- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 4 September 2001
Parramatta To Chatswood Rail Link
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 39 of 68
| Next Item »
Page: 16335
Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [5.57 p.m.]: I am concerned about the impact of the revised Parramatta to Chatswood rail link on the Roseville area, which is in my electorate. Along with most residents of northern Sydney I support the concept of a cross-regional rail link between Parramatta and Chatswood. However, I understand that in the short term that link has been reduced to an Epping to Chatswood link. I acknowledge that there have been many local changes because of concerns about a rail bridge over the Lane Cove River National Park. That bridge has been lowered to a covered option, to reduce the visual and environmental impact within the park. Currently, many residents living in Roseville who, potentially, will be affected do not know the consequences of that change. The consequences of reducing the rail line where it crosses the Lane Cove River mean that the line will travel a longer horizontal distance before it rises to the North Shore rail line, just short of Chatswood station. Approximately an extra kilometre has been added to the loop and that new loop will pass under the Roseville residential area, east of the existing North Shore rail line.
The original route left Chatswood railway station in a northerly direction and continued underground within the North Shore rail line corridor before it headed west near Lindfield station at which point it would have been more than 30 metres below ground level. Unfortunately the new route, which will run underground south of the Boundary Road rail bridge and will presumably travel under Boundary Road, will then traverse underneath residential homes in the Roseville area. Initially it will be at a depth of as little as 10 metres and progressively, I hope, at a greater depth.
Given the topography of the land at the point the route will commence under residential Roseville, the depth at which the rail tunnel will travel will not increase for the first half a kilometre or so. This will have a significant impact on many of the residents. The changes to the route will potentially affect several thousands of residents, and at least 500 homes in the Roseville area. Many residents who did not object to the original concept on the basis that it would not adversely affect them will now be severely affected. The document that sets out the new route contains innocuous comments that hide the significant impact. The document states:
More properties will be located above the modified tunnel alignment between the UTS and the Chatswood portal than described in the EIS.
That is about the only giveaway that the changes to the route will have any impact. I take great exception to the document, which, on pages 16 and 17, contains two maps of the entire route of the rail line that are erroneous. They inaccurately depict the route in the Roseville area. In that respect the document is misleading. It is only when one looks closely at a more detailed diagram on page 21 that one can see that the route has been deviated from the original plan. I believe that the document is misleading, whether inadvertently or deliberately, and that it tries to hide the impact of the changes on the residents of Roseville.
The residents are entitled to have their say. Previously, all residents who were to be affected by the rail link were given the opportunity to comment on the environmental impact statement [EIS]. It is essential that the EIS be re-exhibited, at least in so far as it affects Roseville. Otherwise the residents will be denied their right and entitlement to have their say and to seek changes if necessary. Currently, we have no idea about the depth of the proposed tunnel alignment under Roseville, whereas the original EIS contained enormous detail in that respect. The document that has been circulated should be withdrawn and reissued because it is totally deceptive. I cannot understand why the document has been released when it contains such glaring inaccuracies. [Time expired.]
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:32:35 : Update this page