p 56.

3.41 The process involves consideration of whether signals are phased to give priority to different users. Ms Prendergast told the committee that about 30 per cent of the intersections have had the designs completed.293 Mr Troughton also confirmed that in terms of signaling priority, light rail vehicles are considered 'a high priority'.294

3.42 The committee took evidence about the need to consider each intersection's 'personality', as they are all unique. As Mr Brennan stated 'all the junctions have different variables within them. They are called personalities for a reason, because each junction is different'.295

3.43 The department explained that detailed traffic modelling closer to light rail operations is essential to ensure the latest network demands are considered. Transport for NSW said: 'This work is expected to be completed soon, meaning end-state traffic modelling can be undertaken, including further headway, journey time and speed zone analysis'.296

3.44 Mr Troughton outlined how important it is for the whole of the network to be carefully considered when designing junctions:

You have to get a balance on the whole of the network. It is not about looking at a specific intersection. It is about looking at the whole of the network. You could over prioritise a signal at one place but that would have a significant effect, potentially, two to three kilometres away. It is about network balance.297

3.45 In terms of whether the light rail vehicles will 'clog' intersections, as some stakeholders were concerned about, Mr Brennan responded:

There has been some media speculation about the fact that a 67-metre tram will actually clog the road junctions. But we feel as an operator that if we were carrying a 40, a 50 or a 67 metre it is only a matter of a number of other seconds that it would take to get through the junction.298 PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE

Report 2 - January 2019 53

3.46 On this issue, he added: 'The priority will be given there to ensure that we do not clog up those road junctions'.299 In fact, the committee heard how there may be an opportunity along the route for 'advanced loops'. As Mr Brennan explained:

299 Evidence, Mr Brennan, 3 October 2018, p 57.

300 Evidence, Mr Brennan, 3 October 2018, p 56.

301 Evidence, Mr Brennan, 3 October 2018, p 62.

302 Evidence, Mr Brennan, 3 October 2018, p 67.

303 Evidence, Mr Brennan, 3 October 2018, p 65.

304 Answers to questions on notice, Transport for NSW, 4 November 2018, p 17.

… one of the features of the CBD and South East Light Rail which the inner west light rail does not have is the opportunity for advanced loops and, indeed, for it to not stop. There is great opportunity there to traverse the junctions with a 67-metre tram in a very efficient way and carry a lot of passengers into the CBD.300

3.47 In terms of these loops, Mr Brennan added that 'on the approach to the junction, the effects of the junction recognise that a tram is on approach and then takes the necessary action to ensure that it can go through the junction'.301

3.48 As to whether a tram going through each way will be synchronised, Mr Brennan said: 'It will depend on where the sequencing is, what is the optimum way to do it. On occasions they will, but not every time, no'.302

3.49 One of the important considerations also discussed was enforcement of when 'people are clogging the junction', for example, vehicles that have gone through red lights or vehicles that are blocking an intersection. On this issue, Mr Brennan said:

… people need to be aware that it will be policed and there will be consequences. I accept you cannot have police out there all the time or some level of enforcement but at the end of the day it needs to be taken as a serious part of the opportunity to further improve the tram running.303

3.50 As to how the detailed designs and traffic modelling is progressing for intersections along the CSELR route, Transport for NSW said on notice:

Work to complete the individual Personalities for the 56 TCS Plans required for the 63 signalised intersections along the SLR [Sydney Light Rail] route is expected to be completed in mid-2019. These Personalities will also be tested with the light rail vehicles as part of the testing and commissioning phase of the SLR Project.304

3.51 The committee understands that there are community concerns about journey times between Kingsford and Randwick and the CBD. We understand that some inquiry participants feel there is an unnecessary level of secrecy related to what current modelling is showing, and whether the time is less or more than 38 minutes.

3.52 We accept evidence from Transport for NSW that the modelling in relation to journey times is continuing, given demands and pressures on the network have continued to change since the project's inception. We acknowledge that two critical factors relevant to the overall journey time are signal priority for light rail vehicles and junction optimisation. However, the committee accepts that with these significant matters still not finalised at this stage, of what has been a lengthy project, it is understandable that there is public disquiet.

3.53 The committee was interested to learn about the 'personalities' of each intersection, and how careful planning needs to be undertaken to ensure the needs of all road users and pedestrians are balanced carefully along each point in the network. The committee recognises that this is a complex process, one in which multiple stakeholders must work effectively together.

3.54 The committee understands that negotiations regarding signal prioritisation are continuing to take place between relevant government departments and agencies, in particular Transport for NSW, Roads and Maritime Services and the NSW Police Force.

3.55 The department has suggested that light rail vehicles will be given signal priority at intersections along the route, although we note that this has not been formally determined as such. Once the design for each junction has been finalised, we recommend that Transport for NSW publicly release the outcomes of modelling in relation to journey times between Randwick/Kingsford and the Sydney CBD.

3.56 The committee notes the benefits of the CSELR and believes it is a good solution to ease the increasing traffic congestion in the Sydney CBD. The committee looks forward to seeing the project finalised.

3.57 There were some concerns expressed during the inquiry about the CSELR route not including a second stop in Surry Hills, near Wimbo Park. Some stakeholders were of the view that there is a demand for a stop to be placed in this location.

3.58 The committee noted that Ms Jenny Leong MP, Member for Newtown, put forward a petition in the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales on this issue, calling for the government to commit to building a second light rail station at this location.305 The City of Sydney also confirmed that it had advocated strongly for a second stop at Wimbo Park.306

305 Hon Jenny Leong MP, Member for Newtown, Petition to add a second light rail stop in Surry Hills (11 May 2017), < https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/la/papers/DBAssets/tabledpaper/webAttachments/ 70948/Under%20500%20petition%20on%20Light%20Rail%20station%20in%20Surry%20Hills.pdf>

306 Evidence, Mr Kim Woodbury, Chief Operating Officer, City of Sydney Council , 20 August 2018, p 27. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE

Report 2 - January 2019 55

3.59 When Transport for NSW was questioned as to why this additional stop was not included in the plans, the committee was told that 'a stop at Wimbo Park was not justified as it is approximately 400 metres from the Ward Park stop, which sufficiently caters for the expected number of customers within the catchment area'.307

3.60 The location and configuration of stops for the route were outlined in the 2013 Environmental Impact Statement and consulted on. Transport for NSW stated that a 'comprehensive assessment process was applied which included assessment of the catchment area, environmental constraints, average distance between potential stop locations and potential patronage'.308

3.61 Ms Prendergast, from Transport for NSW, advised the committee that the location has been 'future proofed' so that there is the potential to add a stop there, subject to patronage modelling. She said: 'We have future proofed it and the pain would not be significant because all the conduits and all the things that are necessary are in. It would be a far simpler build. But at the moment the patronage modelling does not show that there is enough to warrant a second stop'.309

3.62 Transport for NSW said that it will monitor Opal data and customer feedback after the CSELR is operational to determine future needs.310 However, some inquiry participants argued that the stop should be built now, to minimise future disruption to residents and improve accessibility.

3.63 One of Ms Leong's constituents contended that if the NSW Government is 'future proofing the location', it should 'immediately modify the Wimbo Park site and install a platform and stop now, while construction is occurring'.311 Another individual said:

307 Answers to questions on notice, Transport for NSW, 18 September 2018, p 9.

308 Answers to questions on notice, Transport for NSW, 18 September 2018, p 10.

309 Evidence, Ms Prendergast, 20 August 2018, p 17.

310 Answers to questions on notice, Transport for NSW, 18 September 2018, p 10.

311 Supplementary submission 57a, Views of Surry Hills residents (survey conducted by Ms Jenny Leong MP), p 5.

312 Supplementary submission 57a, Views of Surry Hills residents (survey conducted by Ms Jenny Leong MP), p 23.

A Light Rail Stop should be installed now at the future-proofed Olivia Gardens/Wimbo Park site in order to prevent future disruption and to provide some compensation to residents. Once bus services are reduced, this additional stop is vital for the less-able of all ages living in the Eastern part of Surry Hills who will be especially intimidated by the steep climb to Ward Park (one of the highest points in Surry Hills) or the long trek to the next stop on the other side of Moore Park.312

3.64 In light of stakeholder feedback, the committee calls on the NSW Government to reconsider whether an additional stop is needed at Wimbo Park. While we understand that this location has been 'future proofed', to allow a stop to be installed if required in the future, the committee questions whether it would have been more appropriate to include it in the project's original scope.

3.65 Unfortunately though, the project has already gone on for a significant amount of time, negatively impacting residents and businesses. The committee does not wish to see the project extended for longer to undertake work on constructing an additional stop. The priority must be to finalise the work already being undertaken, particularly in light of the delays already experienced on the project.

3.66 The committee recommends, however, that Transport for NSW investigate the need for, with a view to giving favourable consideration, an additional stop at Wimbo Park in Surry Hills, once the CSELR project has been finalised.

This chapter and the next considers the impact of the CBD and South East Light Rail (CSELR) project on business owners, residents and the broader community. This chapter will focus on residents' concerns regarding construction noise, specifically night works, and the effectiveness of respite accommodation and mitigation measures. It will also outline concerns regarding property damage and the process for claiming remediation. It will then look at broader community concerns regarding the loss of parking and footpath accessibility, and finally the removal of trees along the CSELR route. Chapter 5 will focus on the impacts of the project on businesses.

4.1 The committee received a large number of complaints about excessive noise and vibration caused by construction work along the light rail route. This section looks at the nature of these concerns, and what measures are being taken to monitor noise and vibration levels and ensure compliance with requirements. It will also consider measures to mitigate noise impacts, including the alternative accommodation program which is aimed at providing residents with some respite from construction noise.

4.2 The excessive noise produced from the construction of the CSELR project was voiced by many inquiry participants, in particular by those residents whose homes are beside the construction works.313

4.3 Residents along the CSELR route described the noise as constant, often exceeding normal limits and resulting in sleep deprivation. One inquiry participant said that the noise their family had endured was 'relentless', with work during the night completing at 5.00 am and starting again at 7.00 am, leaving their 'household without a respite time for resting and or catching up on sleep'.314

4.4 Another individual described the excessive noise and dust issues in their home, which they said has continued 'for endless hours, days, weeks and months and years':

313 Evidence, Ms Annette Keay, affected resident, 3 October 2018, p 10; Submission 7, Name suppressed, p 1; Submission 11, Mr Paul Corrandini, p 1; Submission 15, Name suppressed, p 1; Submission 21, Vivo Café, p 1; Submission 33, Name suppressed, p 1; Submission 42, Name suppressed, p 1; Submission 47, Name suppressed, p 2; Submission 48, Name suppressed, p 2; Submission 48a, Name suppressed, p 1; Submission 52, Mr John Boyle, p 4; Submission 53, Ms Adnil Ramos, p 1; Submission 57, Jenny Leong MP, p 3; Submission 57a, Views of Surry Hills residents (survey conducted by Ms Jenny Leong MP), pp 2-11; Submission 67, Ms Narelle Clark, p 1; Submission 70, Mr Eddie Fazal, p 1; Submission 87, Randwick City Council, pp 3-17; Submission 151, Name suppressed, p 1; Submission 185, Ms Samantha Markwick, p 1.

314 Submission 48, Name suppressed, p 2.

The noise and screeching from dumping of materials from metal tray trucks or loading of same. The continual beeping of reversing mobile plant. The constant endless hammering from rock breaking activities was endlessly irritating and caused me on LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Impact of the CBD and South East Light Rail Project

58 Report 2 - January 2019

numerous occasions to measure the noise levels at the rear of my home and at the perimeter of the construction site, all of which were above acceptable levels …315

315 Submission 15, Name suppressed, p 1.

316 Submission 52, Mr John Boyle, p 4.

317 Evidence, Ms Lindsay Shurey, Mayor, Randwick City Council, 20 August 2018, p 36.

318 Evidence, Ms Shurey, 20 August 2018, p 38.

319 Evidence, Mr Andrew Jordan, affected resident, 3 October 2018, p 2.

320 Evidence, Mr Jordan, 3 October 2018, pp 2 and 10-12.

4.5 Mr John Boyle told the committee that residents are 'stressed and sleep-deprived and are now at their wits' end as a consequence' of the 'constant commotion, loud banging and screeching noises of the construction work, that is severely impacting their lives, without any relief'. Mr Boyle added that 'this insufferable all-night work has been carried out, nightly, along Anzac Parade, until around 2am, since last June and it is totally unacceptable, and unreasonable that residents' should have to endure such appalling, harmful disturbance, impacts and damage to their health, for even one more night'.316

4.6 Ms Lindsay Shurey, Mayor, Randwick City Council, also commented on the significant impact the noise was having on the residents in her local area:

As I said, many of the residents do not come to us, but the ones that do tell us that the night-time noise of the construction is appalling. The breaches of the noise—the work—is constant. They are told that the noise will stop at 12 o'clock at night, but at 4 o'clock in the morning they are still taping sounds which are unbelievable. And this has been going on for such a long time. I couldn't live there and I know that any of you would have difficulty. I am sure they are going mental.317

4.7 Ms Shurey further commented on the impact it was also having on students living alongside the CSELR route who were studying for their HSC:

We do have residents whose children are going through the HSC. It is becoming impossible for their children to study. It is really impacting on the future lives of these children. The noise is constant. Days are going on and they are not getting any sleep. It is really impacting on them.318

4.8 Mr Andrew Jordan, a Kensington resident, told the committee that his home had become 'unlivable due to the workers being allowed to work 120 hours a week … from Sunday night through to Tuesday afternoon non-stop for the last two months'. Mr Jordan advised that 'this has led to excessive sleep deprivation due to the noise levels', arguing that 'sleep deprivation is actually considered a form of torture'.319

4.9 In addition, Mr Jordan claimed that the contractors had breached the contract and the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan in place for the project. He alleged that noise monitoring does not occur continuously, that the maximum noise level of 75 decibels is repeatedly exceeded and that residents are only given one night respite where it clearly states in the contract that two nights respite is required.320 Mr Jordan went on to explain the level of noise that he has experienced during the night by comparing this to the sound of a lawnmower:

Report 2 - January 2019 59

A lawnmower at the same distance makes 65 decibels. We are talking about 85 to 90 decibels after midnight when you are trying to sleep. That is four times-plus louder than a lawnmower and everyone knows how loud they are. I would have liked to have done a demonstration of just what is 75 and 85 decibels in this room right now but it would be dangerous to people, hearing that noise level. It is that bad.321

321 Evidence, Mr Jordan, 3 October 2018, p 10.

322 Submission 42, Name suppressed, p 1.

323 Evidence, Ms Cat Wright, affected resident, 3 October 2018, p 3.

324 Submission 48, Name suppressed, p 3.

325 ALTRAC Light Rail D&C JV, ALR Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (Revision O, November 2018) p 9.

326 ALTRAC Light Rail D&C JV, ALR Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (Revision O, November 2018) p 21.

327 ALTRAC Light Rail D&C JV, ALR Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (Revision O, November 2018) p 21.

4.10 Most of the concerns the committee received focused on construction noise, but other residents noted that it is not just the noise from machinery that is having an impact. One said that 'on various nights more than twenty trucks will be parked outside our houses with men making a lot of noise and leaving their coffee cups, half eaten sandwiches, gloves, and other rubbish on our street'.322 Similarly, Ms Cat Wright, who has had to deal with overnight works for over two years, advised that she has to listen to 'workmen literally working only a few metres from my window and my bed'.323 A Kensington resident also experienced workers 'sitting on the fence of my front yard' speaking with loud voices and laughing at the early hours of the morning.324

4.11 The contractors involved with the CSELR project are required to comply with the relevant Transport for NSW Project Deed requirements, the Minister's Conditions of Approval for the Project, the Revised Environmental Management Measures, and all applicable legislative and licensing requirements. The ALTRAC Light Rail Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan was developed specifically to manage and control noise impacts associated with construction and comply with the various requirements.325

4.12 This plan details the hours in which construction works are to be undertaken. Generally, the approved hours of work, with the exception of the CBD precinct, are:

 8.00 am to 5.00 pm on Saturdays

4.13 Within the CBD precinct the only exception to the above hours is that from Mondays to Fridays construction work can be carried out from 6.00 am to 10.00 pm inclusive.327

4.14 For 'particularly noisy or annoying activities' the plan stipulates that these will take place within the hours of '8.00 am to 12.00 pm and 2.00 pm to 5.00 pm Monday to Friday and 8.00 am to 12.00 pm Saturdays'. However, the plan also notes that 'the nature of the project means evening

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Impact of the CBD and South East Light Rail Project

60 Report 2 - January 2019

and night work will also be required, particularly in the city centre but also in other precincts especially in areas around road intersections'.328

4.15 According to the plan, construction works are permitted outside of the approved hours under the following circumstances, if:

 temporary road closures and other measures are required by the Police and other regulatory authorities for the safe delivery of material/ equipment

 works are required to be completed to maintain health and safety, avoid loss of life or injury and to prevent environmental damage.329

4.16 The plan also determines that 'where construction works are required to be conducted outside of approved hours, the noisiest activities associated with night-time works are to be scheduled to be completed before midnight and the night-time construction works limited to two consecutive nights followed by two consecutive nights of respite (i.e. no works), unless outlined in the Out of Hours Work Protocol'.330

4.17 Mr James Bramley, Chairman, ALTRAC Light Rail (ALTRAC), informed the committee that 'there are certainly limits and so forth about noise' under the planning approvals, method statements and construction obligations as part of the contract, and ALTRAC 'are implementing the works in accordance with those requirements'.331

4.18 In relation to out of hours works, Mr Bramley acknowledged that 'the latest time that work can be done in standard hours, by my recollection is 10.00 pm in the city and it is slightly earlier in the suburbs', confirming that when work is required outside of those hours it is subject to further approvals.332 Mr Bramley explained that they are constrained by a number of different stakeholders and influences when making the decision to conduct night works, including Roads and Maritime Services and the broader community.333 Mr Bramley later confirmed the conditions that must be met for night works to be permitted and how frequently night works occur:

328 ALTRAC Light Rail D&C JV, ALR Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (Revision O, November 2018) pp 43-44.

329 ALTRAC Light Rail D&C JV, ALR Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (Revision O, November 2018) p 44.

330 ALTRAC Light Rail D&C JV, ALR Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (Revision O, November 2018) p 44.

331 Evidence, Mr James Bramley, Chairman, ALTRAC Light Rail, 4 October 2018, pp 29-30.

332 Evidence, Mr Bramley, 4 October 2018, p 29.

333 Evidence, Mr Bramley, 4 October 2018, p 29.

334 Answers to questions on notice, Mr James Bramley, Chairman, ALTRAC Light Rail, 1 November 2018, p 2.

Works are only permitted to be conducted outside of standard hours where one or more conditions of the Environmental Protection Licence (EPL 20699) are satisfied. In accordance with the EPL, work has occurred most nights at various locations since commencement of works.334 PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE

Report 2 - January 2019 61

4.19 According to Mr Bede Noonan, Managing Director, Acciona Infrastructure Australia (Acciona), the decision to conduct night work is made with all relevant stakeholders and is not something that benefits the contractors in terms of cost:

The process to work at night is a decision made jointly with Transport and more than anything else it is actually to minimise the impact of the project on all possible stakeholders—residents, businesses, traffic users and so forth. It is obviously not a decision taken lightly. From our point of view it is a far more expensive way of going about the work. Obviously we pay significant overtime for that process. There is no overtime work that is undertaken just for the benefit of us.335

335 Evidence, Mr Bede Noonan, Managing Director, Acciona Infrastructure Australia, 4 October 2018, p 9.

336 Evidence, Ms Margaret Prendergast, Coordinator General, Transport Coordination Office, Transport for NSW, 4 October 2018, pp 38 and 45-46.

337 SYDTRAC D&C, Construction Environmental Management Plan (rev 2, November 2016), pp 45-46.

338 Infrastructure Approval, Section 115ZB of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, signed by Hon Pru Goward MP, Minister for Planning, 4 June 2014, < https://majorprojects.accelo.com/ public/770b8d29e56c266488c9c2719b185d61/Instrument of Approval_ Signed.pdf>

4.20 During a hearing, Ms Margaret Prendergast, Coordinator General, Transport Coordination Office, Transport for NSW, advised that Transport for NSW insists that ALTRAC and Acciona monitor noise, with all works 'undertaken in line with the Construction Environmental Management Plan'. Ms Prendergast informed the committee that 'we monitor compliance at all times', explaining that 'the environmental compliance team and the Department of Planning and Environment go out, often at night, to check on the noise compliance' and 'if there is a spike in complaints they do special exercises'.336

4.21 Further to this, as required under the Minister's Conditions of Approval an Environmental Representative is appointed by Transport for NSW and approved by the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment, and is responsible for:

 overseeing the implementation of environmental management plans and monitoring programs as required

 advising Transport for NSW on its compliance obligations against relevant licences and approvals

 ensuring environmental auditing is undertaken in accordance with all relevant Environmental Management Systems

 recommending to Transport for NSW any reasonable and feasible steps to be taken to avoid or minimise unintended or adverse environmental impact

 review/endorse documents and plans as required, out of hours works applications and compliance reporting

4.22 The Environmental Representative is required to be independent of the design and construction personnel and is employed for the duration of construction, or as otherwise agreed by the Secretary.338 At each stage of the CSELR project, Transport for NSW nominated one Environmental Representative and an alternate Environmental Representative, and they were

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Impact of the CBD and South East Light Rail Project

62 Report 2 - January 2019

approved by the Secretary's delegate. The Department of Planning and Environment provided the committee with the names and qualifications of the appointed representatives across each stage of the project, who were appointed from either Healthy Buildings International or Australian Quality Assurance & Superintendence (AQUAS).339

4.23 In terms of auditing, Mr Stephen Troughton, former Deputy Secretary, Infrastructure and Services, Transport for NSW, explained that ALTRAC is 'responsible, under the contract, for meeting the conditions' and as the whole project has been outsourced to ALTRAC they are obligated to organise any independent auditing to ensure compliance is met under the various requirements and legislation.340

4.24 The NSW Environment Protection Authority also audits 'Acciona's compliance with its environment protection licence through site inspections, review of responses to complaints and Annual returns',341 and advised that it has 'undertaken independent noise monitoring on two occasions'.342

4.25 When questioned on whether noise monitoring is undertaken during all night works, Mr Bramley could not confirm that it is being undertaken every single time, however, did confirm 'that auditing of those plans and compliance with those plans, is undertaken by ALTRAC and independent parties on a regular basis'.343 Mr Bramley later provided the number of noise monitoring events as at 1 November 2018:

339 Correspondence from Mr Bahar Yildirim, Senior Ministerial Liaison Officer, Department of Planning and Environment, to secretariat, 17 December 2018.

340 Evidence, Mr Stephen Troughton, former Deputy Secretary, Infrastructure and Services, Transport for NSW, 4 October 2018, p 46.

341 Answers to supplementary questions, NSW Environment Protection Authority, 30 November 2018, p 1.

342 Answers to questions on notice, NSW Environment Protection Authority, 30 November 2018, p 1.

343 Evidence, Mr Bramley, 4 October 2018, p 30.

344 Answers to questions on notice, Mr Bramley, 1 November 2018, p 4.

345 Evidence, Mr Noonan, 4 October 2018, pp 9-10.

Of the approximately 700 attended noise monitoring events conducted since commencement of works, over 450 were undertaken at night. In addition, a further 27 "unattended" monitoring events were conducted where the monitoring equipment was set up at a stakeholder's premises to measure construction noise.344

4.26 When asked the same question, Mr Noonan advised that Acciona do monitor noise but 'it is not continuous' and is conducted in specific areas 'depending on how much activity is happening at any point in time', noting that this is deemed normal and reasonable practice in these circumstances.345

4.27 The committee tried to ascertain whether there has been any formal action taken by relevant authorities in relation to breaches of noise requirements.

4.28 Mr Noonan told the committee that 'there have been no penalty notices or fines received from the EPA [NSW Environment Protection Authority] in relation to noise'. On notice however, Acciona explained details of two breaches that had been recorded relating to notification requirements:

Report 2 - January 2019 63

 On 24 February 2017, the EPA issued Acciona Infrastructure Australia (AIA) with a formal warning for failing to provide appropriate notification to residents on Alison Road, Randwick about out of hour's works on 24 to 25 January 2017.

 On 23 May 2017, the EPA issued AIA with an official caution for failing to notify affected receivers of works that occurred from 11 pm to 5 am at the Devonshire Street / Elizabeth Street intersection.346

4.29 These same breaches were disclosed by Transport for NSW, along with a third instance being an advisory letter issued on 5 May 2017 relating to the failure to investigate a vibration complaint within two hours.347

4.30 However, Mr Mark Gifford, Chief Environmental Regulator, NSW Environment Protection Authority, told the committee that there were more instances of regulation action related to the project:

346 Answers to questions on notice, Mr Bede Noonan, Managing Director, Acciona Infrastructure Australia, 2 November 2018, p 1.

347 Answers to questions on notice, Transport for NSW, 4 November 2018, pp 14-15.

348 Answers to questions on notice received from NSW Environment Protection Authority noted that there have been a total of six regulatory actions taken against Acciona Infrastructure Australia (Answers to questions on notice, NSW Environment Protection Authority, 30 November 2018, p 1).

349 Evidence, Mr Mark Gifford, Chief Environmental Regulator, NSW Environment Protection Authority, 5 November 2018, p 6.

350 The environment protection licence was issued to Acciona Infrastructure Australia following the approval of the development and the conditions of this licence cannot be inconsistent with the development approval (Evidence, Mr Gifford, 5 November 2018, p 2).

351 From the commencement of construction to 8 November 2018, the NSW Environment Protection Authority has also received eight complaints relating to dust and four complaints relating to air quality (answers to supplementary questions, NSW Environment Protection Authority, 30 November 2018, p 4).

352 Evidence, Mr Gifford, 5 November 2018, pp 7-8.

At this stage the EPA [NSW Environment Protection Authority] has undertaken what I will call regulatory action, so seven regulatory actions.348 Four of those were advisory letters, one a warning letter, one a show cause letter, and another an official caution. They were for matters that went to not complying with conditions of the environment protection licence.349

4.31 By comparison, according to Mr Gifford, since the environment protection licence350 was issued in April 2017, which sets out conditions required for the development, the NSW Environment Protection Authority have received 83 complaints351 from members of the public and their office has conducted 17 inspections. Mr Gifford said that noise complaints have been 'a major issue' that the department have had to respond to, however noted that it is 'unsurprising that there are community concerns' given the level of construction for a major infrastructure project such as this.352

4.32 As this project is considered 'Critical State Significant Infrastructure', the NSW Environment Protection Authority noted that this prevents the issuing of Environment Protection Notices,

such as a Prevention Notice or Clean up Notice, however advised that this does not interfere with the NSW Environment Protection Authority's ability to enforce the conditions of the environment protection licence.353

4.33 The committee also received evidence from members of the public who expressed concern that the declaration of the project as 'Critical State Significant Infrastructure' prevented proper enforcement of conditions of approval. Ms Margaret Hogg, Committee Member, Saving Sydney Trees, stated: 'We look to scrutiny and review of awarding state significant critical infrastructure and the exclusion of the public in its execution'.354

4.34 Mr Jordan also reflected on this issue:

353 Answers to supplementary questions, NSW Environment Protection Authority, 30 November 2018, p 1.

354 Evidence, Ms Margaret Hogg, Committee Member, Saving Sydney Trees, 20 August 2018, p 62.

355 Evidence, Mr Jordan, 3 October 2018, p 11.

356 Submission 39, Transport for NSW, p 9.

The next thing I want is I want the light rail project stripped of its critical infrastructure tag. This critical infrastructure tag was a Trojan horse to let the project get away with blue murder and not be held accountable for what it is and to work and not pay compensation to small businesses and residents.355

4.35 In light of the concerns expressed by members of the public, the committee recommends that the NSW Government undertake a review of the exemptions provided to projects declared 'Critical State Significant Infrastructure'.

353 Answers to supplementary questions, NSW Environment Protection Authority, 30 November 2018, p 1.

354 Evidence, Ms Margaret Hogg, Committee Member, Saving Sydney Trees, 20 August 2018, p 62.

355 Evidence, Mr Jordan, 3 October 2018, p 11.

356 Submission 39, Transport for NSW, p 9.

4.36 As part of the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan, ALTRAC is required to offer alternative accommodation as respite for residents who are impacted by work involving high levels of noise over three consecutive nights. ALTRAC is also required to offer alternative accommodation to residents in the Surry Hills and South East Suburb areas, where high impact noisy works are planned to go beyond midnight.356

4.37 In addition to this, Transport for NSW offer a supplementary program for alternative accommodation, 'whereby, under approved circumstances, a resident can stay at an alternative location and claim back up to $200 per bedroom'. Transport for NSW advised that the following set of criteria must be met to claim under this program:

Report 2 - January 2019 65

 case-by-case offers can be made where particular circumstances are identified around affected residents.357

4.38 Ms Prendergast acknowledged that noisy works are 'obviously the biggest impact on residents and businesses located along the alignment' and explained that 'works are undertaken with planning conditions, and scheduling tries to minimise any impact'. Ms Prendergast advised that 'since last November we have offered residents an additional 8,000 offers of alternative accommodation where we know there are noisy works happening' and have also 'worked with ALTRAC to work out where can we do more day-time works than night-time works'.358

4.39 However, in terms of the alternate accommodation that has been offered by ALTRAC and Transport for NSW, residents reported a number of concerns to the committee. One resident spoke of being informed of night works the afternoon before the works would take place, stating that this is 'too short notice to organise any real respite from the noise'.359 Similarly, Mr Jordan commented that he didn't know where you could get a decent hotel room in Sydney at a cost of $200 a night with only 30 minutes notice.360

4.40 Another resident claimed: 'We continually leave our homes to get away from the noise. Only once has accommodation been offered and it seems the rules mean they can work all night as long as they don't go for more than two consecutive nights. Of course that's what they do. We are secondary to the construction site'.361

4.41 The Vivo Café highlighted that residents who have been impacted by the noise 'lack any true alternative accommodation'. It went on to explain that the respite program offered by Transport for NSW 'requires residents to pay up front and then potentially wait months for reimbursement'.362

4.42 Similarly, Randwick City Council commented that the offer of subsidised alternative accommodation has 'been taken up with varying degrees of satisfaction', indicating that feedback it has received from residents is that it is 'inadequate and the process is difficult and leaves residents out of pocket for extended periods'.363

357 Submission 39, Transport for NSW, p 10.

358 Evidence, Ms Prendergast, 4 October 2018, pp 37-38.

359 Submission 42, Name suppressed, p 1.

360 Evidence, Mr Jordan, 3 October 2018, p 11.

361 Submission 44, Name suppressed, p 3.

362 Submission 21, Vivo Café, p 10.

363 Submission 87, Randwick City Council, pp 3 and 60. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Impact of the CBD and South East Light Rail Project

66 Report 2 - January 2019

4.43 During a hearing, Ms Shurey, Mayor of Randwick City Council, told the committee that it has only been recently that alternative accommodation has 'been made evident to our residents', suggesting that the application process has not been provided on a 'transparent basis', where residents would know how to apply or what the criteria is.364

4.44 Further, Ms Shurey advised that 'one of the problems was that residents had to take the accommodation, pay for the accommodation first and then put in a claim for it', however went on to say that after meeting with the Transport Minister, Andrew Constance, he recommended that residents go through his office to 'arrange for money to be available up front so people were not out of pocket'.365

4.45 In this regard, Transport for NSW advised that it 'has also implemented a new system involving the services of The Hotel Network, which makes it easier and faster for residents to recoup expenses for accommodation', where residents are typically reimbursed 'within 48 hours'.366

364 Evidence, Ms Shurey, 20 August 2018, p 36.

365 Evidence, Ms Shurey, 20 August 2018, p 38.

366 Submission 39, Transport for NSW, p 10.

367 ALTRAC Light Rail D&C JV, ALR Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (Revision O, November 2018) pp 45-46.

368 Submission 39, Transport for NSW, p 13.

4.46 The ALTRAC Light Rail Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan documents a number of noise mitigation measures to 'reduce and control potential construction noise impacts'. Some of these include the use of fencing and barriers, shutting down noisy equipment when not in use, loading and unloading away from areas of sensitive receivers, minimising the reversing of equipment and conducting high level noise activities during the day where possible.367

4.47 Transport for NSW advised that it works closely with all partners to the CSELR project to 'improve stakeholder outcomes in relation to work programs', and also outlined some of the strategies that have been implemented to reduce the impact of construction, including:

4.48 In terms of the level of noise once the CSELR is operational, Transport for NSW advised that 'noise modelling has been undertaken to estimate noise levels when the light rail system is operational' and 'where the predicted operational noise levels exceed the project's operational noise criteria (set by the planning approval), ALTRAC is expected to identify and implement

Report 2 - January 2019 67

reasonable and feasible mitigation measures in consultation with the affected property owners'.369

4.49 In this regard, the committee heard about mitigation measures for operational noise and vibration, for when light rail services are running along the route.

4.50 Ms Prendergast indicated that a noise and vibration program had been established which involves 'the assessment of over 2,000 properties' and the implementation of a number of treatments based on the level of impact. Ms Prendergast explained how the assessment is made based on the level of noise impact:

369 Submission 39, Transport for NSW, p 10.

370 Evidence, Ms Prendergast, 4 October 2018, p 38.

371 Evidence, Ms Prendergast, 4 October 2018, pp 38 and 48.

372 Answers to questions on notice, Mr Noonan, 2 November 2018, p 9.

373 Answers to questions on notice, Mr Noonan, 2 November 2018, p 9.

The level of the impact of the operational noise and vibration is determined in categories A to D, with A being the lowest, and the level of impact translates to those ratings and the treatments we offer in regard to those ratings. Some of the treatments include fresh air and ventilation, window or door seals, replacement of windows or doors with acoustic components such as glazed windows—double glazing, as you may know—or indeed mechanical ventilation systems. But treatments are graduated in regard to what the level of impact is.370

4.51 According to Ms Prendergast the 'noise and vibration treatments are not for during construction, they are for operations' and if residents are dissatisfied with the treatments being proposed there is an escalation process in place. Ms Prendergast advised that 'work has now been completed on more than 559 properties of those 2,020, and 1,220 treatments have been resolved', with all treatments expected to be completed 'over the course of the next year'.371

4.52 Mr Noonan from Acciona also provided evidence about this program. He said that all property owners who have been impacted by operational noise along the CSELR route have been invited to participate in the operational noise mitigation program, with Acciona completing 'acoustic work on 567 properties' as at 2 November 2018, with work still continuing.372

4.53 Mr Noonan also provided details relating to the escalation of claims should property owners disagree with proposed mitigation measures:

Those property owners who wish to contest the criteria and/or the proposed operational noise treatment for their property may do so by escalating the matter with AIA [Acciona Infrastructure Australia], who will, if their claim exceeds the defined compliance, refer the matter to TfNSW [Transport for NSW] for a determination or mediation.373

4.54 Despite this process being in place, the committee received evidence from inquiry participants who were concerned that the mitigation measures were insufficient for operational noise and that communication regarding the process has not been forthcoming.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Impact of the CBD and South East Light Rail Project

68 Report 2 - January 2019

4.55 Ms Jenny Leong MP, Member for Newtown, argued that communication in regards to mitigation measures has been insufficient and caused much confusion amongst residents, who believed they would receive treatments prior to construction commencing:

One final issue that warrants highlighting to the committee is the failure to adequately communicate with residents, particularly public housing tenants about the availability of noise mitigation measures. Our office attended several Neighbourhood Advisory Board meetings where TfNSW staff explained the available measures to public housing residents on Devonshire St. It was our understanding from those meetings (and that of the tenants) that noise mitigation products would be fitted to windows before the construction began. When this did not happen, our office followed up and was informed that these products would only be fitted once the Light Rail was in operation.374

374 Submission 57, Jenny Leong MP, p 4.

375 Submission 44, Name suppressed, p 3.

376 Submission 67, Ms Narelle Clark, p 2.

377 Submission 82, Name suppressed, p 1.

378 Submission 69, Mr Norman Heavener, p 2.

4.56 One individual, who was dissatisfied with the process to have mitigation measures installed in their home, reflected on the lack of communication from Transport for NSW throughout the process, and the fact that treatments are only intended to address 'operational noise':

To combat the noise TfNSW are offering varying window treatments and ventilators as we are now expected to keep all windows and doors shut. They did the initial report in May 2016. Requests for air conditioning have been met with insults …When we asked for the matter to be escalated, it sat for 1 year with nothing done. They lied about escalating the matter and let it sit. They then advised they were only committing to adding noise treatments after operation starts, meaning you have to put up with construction unless they get to you earlier. The work is still not complete. We continually leave our homes to get away from the noise.375

4.57 A number of other residents also provided evidence in relation to mitigation treatments they had received and their level of satisfaction regarding the process for obtaining these measures. Ms Narelle Clark, a Surry Hills resident, was disappointed that double glazing was placed only on the front windows and not along the side of their house, where disruptions also occurred in the bedrooms.376

4.58 Along similar lines, a Surry Hills resident had acoustic glass and seals fitted to their windows and doors, as they were told that once the light rail was operational 'it will be so much noisier in the evening and nights'. This individual said that these mitigation measures 'do not return to us the "Amenity" which has been taken away from us' and explained that they raised this with Acciona in February 2017, and then escalated this to Transport for NSW in November 2017, and 'to this day we have had no hearing nor result'.377

4.59 Mr Norman Heavener stated that he was offered the installation of an air filter, however when 'they determined a wall that they would have to go through has asbestos …It became too hard'.378

Committee comment

4.60 It is clear to the committee that noise has been a major impact to residents whose homes are situated along the CSELR route. As described by inquiry participants, the 'excessiveness' of noisy works, with limited respite, has caused much angst, distress and frustration among the community. This has been heightened by the delay of the project, in which residents have had to endure construction noise for much longer than was originally expected, often at night, given work has had to be compacted to mitigate delays to the project.

4.61 The committee understands that ALTRAC and Acciona have responsibilities to manage and monitor noise levels, but we question how effectively this is occurring in light of the volume of community concerns we have received. It was also surprising to learn that the NSW Environment Protection Authority has not been involved in these issues to a greater extent, and that very few warnings have been issued in relation to potential breaches.

4.62 The committee notes that at each stage of the project an Independent Environmental Representative has been appointed, however the committee did not receive any evidence in regards to the effectiveness of this role in auditing and monitoring compliance of the contractors. The committee is also unsure how much independent noise monitoring has been conducted by the Independent Environmental Representative throughout the construction phase of the project.

4.63 In light of community concerns about the lack of compliance and monitoring of noise levels, the committee believes that Transport for NSW should review whether the role of the Independent Environmental Representative for the project needs to be expanded or whether a separate independent entity needs to be established specifically to conduct noise monitoring during construction work undertaken out of hours.

4.64 The committee commends Transport for NSW for providing alternative accommodation as respite to affected residents. However, concerns raised by residents, particularly the effectiveness of communication regarding the program's requirements and eligibility, and the process for claiming payment, has rendered these alternative accommodation arrangements impracticable for some residents.

4.65 We note that mitigation measures are underway to provide treatments to homes that will be impacted by the operational noise of the CSELR. Again, concerns were raised regarding the communication of the process, with much confusion amongst residents as to when they would receive the treatments.

4.66 The committee believes that some of the concerns raised by residents regarding respite accommodation and mitigation measures could be alleviated with improved communication initiatives. These strategies should be clear and easily accessible and provide relevant information about such programs upfront to impacted parties. In light of this, the committee recommends that Transport for NSW review the communication strategy it had for this project, taking in to account the concerns raised in this report, and report back to the Minister of Transport and Infrastructure on any improvements that can be implemented for future infrastructure projects across New South Wales.

4.67 Another issue raised by inquiry participants was the physical damage being caused to homes and other buildings as a direct result of construction work on the project. There were also concerns about the adequacy of processes put in place for people to claim compensation for this damage.

4.68 The comments below highlight some of the concerns received by the committee in relation to damage to residents' homes:

 '…the whole house shook with the cracking sound making the experience terrifying as one can feel and hear the roof, walls, windows and ground moving. The walls of the house developed cracks and those old cracks in there, deepen'.379

 'That contempt—that is how I felt when I walked out of my house after that weekend and looked at all the damage. I thought, "This building stood here for maybe up to 100 years and overnight they damaged it". You can see where they have dragged machinery along the wall, let alone the cracks and the bits falling off it. I thought, "Where's the respect?".380

 'The dumping and compaction activities caused the house to shake and rattling was experienced on every level of the house …I believe that these activities have created cracks in my fireplace mantle, tiled walls, plaster walls, around skirtings' of which were not present when the pre-construction report was undertaken, between brick work and wooden window frames, and have widened a crack in brick work, which was present at the time of the post construction inspection. Wooden floors creak loudly attributable to movement in the subfloor areas'.381

 'My property has damage and is cracked from all the demolition and compacting. I'd like this repaired. There is dust constantly coming into the house from the construction site. We've been living with construction for years now'.382

379 Submission 48, Name suppressed, p 2.

380 Evidence, Ms Wright, 3 October 2018, p 10.

381 Submission 15, Name suppressed, pp 1-2.

382 Submission 57, Jenny Leong MP, p 3. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE

Report 2 - January 2019 71

4.69 Ms Leong advised that while residents 'had been told that compensation for damage or disruption was available, they had found it to be purely hypothetical and impossible to access without taking legal action'.383 For example, one resident explained how they had spent months trying to have the damage to their property fixed only to be told that the project was not responsible:

383 Submission 57, Jenny Leong MP, p 2.

384 Submission 57, Jenny Leong MP, p 3.

385 Submission 42, Name suppressed, p 1.

386 Evidence, Ms Wright, 3 October 2018, p 3.

387 Submission 15, Name suppressed, p 2.

My house sustained damage in September/October 2016. The damage was caused by heavy vibrations caused by compacting work at the Olivia Gardens site. When I contacted Acciona they sent a team to inspect the damage and I was told the damage is only cosmetic, not structural. I then requested Acciona to organise the repair, but after numerous chasing over many months, I received a letter with convoluted and illogical statements rejecting any responsibility for the damage.384

4.70 Another resident reported a similar experience, stating that after notifying the 'Light Rail Office' of the damage to their home, an engineer inspected the house and agreed that the cracks on the walls nearest the light rail works had only occurred since construction commenced near the property. Furthermore, this person advised that the engineer 'then promised to report back within the month but he never contacted me', commenting that this was 'another disappointing experience with the CBD and SE light rail'.385

4.71 Ms Wright, a Randwick resident, presented many photos to the committee of sections of the art deco building she lives in, where it had been damaged due to construction. Ms Wright explained that the damage, which occurred several months ago, 'has not been fixed and has deteriorated'.386

4.72 Submission author 15 indicated that the residents in their street had formed together to try and achieve a satisfactory result in relation to the damage caused to their homes:

All permanent residents in my street (Parkham Street) have experienced some discomfort or damage, and due to the lack of response and/or acknowledging responsibility from the construction partners, the residents have since rallied together as a group in a hope that a combined effort may have a more satisfactory result. This also shows how the damages are not to just one home but the whole street. There is little to no trust held in responses that have been made to some property owners (not all) that damage will be reassessed at the end of construction. Nothing in writing to them. There is still no recognition of liability they have caused.387

4.73 The damage to properties along Parkham Street, Surry Hills, was discussed at a hearing, with Ms Prendergast saying that the department was aware of some damage to these properties and have addressed 'everyday issues', such as cleaning and fixing doors in these homes, and were currently 'going through a process to resolve claims'. Ms Prendergast added that they were committed to reviewing claims under the formal process and would use 'whatever expertise we

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Impact of the CBD and South East Light Rail Project

72 Report 2 - January 2019

need to undertake that review', however noted that they will be relying on the pre-construction dilapidation surveys.388

4.74 In this regard, Ms Prendergast explained that there is a formal process to assess property damage. This includes the 'requirement for pre-work surveys, known as dilapidation surveys or pre-construction surveys, and while safety matters are dealt with in real-time or soon after they are established, the complete rectification is left until the end of the construction process'.389 In addition, Ms Prendergast advised that there is a 'very strong escalation process' in place, whereby if Acciona is unable to resolve a claim for damage, it is then referred to Transport for NSW and an independent mediator for assessment.390

4.75 Mr Noonan confirmed that 'dilapidation Surveys were offered to all owners of buildings along the alignment', and property owners who consented to the survey had them completed with the results posted to each owner.391 However, Mr Noonan commented that 'no doubt there will be people who believe their houses have been damaged, which may not have had dilapidation reports, or even if there were dilapidation reports they may not have gone to the extent of where the damage has now occurred'.392

4.76 In terms of claiming for damage, Mr Noonan explained that as per their procedures all damage claims are initially responded to within two hours of receipt by the property team, with inspections to gather evidence regarding the cause of the damage undertaken as soon as practicable. Mr Noonan said that 'where construction related damage has occurred, remedial works have been undertaken', although on 2 November 2018, at a hearing, he noted that the majority of inspections had determined that the cause was due to pre-existing damage, a lack of ordinary building maintenance or seasonal changes causing seasonal subsidence. In terms of damage that may have been caused by vibration, Mr Noonan stated that 'to date no evidence has been discovered to support those claims'.393

388 Evidence, Ms Prendergast, 29 November 2018, pp 35 and 37.

389 Evidence, Ms Prendergast, 4 October 2018, p 38

390 Evidence, Ms Prendergast, 29 November 2018, p 35.

391 Answers to questions on notice, Mr Noonan, 2 November 2018, p 6.

392 Evidence, Mr Noonan, 4 October 2018, p 14.

393 Answers to questions on notice, Mr Noonan, 2 November 2018, p 6.

4.77 The committee was surprised to hear from Mr Noonan that the majority of claims for property damage by owners have not been supported, given the significant amount of work undertaken for this project in close proximity to homes and other buildings.

4.78 From the evidence it is clear that the process for claiming damage takes a substantial amount of time, with property owners seemingly waiting months for any response. The committee believe that this attributes again to a lack of communication around the process.

4.79 The committee notes the evidence received from Transport for NSW that complete rectification of damage will occur once construction is completed and that there is an escalation process should property owners be dissatisfied with the outcome. We do not believe that this is well known in the community, and therefore our recommendations address these issues.

4.80 At the commencement of the CSELR project, the NSW Government announced that within the Randwick Precinct a purpose-built stabling yard would be used to store light rail vehicles overnight and undertake interior cleaning, light maintenance or repair work.394 The yard would be the main management and control base for the CSELR, with regular activity occurring at the facility on a 24 hour basis, seven days a week.395

4.81 The facility has been built adjacent to the current Royal Randwick racecourse site and is located on a parcel of land that backs properties facing Doncaster Avenue.396 The site is triangular in shape, with a boundary length of approximately 400 metres and a street front to Alison Road of approximately 135 metres. Due to the location of the yard to Doncaster Avenue properties and the future operational use, strategies to reduce the impact of light rail vehicle movement within the stabling yard were included in the project's Environmental Impact Statement.397

394 Transport for NSW, CBD and South East Light Rail Project: Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1A, Parts A to C and Volume 1B: Parts D to E (Volume 1A, Part B, Chapter 5, November 2013), p 69.

395 Transport for NSW, CBD and South East Light Rail Project: Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1A, Parts A to C and Volume 1B: Parts D to E (Volume 1A, Part B, Chapter 5, November 2013), p 82.

396 Transport for NSW, CBD and South East Light Rail Project: Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1A, Parts A to C and Volume 1B: Parts D to E (Volume 1A, Part B, Chapter 5, November 2013), p 69.

397 Transport for NSW CBD and South East Light Rail Project: Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1A, Parts A to C and Volume 1B: Parts D to E (Volume 1A, Part B, Chapter 5, November 2013), p 83. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Impact of the CBD and South East Light Rail Project

74 Report 2 - January 2019

4.82 An acoustic noise wall was to be constructed on the site boundary which faces Doncaster Avenue, with this wall used to mitigate potential construction and operational impacts to residents, including light spill from the yard.398

4.83 There were concerns from a number of individuals about the impact of construction and future operational use of the Randwick stabling yard.399 One individual, Ms Diana Argirellis, appeared at a hearing and voiced her frustration and distress in regards to the impact the construction of the stabling yard has had on both her and other Doncaster Avenue residents since 2015. The case study below details their experience.

398 Transport for NSW, CBD and South East Light Rail Project: Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1A, Parts A to C and Volume 1B: Parts D to E (Volume 1B, Part D, Chapter 15), p 54.

399 Submission 69, Mr Norman Heavener, pp 1-2; Submission 87, Randwick City Council, pp 5-7; Submission 154, Name suppressed, p 1; Submission 194, Ms Shawna Koh, pp 1-2.

400 Evidence, Ms Diana Argirellis, affected resident, 3 October 2018, pp 4, 7 and 12. This case study is not taken verbatim from the witness, but is an accurate reflection of how the witness presented her story to the committee.

4.84 Randwick City Council detailed their response to concerns raised by residents from Doncaster Avenue. In April 2018, the Mayor and Ward Councillors met with residents to hear their concerns after receiving written complaints regarding the adequacy of the acoustic wall, the height of the light towers and the resulting light spillage into residents' property. It noted that residents' concerns were still ongoing.401

4.85 Ms Shurey acknowledged that these residents needs have not been taken into account, commenting that 'these people are in a terrible place – a really terrible place'.402 She explained that it was the Council's recommendation that the stabling yard be built on the corner of Wansey Road and High Street and not along the residential street of Doncaster Avenue. Ms Shurey detailed the problems with the site that was chosen:

The problem is that because of the site that was chosen and the flooding issues—it is a flood area—the ground had to be raised up by almost a metre so infrastructure could be put underneath to deal with the flooding. So now the lights of the stabling yard— LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Impact of the CBD and South East Light Rail Project

76 Report 2 - January 2019

which go 24/7, by the way—are almost a metre over the top of the wall. So the wall gives no relief for the light spill.403

404 Evidence, Ms Shurey, 20 August 2018, p.37

405 Evidence, Mr Noonan, 4 October 2018, p 20.

4.86 Ms Shurey explained that residents are being spoken to on an individual basis regarding some mitigation options, for example the installation of permanent blinds and air conditioning, however in terms of the flood lights coming into their home, she was of the opinion it cannot be fixed, stating 'their lives have been ruined forever'.404

4.87 Acciona's response to issues associated with the stabling yard was also explored by the committee. Mr Noonan advised that the issues associated with the lights are permanent, and that the design meets requirements:

… it is a permanent issue, rather than a construction issue—and I do not know if something has been investigated to see if there is a relatively simple fix for that. But it is the reality, as I am sure you can imagine, of a designer requirement, a lighting requirement within the yard, and also we have restrictions on, I think, lux levels outside of the yard. My understanding is that the lux levels to the residents is within our requirements under the contract. It does not change the fact that I can imagine there are still residents who have a higher light level than previously.405

4.88 During the hearing, Mr Noonan committed to reviewing the issue and providing the committee with further details on notice. In his response, Mr Noonan explained that both the acoustic noise wall and lighting design in the yard are compliant with the requirements of the Department of Planning and Environment, and the lights themselves have been designed in accordance with Australian Standards.406

4.89 He further advised that although the installation of shields around the flood lights in the yard would be technically possible, it would be an extensive process given there are over 100 light fittings in the yard. Mr Noonan indicated that detailed design on each light is needed to determine whether such shields would impact on operational light levels for the stabling yard operations. On whether or not a shield could be extended to the acoustic wall, Mr Noonan acknowledged that whilst this may be effective, it would result in the existing wall being extended many metres above its current height.407

4.90 When questioned on the concerns raised by Doncaster residents, Ms Prendergast understood the impact the stabling yard was having on the people living in close proximity to the yard, and explained that these properties will be offered treatments as per the formal process.408

4.91 Ms Prendergast advised that treatments to mitigate noise and vibration impacts along Doncaster Avenue were originally assessed by specialists as the 'lowest category of impact'.409 From this assessment, Ms Prendergast said that residents were offered a certain level of treatment, and if dissatisfied their matters would be escalated.410 She indicated that the issues associated with the properties on Doncaster Avenue are now being reviewed by Transport for NSW, with a request made by the Minister to review the originally proposed treatments, and should residents not be satisfied an independent mediator will be involved.411

4.92 The committee acknowledges the frustration and despair experienced by residents along Doncaster Avenue, with the Randwick stabling yard built right alongside the back of their properties. It is clear that these residents have had little respite during the construction of the site and will be forced to tolerate the noise and lighting from the yard once the CSELR is operational.

4.93 The committee believes that the mitigation measures offered to residents located along Doncaster Avenue were insufficient. We were surprised to learn that they were assessed as being impacted at the lowest level. The committee welcomes Transport for NSW's review of the treatments being offered and we urge the department to be sympathetic to the concerns of these residents and provide adequate mitigation treatments.

4.94 The most urgent issue that needs to be addressed immediately is the stabling yard's lights. It would undoubtedly be extremely difficult to live and sleep in your home if you are subject to constant lighting that is similar to the lighting of a sports stadium. In the committee's view this issue can be fixed and we question why this has not already been done. While it may be a costly or difficult exercise, the committee recommends that Transport for NSW urgently arrange for shields to be installed on the flood lights in the stabling yard, to ensure that the lights do not stream into homes located along Doncaster Avenue, Randwick.

412 Evidence, Ms Biddy Oquist, affected resident, 3 October 2018, p 14; Submission 8, Name suppressed, p 1; Submission 11, Mr Paul Corradini, p 1; Submission 13, Name suppressed, p 1; Submission 32, Mr Tim Ritchie, p 1; Submission 33, Name suppressed, p 1; Submission 38, Name suppressed, p 1;

4.95 In addition to complaints about noise, dust, vibration and damage to homes, concerns were also expressed about reduced parking and footpath access.

4.96 The committee heard of many car spots that had been removed as a result of the CSELR that would not be returned post construction.412 For example, Randwick City Council indicated that

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Impact of the CBD and South East Light Rail Project

78 Report 2 - January 2019

413 Submission 87, Randwick City Council, p 24.

414 Submission 20, Australian Hotels Association, pp 2-3.

415 Evidence, Ms Annette Keay, Affected resident, 3 October 2018, p 2.

416 GTA Consultants, Parking Offsets and Management Strategy (Issue B, 11 July 2016), p 12.

'along the alignment passing through Kingsford and Kensington approximately 800 parking spaces have been permanently removed'.413

4.97 The Australian Hotels Association also noted over 100 car spaces lost as a result of the project along Devonshire Street, Surry Hills, that would not be returned once construction is completed, and noted the impact this has had on businesses:

Many of the patrons who attend venues in this area do so for food and entertainment and therefore drive. The removal of these parking spaces has resulted in direct financial losses for these venues, which have been observed when parking spaces are removed or altered to loading zones or other restrictions.414

4.98 Ms Annette Keay, a Randwick resident who lost parking out the front of her property, commented that 'parking in the area is at a premium' and that this was 'only going to get worse once the light rail is up and running and more commuters will access the day parking'. Ms Keay suggested that 'more resident or timed parking would assist with this problem'.415

4.99 In 2016, GTA Consultants undertook a review of the number of car spots that would be removed due to the CSELR project. The table below represents the anticipated car spots to be removed along the light rail route in Surry Hills, Kensington, Kingsford and Randwick.416

4.100 In its submission, Transport for NSW acknowledged the disruption to traffic and parking along the CSELR route and emphasised that access, as much as possible, would be maintained:

4.136 During the inquiry, the key partners involved in the design and construction of the CSELR project acknowledged the impact the project has had on residents and businesses.

4.137 Ms Prendergast from Transport for NSW told the committee that 'we have always been very upfront that a light rail project such as this in a dense area is disruptive and we do really appreciate the impact on residents' and businesses' lives', adding that 'we know that the delays have exacerbated this impact and we appreciate their patience and apologise'.454

4.138 Mr Bramley from ALTRAC clearly stated 'that ALTRAC is under no illusions about the project's progress to date' and noted the 'serious impacts on residents, businesses and visitors', in particular due to the project delays. Mr Bramley acknowledged 'the patience and understanding that has been shown by the community in what has been very difficult circumstances' and gave the following apology:

454 Evidence, Ms Prendergast, 4 October 2018, p 37.

455 Evidence, Mr Bramley, 4 October 2018, p 24.

456 Evidence, Mr Noonan, 4 October 2018, p 2.

457 Evidence, Mr Mark Coxon, Managing Director, Alstom Transport Australia, 3 October 2018, p 38.

458 Evidence, Mr Brian Brennan, Managing Director, Transdev Sydney, 3 October 2018, p 54.

We are sorry for the impacts and the length of time that construction has taken, and on behalf of ALTRAC I apologise to those affected.455

4.139 Mr Noonan from Acciona also apologised to all those who have been impacted by the construction of the project:

Most importantly, Mr Chairman and Committee, I assure the Committee, residents and businesses that we regret the delays, disruption, and impacts that the Sydney light rail project has caused. Acciona is one part of the total light rail project. For our part, we are sincerely sorry that this project has caused this disruption and pain. All project participants and the infrastructure market generally should take consideration of this project and understand how we can all ensure such impacts do not occur again.456

4.140 During a hearing, Mr Mark Coxon, Managing Director, Alstom Transport Australia, who is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the CSELR, confirmed their commitment to delivering the project, stating that ‘we remain committed on the project to deliver it to the best of our abilities’.457

4.141 Finally, Mr Brain Brennan, Managing Director, Transdev Sydney, noted that major projects like these can transform a city for the better, however acknowledged that they are disruptive during construction:

That said, Transdev has been involved in many major light rail projects around the world in recent years and I can categorically state they have been truly transformative to cities in which they have been built. But there is no getting around the fact that there is significant disturbance and real inconvenience while construction is underway. You would not be a human being if you were not moved by the testimony today. I did watch it by streaming and it is regrettable the level of disturbance. It was genuine. It was real and it has been very challenging for people.458 PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE

Report 2 - January 2019 87

4.142 The committee acknowledges that the contractors and Transport for NSW recognise the significant impact the construction of the CSELR has had on businesses, residents and the wider community, and have apologised for the disruption and delays.

4.143 The committee was deeply moved by the stories shared by the residents and businesses affected by the delays. Given the impacts have continued for longer than expected, due to delays, the committee looks forward to the end of construction in particular, and finalisation of the project in 2020.

This chapter will examine the impacts of construction work on the CBD and South East Light Rail (CSELR) on business owners. It begins by looking at the financial impacts, including the disruption and loss of revenue caused by the placement of hoardings near businesses. It will also consider the adequacy of financial assistance and support provided to small business owners affected by the project. Lastly, it will discuss the mental health impacts many business owners have experienced while trying to keep their businesses afloat.

5.1 Many businesses, particularly small businesses, have financially struggled or even been forced to close, since the commencement of construction on the CSELR. This section will highlight the financial impacts these business owners have experienced.

5.2 From the outset, it is important to note that the committee received a significant amount of evidence from business owners located close to the CSELR route, particularly by way of written submissions.

5.3 It also heard directly from a number of small business owners at hearings, including the owners of Ouroboros Wholefoods Café on Devonshire Street, Optical Illusions on Anzac Parade and Mondial Pink Diamond Atelier on George Street in Sydney.459

5.4 The former owners of The Book Kitchen and Vivo Café also shared with the committee their experience, both having since closed their business due to the impacts of the CSELR project on revenue for their business.460

5.5 Each of these business owners reported to the committee how their business has financially suffered as a result of construction work on the project. Mr Emanuel Tzirtzilakis, owner of Ouroboros Wholefoods Café, spoke of being 'on the brink of financial ruin', reporting that they are heavily indebted with no help from the banks as they are 70 per cent down. Mr Tzirtzilakis said 'it is heartbreaking to step out of your business and see all your former customers elsewhere, and I do not blame them', as the business is surrounded by noise suppressing materials and a major pit that has been opened several times.461

5.6 Mr Greg Tannos, owner of Optical Illusions, reported that he has experienced impacts from the CSELR for more than two years now and has lost a significant number of regular customers. Mr Tannos explained that he has had to work longer hours to make up for the reduced hours of his staff. He estimated that he has incurred a loss of 15 per cent, commenting that 'I have had a lot of up and down moments and have not wanted to come to work because of what I feel is a losing battle going on around me'.462

459 Evidence, Mr Emanuel Tzirtzilakis, Ouroboros Wholefoods Café, Mr Greg Tannos, Optical Illusions, and Mr Michael Neuman, Mondial Pink Diamond Atelier, 3 October 2018, pp 18-37.

460 Evidence, Mr Amelia Birch, The Book Kitchen, and Ms Angela Vithoulkas, Vivo Café, 3 October 2018, pp 18-37.

461 Evidence, Mr Emanuel Tzirtzilakis, Ourboros Wholefoods Café, 3 October 2018, p 19.

462 Submission 62, Optical Illusions, pp 1-2. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Impact of the CBD and South East Light Rail Project

90 Report 2 - January 2019

5.7 Along similar lines, Mr Michael Neuman, owner of Mondial Pink Diamond Atelier, told the committee that they have 'seen a significant downturn in our turnover during the period'. He estimated his financial damage is between $3 and $5 million. Mr Neuman said that 'we keep going because we have a lease' and 'we have a business we do not want to give up, but it makes it much more difficult to trade'.463

 'Severe loss of trade …down across the board by over 30 per cent plus and not improving'.464

 'As construction still continues in Kingsford today, it's hard for me to make an estimate of total damages as we would need to look at where profit would have been without construction and I am unsure how fast profit will return once construction does cease. I am sure the total figure will be over $500,000'.465

 'We have been in Kensington operating our small business for just on 10 years. In all our years in business we have never been put in this position of hardship as we find ourselves in today since the commencement of the light rail project along Anzac Parade …Goodwill of business down from $700,000 to current value of $20,000'.466

 'My business has gone from earning me $150k plus a year for the previous two years to lucky to be making $50k, I can't give it away as I have been trying to sell as I am in too much debt to recover'.467

 'Low foot traffic has resulted in a huge loss of sales leading to low gross margins and loss of profit'.468

5.9 The part owner of Emperor's Garden in Chinatown, which had been trading for nearly 40 years, said that they had observed a 30 to 50 per cent decrease in turnover following the commencement of the project. The owner watched as businesses nearby in various shopping centres had come and gone due to not being able to pay rent as a result of the delays to construction. This owner was worried that they too would 'suffer the same fate'.469

5.10 Ms Angela Vithoulkas, the former owner of Vivo Café, which closed in August 2018 due to the CSELR project, declared that 'we were hit hard immediately and nothing we did stopped the losses'. She said 'you can’t change less people coming to your business when circumstances have nothing to do with your food or cost or service'. Ms Vithoulkas outlined the plan Vivo Café enacted in response to the expected disruption during the CSELR project construction.470

5.11 Speaking on behalf of affected business owners, Ms Vithoulkas suggested that the project was poorly managed and that the delays and time for construction work had prolonged the impact

463 Evidence, Mr Michael Neuman, Mondial Pink Diamond Atelier, 3 October 2018, p 20.

464 Submission 58, Name suppressed, p 1.

465 Submission 80, Name suppressed, p 1.

466 Submission 63, Café Jacks @ Kensington, p 1.

467 Submission 64, Khing Thai, p 1.

468 Submission 79, Name suppressed, p 1.

469 Submission 81, Emperor's Garden Pty Ltd, p 1.

470 Submission 21, Vivo Café, p 23. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE

Report 2 - January 2019 91

on business owners. She also expressed frustration at the lack of support provided to businesses by the government, and the governments 'constant denial that anything was wrong' and 'constant commentary that nobody was complaining'. She argued that the government was unprepared to provide any real support to businesses.471

5.12 Further, Ms Vithoulkas said that if your business runs at a loss for years 'you will never retrieve your loss or get back the potential of your growth and what that would bring', explaining that impacted businesses have lost money from day one, and that has compounded as each year has passed, with businesses losing potential, growth, profits and goodwill.472 Ms Vithoulkas went on to describe how each drop in trade affects a small business:

471 Submission 21, Vivo Café, p 7.

472 Submission 21, Vivo Café, p 10.

473 Evidence, Ms Angela Vithoulkas, Vivo Café, 3 October 2018, p 30.

474 Submission 87, Randwick City Council, p 60.

475 Submission 57, Jenny Leong MP. P 3.

476 Submission 26, NSW Small Business Commissioner, p 3.

For us as small business owners it is thousands of days where your revenue has dropped anywhere—and I know the data—between 10- and 90 per cent from day one. You drop 10 per cent and you are insolvent; you drop 20 or 30 and you are living on a wing and a prayer; you drop 50, 60 or 70 per cent and God only knows how you are opening your door every day. Regardless of the uplift of this project we will never get that back.473

5.13 Randwick City Council also emphasised the 'significant' impact construction work has had on businesses in the Kensington and Kingsford areas, noting that 'the most extreme impact on town centres has been the closure of businesses'. The Council said that the construction activity has caused a loss of trade and disruption to foot traffic, with every business feeling the impacts, and the uncertainty of construction timeframes have made it difficult for businesses to make decisions along the way.474

5.14 These concerns were echoed by Ms Jenny Leong MP, Member for Newtown, who commented that 'many businesses have suffered severe loss in revenue due to construction noise, dust and lack of access to their venues'.475

5.15 The NSW Small Business Commissioner acknowledged that 'a significant number of small businesses along the alignment have been affected by the construction of the CSELR', highlighting that for those businesses 'it has been a stressful and painful journey', with many struggling financially and this has resulted in relationship breakdowns and mental health strains.476

5.16 The committee heard how hotels located along the route have also been impacted. The Australian Hotels Association highlighted how these hotels have experienced a loss of customers:

For all members along the route, the impact on their businesses have been many, and significant. Road closures, power, water and utility outages whether planned or due to incompetence, bollards, hoarding and obstructions to patrons entering or exiting LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Impact of the CBD and South East Light Rail Project

92 Report 2 - January 2019

venues, noise, dust, mud and other impacts are all examples of the issues that have arisen that have deterred patrons from attending member hotels.477

477 Submission 20, Australian Hotels Association, p 3.

478 Evidence, Mr Sean Morrissey, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Australian Hotels Association of NSW, 20 August 2018, p 54.

479 Submission 20, Australian Hotels Association NSW, p 4.

480 Evidence, Mr Jason Butler, Accountant, DFK Crosbie Accountants, 20 August 2018, p 52.

481 Submission 39, Transport for NSW, p 6.

482 Submission 39, Transport for NSW, p 22.

5.17 Mr Sean Morrissey, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Australian Hotels Association of NSW, told the committee that the feedback they have received from their members has been 'a mix of optimism in some parts and pessimism in others'. The less optimistic fear that 'the business will not return to the way it was, given the fundamental change in the way that area will operate'. Mr Morrissey said that the Association has broadly supported the CSELR project itself, hoping it will lead to positive impacts for businesses once light rail services are operational, adding 'I guess time will tell'.478

5.18 The Australian Hotels Association also engaged accountancy firm DFK Crosbie to examine the financial statements from a number of hotels along the CSELR route to determine the financial impact of the project.479 During a hearing, Mr Jason Butler, DFK Crosbie Accountants, informed the committee that he has determined a reduction in bottom-line profit ranging from $80,000 to $683,000 annually, from looking at the 12 months prior to construction and 12 months post. Mr Butler also noted that from talking to some of the businesses that did not partake in the analysis they also reported 'varying effects but definitely sizable effects on those businesses over that period'.480

5.19 The placement of hoardings (temporary fences) and inadequate signage around businesses has been one of the main factors contributing to the loss of customers and revenue.

5.20 Transport for NSW acknowledged that one of the key impacts to business owners from construction are the hoardings, which obscure sightlines to businesses, and advised that it has worked with ALTRAC Light Rail (ALTRAC) to 'influence hoarding placement and support the reduction of the construction footprint where reasonably possible'.481

5.21 In this regard, Transport for NSW has utilised hoarding designs to pay respect to the heritage of Sydney and showcase the character of particular areas. It has also put in place a range of signage to 'support businesses and customers accessing stores', some of which are tailored to the precinct or specific businesses where intensive construction work has occurred. Transport for NSW advised that 'new signage has been installed in all business areas along the route' and plinth wayfinding signs have been fixed to the footpath which are illuminated at night to 'enhance the visibility of businesses within construction zones across the route'.482

5.22 However, significant concerns were raised by business owners about the use of hoardings close to their premises and inadequate signage provided by Transport for NSW. For example, Randwick City Council indicated that the issue of hoardings 'has never been satisfactorily

Report 2 - January 2019 93